I was just trying to point out that a full scale nuclear war would have a huge number of deaths.
Oh, yeah, I know, it would probably be less than another full-blown World War, especially considering the destructive technology most countries have today. (This is based on a nasty 1st nuclear strike making your enemy say "eh, ok, you win."
I didn't think anti-ICBMs were that effective against a lot of MIRV based nuclear weapons?
I don't know, but I'd assume they'd be as effective against a few as against 1. Provided there were enough of them.
Someone powerful enough to have a large enough arsenal of good quality (MIRV based) nuclear weapons.
That would be what, China, Russia, England and France (?) Of them, England wouldn't risk it, seriously, drop 3-4 nukes on them and the entire country is gone. Russia I think would go balls out and have the time of their life doing so, China isn't really a question - they'd do the same, nuke away. France I'm not sure, but .. it's France, I don't think anyone that was about to nuke them would really care too much.
(Fun fact, a 100 mega-tonne Nuke would totally destroy Paris - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png.
Those weapons weren't exactly powerful. I think the Peacekeeper is about 200 times as powerful as that assuming all the warheads reach their targets
Oh, yeah, I know, but still, 200k vs 83 million ... Even if you killed 10 or 20 million that's still a lot of lives 'saved'.
If a war with a nuclear state was going to lead to total war, the other side would be able to launch their own nuclear based weapons.
Yeah, I know, but hopefully a 'preemptive' nuclear strike would knock out their capability to do so.
Anyway. Wars have changed. They don't use nuclear weapons at present. :shrug:
Yeah, this is true, this is all working on the er... 'fantasy' (really really really bad way of wording it) that they would actually use them.