Of course, this works the other way round, a coalition of countries would be able to attack America without being nuked back into the stone age. America would become more powerful, yet in a way more vulnerable as well.
In some ways. But to attack the US you would have to cross the Oceans, and the US has a marked advantage over any attackers. Currently the US Navy can handle almost all the rest of the world Navies combined, then through in the US Air Force and any attacking force is mostly doomed. They might inflict serious injurry in US forces, but would do relatively little damage to the US itself. FYI this is assuming that the US and Europe doesn't get in a tiff and are still allies.
If this is about me I can't read it. I just saw that i left a word out of my post as I meant to say that I Doubt I could do much better writing in Swedish. I left the doubt out on accident and it made me look rather arrogant.
yeas the traditional army and navy and air force would become stronger relly stronger without the treat of nuclear device... But it would mean that USA become the force with the stronges conventional army/navy/aire in the world. China exampel have a army that coutned by number of soldier are more numeros then USA. ( alright they may lack a bit in weapon and in qulity of weapon and the way they fight are somthime when some one die you get his weapon ) And during the Soviet time they had a larger conventianal army.. where USA winn are among the aire forces and probly in the navy to but that al. and IF the enemy manage by using Berings sound walk ower to alaska they could werry well manage to get a fotthoald in the usa. And fighting soldier by soldier it could be werry hard to defit one that large army... No i dont think China or India,Iran, Iraq,would have to worrie about the ground tropps of USA in any larger way. Some of them have larger population then USA and larger number of solider and attacking one of the other would work BUT the number of death could esy creat a publick cry out in USA that demand a end to the war. And even that USA barly are democratic its president still have to lissen to the voices of the citicens.
Isn't it obvious? The U.S. or some other superpower will look towards something FAR MORE destructive than nuclear weapons. Antimatter/matter reactions will be a good weapon. Energy weapons are a good. Lots of stuff to chose from. Nuclear weapons will be forgotten and a more militirized/industrial age will come. If you ask me, it would be wise to create a world government before this happens, otherwise; KKKKKKKKAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fraid that long scrolling message was a bit annoying - Douglas Nicol
There is no difference. "Atomic" bombs typically refer to fission bombs and "Hydrogen" bombs refer to fusion bombs. As for this issue... I suspect that the race to start fusion without fission would be on. Until then, conventional militaries would dominate once again.
Without the powerful deterrent that nuclear weapons provide, World War III would start within a week.
Actually, there are some Fusion weapons which use lasers to start the reaction, instead of a fission-device. These are rare and expensive though. I know the Soviets had these, and the Russians may still have them. I do not know if the USA or China has any such weapons.
