If you could nuke a country?
- Thread starter MrBaguette
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, first I'd make it known that I have nuclear weaponry and demand everone surrenders unconditionally.
Then I nuke whatever country didn't surrender.
Well, I guess France would be safe then...
Then I nuke whatever country didn't surrender.
Well, I guess France would be safe then...
There's a difference about thinking about something, and actually doing. I have often thought of how I could kill people and get away with it, but I'd never do it.370999 said:
Just as I'd never nuke a country if I had the chance, but it's fun to think about.
Alright! Time to murder millions of innocent, helpless people! YAY INTERNET!
Guam. It's time those guys were taken down a peg. "Oh, look at me, I'm from Guam, I went to Harvard, I'm so cool"--no, you're dead! Well, I guess that also means the United States, where I live... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmworthit.
Guam. It's time those guys were taken down a peg. "Oh, look at me, I'm from Guam, I went to Harvard, I'm so cool"--no, you're dead! Well, I guess that also means the United States, where I live... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmworthit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIsDoPo said:
Interestingly enough when ole Herman Kahn wrote On Thermonuclear War a lot of individuals saw it as being horrific as the very act of thinking and talking about nuclear war made it more likely. Of course another group of people actually really reccomended his book as a strong argument for disarmament.Pinkamena said:
However notice the difference between the concept of "how would you murder someone?" and "who would your murder?"? This thread isn't about how you would commit a nuclear war but against how would you drop a nuclear device against if they had no ability to retaliate. The emphasis is very much not on the art of the operation but on who the poster believes deserves a terrorist atrocity the most.
I'd bomb Antarctica.
Penguins are up to something, better be one step ahead of them
Plus, if the Thing is real, that'll be one less thing to worry about.
If I have to bomb humans, then I'd go with Ukraine, more specifically, Chrenobyl. It's long overdue for rebuilding the sarcophagus over the reactor, so might as well blow the old one to kingdom come and build over the rubble. It's not like the radiation was going to decrease to acceptable living levels anytime soon anyways.
Penguins are up to something, better be one step ahead of them
Plus, if the Thing is real, that'll be one less thing to worry about.
If I have to bomb humans, then I'd go with Ukraine, more specifically, Chrenobyl. It's long overdue for rebuilding the sarcophagus over the reactor, so might as well blow the old one to kingdom come and build over the rubble. It's not like the radiation was going to decrease to acceptable living levels anytime soon anyways.
First, I'd make sure the nukes would be weak enough to only destroy a small city. No reason to nuke a state, most of the people in the nuclear crossfire might not even deserve it.
North Korea is a good example for a target, but those who suggested it aren't considering what that means. It's not the people's fault they're being brainwashed by their own militant government. They're starving because thanks to their oh-so-great-dam they can't farm rice to feed their own people. If it wasn't for the resources they bribe out of other countries by threatening them, they'd be starving a lot more. I'd nuke the military staff in Pyongyang and down Checkpoint Charlie, opening the borders between South and North Korea. But maybe Kim Yong Ill's son will do just the right thing and get into peace talks with South Korea on his own. Here's hoping.
Then there's Iraq/Iran/Syria (Sorry), but that again puts innocents at risk, and I'd do nothing different than what is happening in those places already, except crank it to eleven. Yes, most of them go nuts now over the koran-burnings that took place (even though no other country so far complained about all the burning flags so far, flag-vendors must love this), but again, brainwashed into false security, this time via religion. So a mini nuke for each of their governments. Better check your seat twice in parliament next time.
Also on the list, yes, America. However, since there's no government left what-so-ever, certain CEO's of corporations and the real behind-the-scenes jerks get some grade A Gamma bursts (Wait, do they prepare for that? Is that why they all usually have the fried-chicken-brown tan?
).
There's also Russia, but that could trigger WW3. While Americans would hold back from firing straight away (even though the nukes are falling apart, hence two new reactors, yay -.-) because the F22's are grounded, the nautical fleet close to the drydock for repairs and the troops just came home from a war. No one in the military will enter another one for some time now. But Russia's Government wouldn't care that much about the aftermath as it would about prestige in their political ranks. So, again, it's down to Putin. As in under the seat.
In the long run, a nuke isn't even cost effective for the task at hand. It would only take a couple well placed shots from a drone/siper rifle. The only ones hit are usually never the real men behind the curtains.
Then again, I don't even need a nuke or assassins. At this point in our capital system, all you'd have to do is Hyperinflate a couple of resources on the stock market, drive people to withdraw their money from banks, and then start robbing houses when no one is home. Then burn the cash.
All of it.
Oh wait, you meant it jokingly who I'd nuke?
Umm, no one.
North Korea is a good example for a target, but those who suggested it aren't considering what that means. It's not the people's fault they're being brainwashed by their own militant government. They're starving because thanks to their oh-so-great-dam they can't farm rice to feed their own people. If it wasn't for the resources they bribe out of other countries by threatening them, they'd be starving a lot more. I'd nuke the military staff in Pyongyang and down Checkpoint Charlie, opening the borders between South and North Korea. But maybe Kim Yong Ill's son will do just the right thing and get into peace talks with South Korea on his own. Here's hoping.
Then there's Iraq/Iran/Syria (Sorry), but that again puts innocents at risk, and I'd do nothing different than what is happening in those places already, except crank it to eleven. Yes, most of them go nuts now over the koran-burnings that took place (even though no other country so far complained about all the burning flags so far, flag-vendors must love this), but again, brainwashed into false security, this time via religion. So a mini nuke for each of their governments. Better check your seat twice in parliament next time.
Also on the list, yes, America. However, since there's no government left what-so-ever, certain CEO's of corporations and the real behind-the-scenes jerks get some grade A Gamma bursts (Wait, do they prepare for that? Is that why they all usually have the fried-chicken-brown tan?
).There's also Russia, but that could trigger WW3. While Americans would hold back from firing straight away (even though the nukes are falling apart, hence two new reactors, yay -.-) because the F22's are grounded, the nautical fleet close to the drydock for repairs and the troops just came home from a war. No one in the military will enter another one for some time now. But Russia's Government wouldn't care that much about the aftermath as it would about prestige in their political ranks. So, again, it's down to Putin. As in under the seat.
In the long run, a nuke isn't even cost effective for the task at hand. It would only take a couple well placed shots from a drone/siper rifle. The only ones hit are usually never the real men behind the curtains.
Then again, I don't even need a nuke or assassins. At this point in our capital system, all you'd have to do is Hyperinflate a couple of resources on the stock market, drive people to withdraw their money from banks, and then start robbing houses when no one is home. Then burn the cash.
All of it.
Oh wait, you meant it jokingly who I'd nuke?
Umm, no one.
Ah, you're right about that. I think that's wrong as well, and I haven't got any "special country" in my head that I think deserves to be nuked. It would be fun to nuke North Korea, but I don't think they deserve it. I'd just do it to see how they'd react, not because I feel they deserve to be destroyed.370999 said:
South Africa. Seriously, that country is a shithole and the world would be better off without it.
I hope you can understand why individuals feel a bit nervous when you throw nuclear and fun in the same sentence. War is a tragedy. I'm not a pacifist so I believe sometimes it's a necessary tragedy, a preferable one but nuclear war is even greater. Now I would concede there are certain situations where nuclear war is probably not only logically but morally just. Possibly.Pinkamena said:
But casually talking about nuking a country is well, it's in bad taste for me.
Even say North Korea which has a shitty government, I feel sympathy for the people. I certainly don't want them to die.
So I'm out. I'm sorry but I just can't engage in this conversation without losing my temper.
Well, I guess that's it for this conversation. Let me just say that I agree on you on most of those things. But I still think it would be interesting to see how a country like north korea would react to getting bombed. Yes, it would be a horrible, horrible thing, but I can't say I wouldn't be excited about it.370999 said:
You sir are a man after my own heart.ChromaticWolfen said:
I'd also nuke Ireland.
For different reasons.
Or at least say "you are now part of our empire, obey or die." > >
