"I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed up, but 10-20 million tops"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I was just wondering in Lancer's thread what the hell we needed 5,000 nukes for anyway. (This is AFTER 5,000 are to be reduced in the next few years).

The fact that a good preemptive first strike might eliminate your ability to deliver about 4500 of them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I was being glib.

Seriously though. The UK GDP grew at over 10% despite the major bombings and disruption. German GDP also grew in the build up for war by significant amounts, and certainly did not decline during the war until the end. The main reason the Soviet GDP dropped (and the French for that matter), I would guess, is that they had most of the populated lands invaded, and its not the fact that they were being attacked in and of itself that caused the decline.

If the US were being invaded in this hypothetical scenario then I would agree, the economy would likely suffer, but then the effect of an invasion would be far more devastating than the loss of 10 million lives as originally discussed.

Edit - typo.

An invasion would be more devestating than a nuclear strike?

[Agathon]

Jesus... and people have trouble wondering what the mental atmosphere was like when the bureaucrats sat down to plan the holocaust.

It was exactly like this: a calm and detached discussion in complete indifference to the obvious insanity of the whole thing.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The fact that a good preemptive first strike might eliminate your ability to deliver about 4500 of them.

Now here is something interesting. With less nukes we need to be on launch on warning, and thus very prone to accidents, because we can not tolerate a first strike. but if we way overbuild on rubble bouncing capacity we can take our stuff down to launch on confirmed and eliminate that possibility.

[MrFun]

The morbid indifference to cost of lives is disturbing.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


An invasion would be more devestating than a nuclear strike?

That sounds familiar in a WWII sort of way...

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Dauphin
German GDP also grew in the build up for war by significant amounts, and certainly did not decline during the war until the end.

It did from 1944 on, also with no core Germany occupied. (Apart from that bit of East Prussia which didn't mean much for our economy)