Has technological progress made war between first world countries impossible?
>>71405565
War can only exist when the attacker are at the advantage.
how are you in any advantage if you should decide to invade a country that has nuclear weapons.
The atomic bomb has prevented world war three so many times and saved so many lives.
>lets abolish the nukes
every liberal ever.
also
>we have enough nukes to explode the earth.
I've had high level teachers unironically tell me this.
that is hillarious.
>>71405719
this
>ayy lmao's face when humans prevent war by having enough weapons to completely obliterate human society
>>71405565
5 fighter planes
Mexico are you even trying?!
India ranks 4th strongest army/airforce in the the world!
No. War isn't just about killing individuals. You can destroy infrastructure, destroy morale, and make an enemy grow weak over time. You can destroy an economy. Think of it like in medieval times. A castle seems like an imposing fortress, but to beat it, you simply have to starve it of resources, and to do so you don't necessarily have to sacrifice many lives.
>>71405565
wrong pic!
>>71405719
It fucking boggles my mind how stupid can USA and Europe be when they advocate the abandonment of nuclear weaponry.
>>71405826
A more modern example is the US supplying aid to keep England and Russia afloat during WW2. If Germany was able to prevent this, they would have easily been able to take the entire hemisphere most likely. Although I'm sure a Russian will be here any second to tell me I'm wrong
>>71405804
>>ayy lmao's face when humans prevent war by having enough weapons to completely obliterate human society
This will forever be my favourite thing about the human species.
We really did all along have the weapons to end war.
>>71405811
Army is one of the only good things India has though
>>71405946
(You)
>>71405565
No it's just made it a lot less likely to happen and it would need something big for it to be war
>>71405565
We should find some extraterrestrial life to fight
>>71405565
Nukes can be countered by blowing up the planes that carry them forcing you to have to invade to fight a country. So no modern warfare has still made war very possible.
>>71405565
No, socioeconomic progress has.
People across the first world have gotten fat, dumb, and happy. Why the hell would you want a war when your standard of living will only suffer as a result? Not to mention the fact that most first world nations are quickly being eroded culturally, leaving no real sense of identity or honor that might be worth fighting for.
>>71405565
War between nuclear powers is impossible.
War between countries of grossly disproportionate strength is impossible
War between countries accurately informed of each other's strength is impossible
War is now only possible between countries without strategic arms, without precise knowledge of the enemy's forces and without a clear and decisive advantage. Assuming countries are rational, self-interested actors, war is impossible.
>>71406110
>nukes
>planes
>not thousands and thousands of ICBMs
What is this 1945
>>71405876
Oh we just do that for show.
America has so many nukes its absurd.
We can pat ourselves on the back and disarm old nukes that are dated and falling apart.
Europe on the other hand is asking to be invaded if they do the same. They think they can live under America's umbrella for free? Trump will whip them into shape.
>>71405565
Nukes made that impossible. Which means nowadays war is fought by "NGOs" that subvert unfriendly governments.
>>71406110
Maybe if you're some streetshitter who still can't put nukes inside a missile. Not even surprised that some nigger like you thinks this way btw.
The unstoppable force/immovable object arms race will always exist. Eventually, if not already, there will be a defensive weapon capable of neutralizing any airborne nuclear threat.
>>71405946
(You)
>>71406110
>>71406241
>launch nukes into space to blow up the nukes in space before they blow up on the ground.
>>71405804
we would need 2 908 571,5 of the Largest Nukes in the us arsenal to even mildly structurally damage the earth, with a 50% survival rate.
I'm not sure we currently have that many nukes.
>>71405946
A more modern example is the US war-profiteering during WW2, to make themselves the number 1 power.
>>71406340
>what is THAAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense
>>71406354
Nothing wrong with that from this side of the world broseph.
>>71406354
They did a good job, we admit it.
>>71405982
Ha, sure thing Pajeet. If you can't even beat Pakistan how do you expect to go toe to toe with any real country?
gotta go fast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA
>>71405826
Underrated af desu
>>71406383
If you think there's nothing wrong with it, then that's what you should write, instead of some cucked lies about "providing aid".
>>71406429
Not my fault that the indian defense minister is too big of a cuck to attack pakistan which is only 8th in terms of military force in the world
>>71405565
>Has technological progress made war between first world countries impossible?
Yes, memes and solid banter are keeping the peace.
>>71405565
Nukes have. That's why the only wars the West can fight between each other anymore are proxy wars.
>>71405811
>Mexico
>>71405565
Unless someone develops good anti-ballistic tech, probably
>>71406485
>winning = "cucked"
stay losing
>>71406165
>Trump will whip them into shape.
I'd welcome it.
>>71406633
> winning
> in a war to protect Jewry
Wow, you sure showed the world, goy.
>>71406502
might be because Pakistan has nukes that can be deployed by low ranking officers.
>>71406183
This piques my interest.
More, please.
>>71406485
Never said anything about free aid. When trump gets elected our aid isn't gonna come as cheap any longer. Rest of the world is gonna have to pay up like in the 40s. It made America great then and it'll make America great now
>>71406348
You only need enough nukes to destroy the atmosphere. Do so and we're toast. The United States has gigaton bombs. In the wrong hands our government could wipe out humanity easily. Israel has this exact action plan in place in fact.
Almost all major powers in the world have it too good to start real wars anymore. Nobody wants to be front line infantry fodder and sending in death drones to kill people just makes the attackers the bad guys.
Keep the nukes away from Muslims, gooks, blacks, and Jews as much as possible and we'll never have nuclear war.
>>71406768
Uh, read up on literally any "democracy spring" and "color revolutions" in the past 20 years in ex east bloc and arab/african countries.
>>71406792
> we're gonna have to pay
Or we'll just build up our own army, because Russia is not actually going to invade Europe.
>>71406761
But its the same in India though
Both India and Pakistan have 120 nukes
The US is working hard to make small nuclear programs ineffective with their anti missile systems and developments in laser technology.
For a while the type of program run by the UK would hit the US back hard enough that the US wouldnt be able to consider open war an option with them but not for long. The north Koreas and Irans probably won't have the number of warheads capable of overwhelming US anti nuke systems.
>>71406848
Would you be so kind to spoonfeed (or give a general explanation if digging up specific examples proves to be more bothersome) non-shitposting-aus-country kun?
>>71405719
By 2019-20 the US plans to have some nuclear missile defense system put in place. That can lead them to thinking there won't be any mutually assured destruction
>>71406984
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/01/07/us-ngo-uncovered-in-ukraine-protests/
>>71406887
That's also better than the US providing all of this essentially free military support so whatever. I'm not even mad.
>>71406913
They got stumped!
>>71406393
Not even trying!
>>71407175
> free military support
You sell 2nd hand humvees and APCs to Europe, station a couple hundred soldiers per base, and run drone missions out of Ramstein.
It's hardly "protecting" Europe, especially since ABM complexes such as the Patriot have a hilariously low rate of intercepting anything when it's fired right at them, only working when fired into the wake of the missile.
You've essentially made Europe a target, many thanks. In any case, yes, please fuck off.
>>71406340
That's what I'm talking about. The Sprint missile gives me such a war boner.
>The Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 in 5 seconds.
>The Sprint was armed with an enhanced radiation nuclear warhead with a yield reportedly of a few kilotons, though the exact number has not been declassified. The warhead was intended to destroy the incoming reentry vehicle primarily by neutron flux.
>>71405565
>Has technological progress made war between first world countries impossible?
No, the European Union has
>>71407107
Uuuuhhh nice!
Where do I sign in to be hired in one of such organizations?
>>71407019
Remember i saw this a hole while back, i managed to loose my save of it, thanks i never new how i'd get it back.
its a good read that one.
>>71405982
Maybe they could invest in a few toilets and sinks to wash your hands
So that you don't get the two mixed up the taller one is for washing.
>>71407634
You wait until someone comes to try and fuck your country over and you'll have plenty of opportunities then.
>>71407019
Intresting
Still I dont belive in nuclear war
If it happens though I guess it wouldnt matter since it's a instadeath for me
>>71407681
>gg shit from le otto-gag
Anon, I'm sorry, it's terminal.
>>71407329
Your leaders are getting cucked. Have been for a while. What else is new. Don't hate me for it
>>71407742
As a thug or as string-pulling assistant?
>>71407787
Everything aside from nuclear speculations is belivable and is not some global goverment bullshit
>>71407821
We're electing a right wing president in 5 days, am I supposed to be impressed by your stunted view of the world?
>>71405565
>Has technological progress made war between first world countries impossible?
That's what proxy wars are for. Just look at the Colombian conflict or the War on Terror.
>>71405719
Couldn't agree more.
We do have enough nukes to depopulate the earth though, just not structurally destroy it.
So long as countries are sovereign, they will act according to their best interests. We live in a time of mercantilism and trade, and it benefits the world powers more than war. That may change one day when resources become scarce. It probably will. We just live in "good" times materialistically. The above statements are an absolute certainty.
On the other hand, a one world govt would be much more detrimental to humanity in the long run compared to individual countries.
>>71408052
>one world govt
Hello, Schlomo.
>>71408235
I practically just said a one world government would be worse than nuclear exchanges between world powers. Is your reading comprehension poor?
>>71408288
Fins can't into English.
>>71407529
What are you talking about? The EU is preparing for the biggest anti-white civil war in history. Some 300 million Europeans will be ethnically cleansed in some 20 to 30 years.
America and Russia will try to interfere but they won't know who to attack.
>>71408448
Nah, /pol/tards can't into logic.
>>71407864
Psst. he's an American and trying to educate them is a futile attempt.
>>71408490
Dont interfere if this is to happen in britain im sure our military would support whites over fake whites and blacks whoever our king is at the time will rather patriotic people who support them than people who hate them then we shall annex parts of germany
