If America can build a "Super Weapon", don't you think America wouldn't think of blowing up Mars?
545695
I'd lay pretty good odds that the destruction of a planet in our solar system, and one not even that far from us relatively speaking, would have such catastrophic consequences on the Earth that we'd probably all be destroyed. That is one reason we might resist the otherwise obvious urge to blow up Mars.
497956
Nope! Not unless we bomb everyone, including ourselves...but I highly doubt we'll do that. According to studies, the only way that earth will truly blow up, is when it goes through its final stages. For example, turning into a red giant. I can't remember what stages we are in at the moment...but it won't happen for a long, LONG time.
1105553
America COULD, if she wanted, become a fortress effectively defending herself on the four horizon points from any infiltration, or attack.\n\nBut globalism and unchecked alien invasion has rendered this hypothesis a waste of time. \n\nThe Congressional sale has been going on for decades, and it's near midnite, don't you know.
667184
I presume you mean in World War II.  America, unlike the  European and Asian powers, had not been crippled by air raids and ground assaults.  American manufacturing resources could produce weapons and supplies without fear of being bombed, and American farmers could plant crops without worrying that his fields would turn into a battlefield.  Young American men could enlist in the military with great ease because they weren't needed at home to rebuild damage.  At the time, Trans-Atlantic invasions and bombing runs were so difficult they were practically impossible, and America, secure on the far side of the Big Pond, could just keep producing weapons, tools, food, and soldiers without fear of reprisal.
564631
Yes.  We've got fire power beyond our nuclear capabilities.  We are ham strung by politics, not war fighting capabilities.
261546
My husband thinks it might; his favorite expression is "just drop the bomb on them." In the sense that nobody would ever again doubt that the US is the biggest, meanest dog on the block, perhaps a facsimilie of world peace might result if we blow the Middle East sky high. It would be the peace of fear, though, the modern day equivalent to Pax Romana. And, as with the fastest gun in the West, there's always somebody aiming at you from behind. I don't think nuking the Middle East is really the answer, but it's a tempting thought.
444679
With the rise in power of countries these days, we are lucky all we need to develope are bunker busting weapons.  Many countries have developed nuclear technology since the end of the "cold" war.  I'd be more concerned with the Iranians and North Koreans obtaining nuclear weapons than with the U.S. developing a weapon that could take out nuclear weapons in their silo's.
932043
There is a very short "window" of opportunity to blast off, because they must do it when the earth is pointed in the trajectory they want the space craft to fly in. (the earth rotates)\nThey could blast off at any time but do not have enough capacity to store fuel to then change trajectory and get back on course.
1061493
If the North Korean missile appears to be headed for the United States as we track it from liftoff through the means of Aegis Class ships and shore based tracking, I've no doubt that we can and will shoot it down. Most military experts seem sure that we can, and the last test of the anti-missile system was successful. Therefore, we have the means, and I think we have the will to do it.
1022890
It'd be an almost impossible task, maybe they could take over a small part-like Hawaii, or Alaska (again Herculean), well and the US has weapons of Mass Destruction and are not denying them, rather using that leverage to control the world.\n\nIn case of such an eventuality happening, that particular invading country is gonna have the whole world after it's as.s, and will have to run, that is assuming that the local Americans don't start using their arsenal of weapons that their gun laws permit them to own, the other country is gonna get their as.sholes pasted on the wall\n\nA note to end - I am not an American and I am not from that fairy Blair's country, and have always been critical of US  in most of my posts pertaining to them. The vulgar expressions (they are a part of most humans' bodies though) are meant not as an insult but to explain, to stress that under the present circumstances what you are asking is practically impossible.\nChill out!\nst
785317
In a certain way I tend to agree with you. I've long feared that our military would become too dependant on the technology they possess and lose some of their basic soldiering skills. This basically happened to US Navy pilots during Vietnam. They learned to rely on their missiles and forgot how to "dog fight", which is one of the main reasons "Top Gun" was founded. \n\nI'm a veteran of Desert Storm. During that conflict, we (the US and our allies) managed to wage what I refer to anymore as "surgical warfare" (war against another nation that doesn't inflict huge casualties on the general population), and now it seems everyone expects us to wage war without civilian casualties. I blame this on technology, ...stealth fighters and bombers, cruise missiles, yada, yada, yada. Don't get me wrong, technology to help a soldier do his or her job is always a good thing. But sooner or later the good old "foot soldier" won't even exist anymore. You'll have UCAVs (Unmanned Combatant Aerial Vehicles) like the predator that will deliver munitions to its targets and be controlled by someone thousands of miles away. You'll have robots on the front lines and robotic ships that can operate independantly. I know this all sounds like the script from one of the Terminator movies, but all of the systems I just mentioned are actually being worked on; Some, like the predator and the robotic type soldier are already in service. We're taking the "human" element out of war, which scares the living hell out of me.\n\nWar is a terrible thing. Whenever one man sets upon destroying another simply because of differing political views, ...it's a bad thing. But if we take out the most terrible aspect of warfare (the loss of human life), ...what's to stop us from simply waging war all of the time? We'd reduce the planet to a burned out cinder.\n\nI still have faith that our military is comprised of some of the best and smartest people on Earth and that they are still being trained to utilize their soldiering skills just as much as relying on their technologically advanced toys.
1068537
Regardless of the desirability of doing so, there are serious questions about whether the US is actually capable of successfully intercepting the missile.  Trying but failing to intercept the missile would diminish America's military prestige and may tempt the North Koreans into further adventures.  On the other hand, doing nothing leaves Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and so on to think about facing such a threat on their own.  Last time, it inspired Japan to join us in trying to develop missile defense.  We have more to lose than to gain by trying -- and more to gain than to lose by not trying.
71977
"American Exceptionalism" is at worse a facade and at best a very poor interpretation of our "purpose" as a nation. The founding fathers that argued for the constitution argued that yes the US needed to be a superpower to have domestic and foreign security, but an economic superpower not a military superpower. The United States does differ "qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution etc, but our founding fathers aruged that we should not be a force to interfere with other nations affairs. The intent of the Union was . . . is to preserve all of our values within our boundries not spread it across the world. One could argue that Iran or North Korea might not have technology that potentially threatens us if we had not invented such technology in the first place. The United States origianlly had no responsibility to anyone but itself. However, in a age where warfare is mobile and long reaching, and that capitalism has developed into the battled prize among everyone the US needs to (all though one could debate it) a strong foriegn force to defend its economy which equates to defending our unique rights of self determination through liberty, freedom etc, so in the end being the world's policemen which is needed by our system is contradictive to the purpose of the US originally.
235527
Most scientific research has no prospect of payback in the near or medium term future, if ever. Would you suggest cancelling all scientific research to eradicate povery also, even if some research could, in the future, change all our lives for the better? \n\nIt could be argued that the importance to America of their astronauts being first on the Moon was to establish a political benchmark against which the rest of the world would have to be measured. If a nation could make this supreme achievement, then what would be impossible to it?  I think America owes it's current prosperity in part to the feelings of pride and confidence generated by landing on the moon.
850141
Remember, we must Stay The Course on Mars, and not give into the rock's demands.  The rocks are only there to destroy freedom, while we are there for peace.\n\nThe dirt, once they see we are there to destroy the evil rocks, will flock to us, and support freedom free from rock-ism...\n\n...or so Bush will say.
314171
Thats stupid to think we will go to Mars. LOL
1183995
Fortunately, neither the US nor any other country possesses technology anywhere even close to sufficient to blow up something the size of the moon. If they did, they'd probably blow up Earth first.\n\nAlso, mining the moon for minerals would not be economically feasible, whether the moon is smashed to bits or not.