Quote Originally Posted by Bong30
RING RING....

this is what Mutaul assured destruction is......

gumby you think you are smart but the reason you think im dumb is cause im so far above your head....

the reason for mutual assured destction....listen fuck head

so know one dies..... no shots fired NO SHOTS FIRED...

we won the cold war with this GUMBY you dumb mother fucker

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of military strategy in which a full scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. It is also cited by gun control opponents as the reason why crime rates sometimes tend to be lower in heavily armed populations.[citation needed] The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome--Nuclear Annihilation.

[edit]
Theory
The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.

The primary application of this doctrine occurred during the Cold War (1950s to 1990s) in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the two power blocs while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability.

Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive (as a functioning state) a full scale nuclear exchange. The credibility of the threat being critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile bunkers, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This MAD scenario was often known by the euphemism "nuclear deterrence" (The term 'deterrence' was first used in this context after World War II. Prior to that time, its use was limited to juridical terminology).



tell me about the 5 year plan...commie

This is why communism doesnt work fucking moron GO BACK TO SCHOOL DUMB ASS.
Five-Year Plans for the National Economy of the USSR or Piatiletkas (пятилетка) were a series of nation-wide centralized exercises in rapid economic development in the Soviet Union. The plans were developed by the Gosplan based on the Theory of Productive Forces that was part of the general guidelines of the Communist Party for economic development. Fulfilling the plan became the watchword of Soviet bureaucracy. (See Overview of the Soviet economic planning process)

The same method of planning was also adopted by most other communist states, including India's pro-Soviet government and the People's Republic of China in the 1950-60s. In addition, several capitalist states have emulated the concept of central planning, though in the context of a market economy, by setting integrated economic goals for a finite period of time. Thus we may find "Seven-year Plans" and "Twelve-Year Plans".

Several five-year plans did not take up the full period of time assigned to them (some were successfully completed earlier than expected, while others failed and were abandoned). The initial five-year plans were created to serve in the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union, and thus placed a major focus on heavy industry. Altogether, there were 13 five-year plans. The first one was accepted in 1928, for the five year period from 1929 to 1933, and completed one year early. The last, thirteenth Five-Year Plan was for the period from 1991 to 1995 and was not completed, as the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.


what you don't remember and once again why I have to post after you and point out your ignorance is that you are the one who said that was the reason America is spending (what I posted in the 'who's the neclear threat' "Taxpayers in Florida will pay $856.4 million for nuclear weapons in FY2006. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

15,839 Elementary School Teachers
184,812 People Receiving Health Care
685,527 Children Receiving Health Care
141 New Elementary Schools
14,892 Music and Arts Teachers
1,096,510 Homes with Renewable Electricity

(one of the above not all combined)

That's just one state... here's where you can see how much money you are wasting funding our dictator...

http://database.nationalpriorities.o...rw/7.0.1.1.2.1 "

and you said... "their is this thing called "mutual assured destruction" (just go ahead and cut and paste for google)

The USA is the biggest nuclear threat....thank fucking god."


Being a threat does not mean that we keep building bombs... it means we stop becuase we know if we build more we will all die... and why in the same thread I posted the article stating the US was... "
LAS VEGAS -- The Defense Department's plan to detonate 700 tons of explosives at the Nevada Test Site is intended to simulate a nuclear blast as part of Pentagon research into development of low-yield nuclear weapons, a science advisory group charged this week.

The Pentagon refused to confirm or deny the claim, made by the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based liberal policy group opposed to development of nuclear weapons. "


then you quickly shut the fuck up and made fun of loose change in the same thread... so...

who's the one that is wrong... and the shitty thing about being online, Bong, is your ignorance is recorded evertime you type something... it's a joke that you forget how dumb you are and continue to post after me... but keep it up, this was fun proving how dumb you sound... it's easier when you already proved it and I'll I have to do is copy and paste...