Maybe, but there are still countries who would not wish to see the world destabilized by a rogue leader or country, I believe the aggressor would face a joint effort to keep the relative peace first world countries have enjoyed since the World Wars.Dalisclock post=18.74435.834016 said:Yes, enough that the UN will be very angry and send the culprit a letter saying just how angry they are.ThePlasmatizer post=18.74435.833743 said:Not really, in the current climate if a country was unstable enough to use nuclear weapons against an enemy, I believe it would draw the aggression of the entire United Nations.
Yeah, they'd pass a *vicious* resolution. There might even be sanctions! Unless it was someone bombing the U.S., of course, because *we* deserve it.ThePlasmatizer post=18.74435.833743 said:Not really, in the current climate if a country was unstable enough to use nuclear weapons against an enemy, I believe it would draw the aggression of the entire United Nations.
Is that a challenge?jim_doki post=18.74435.835017 said:I personally think Nuclear War won't actually go ahead. It's too big a stick. I don't think anyone's got the balls to throw the switch
To be honest, I'd just stop. I wouldn't try to hide, I wouldn't try to escape (after all, I doubt it would be headed for the rural East Midlands), I'd just stop. That would be because the whole idea that a nuclear weapon has actually been used on someone, and that in just a few minutes millions will die due to the pressing of a single button, would hit home like a baseball bat nailed to a sledgehammer.Geamo post=18.74435.837266 said:If you heard there was a nuke heading towards your country and there was nothing you could do to stop it, what would you do?
I call your threat of nuclear war and raise you a nuclear winter!Saskwach post=18.74435.837178 said:Is that a challenge?jim_doki post=18.74435.835017 said:I personally think Nuclear War won't actually go ahead. It's too big a stick. I don't think anyone's got the balls to throw the switch