I would nuke the country dumb enough to allow me to nuke another country of my choosing.Caleco said:
If you could nuke a country?
- Thread starter MrBaguette
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would nuke America, and gladly. It's gotten too big and spoiled on its power, like a fat middle-schooler leaving his school to bully elementary kids in their school, though he has no right at all to be there, and starts crying when somebody tries making him leave.
Good lord, this topic is sick. Why would you even post this?
I don't even want to think about a country being nuked. That would be a lot of innocent people dying.
Should any of us even consider such a thing, even in jest?
I don't even want to think about a country being nuked. That would be a lot of innocent people dying.
Should any of us even consider such a thing, even in jest?
Simple: I wouldn't
If I HAD to? Antarctica. At least then I could limit the number of people killed with likely no children killed at all. Also the way winds blow the radiation with be largely contained.
And the first person to object "oooh, Antarctica isn't technically a country", I remind you I have a nuclear bomb and HAVE to use it on one country.
If I HAD to? Antarctica. At least then I could limit the number of people killed with likely no children killed at all. Also the way winds blow the radiation with be largely contained.
And the first person to object "oooh, Antarctica isn't technically a country", I remind you I have a nuclear bomb and HAVE to use it on one country.
You cant. Ultimately the MAD principle is the ultimate defence. No 2 nuclear countries have been to war ever because the risk is to great. No country would pick a serious fight with nuclear power because ultimately, they can never win.
The closest we have come to that as it stands is Argentina/UK and they basically leaned on the principle that we would never murder millions of people because of a few stupid bureaucrats, but if they actually invaded UK mainland and looked like they might actually win that nuke would stay off the table?
If I you were actually guna use it as suppression I doubt 1 would be enough. For example if you seriously wanted to for example stop terrorism with it you would have to be systematic in your target choice in order to make the conduction of guerilla war so costly as to stifle the will of the most ardent opposes. They bomb a shop, you bomb a street, they bomb a subway, you wipe out a city block, they do a Twin Towers, you nuke a city. This of course has major flaws, it will set everyone against you rather than just one small group and you better be bloody sure and have irrefutable proof of the perpetrators country of origin.
Ultimately I personally would nuke anyone. There are a weapon of full scale wars where public opinion from your enemies citizens cant get any lower. Otherwise, tactical military strikes are ultimately far more effective as you hit important targets but retain majority support for your actions internationally and with sympathisers within the country itself.
The closest we have come to that as it stands is Argentina/UK and they basically leaned on the principle that we would never murder millions of people because of a few stupid bureaucrats, but if they actually invaded UK mainland and looked like they might actually win that nuke would stay off the table?
If I you were actually guna use it as suppression I doubt 1 would be enough. For example if you seriously wanted to for example stop terrorism with it you would have to be systematic in your target choice in order to make the conduction of guerilla war so costly as to stifle the will of the most ardent opposes. They bomb a shop, you bomb a street, they bomb a subway, you wipe out a city block, they do a Twin Towers, you nuke a city. This of course has major flaws, it will set everyone against you rather than just one small group and you better be bloody sure and have irrefutable proof of the perpetrators country of origin.
Ultimately I personally would nuke anyone. There are a weapon of full scale wars where public opinion from your enemies citizens cant get any lower. Otherwise, tactical military strikes are ultimately far more effective as you hit important targets but retain majority support for your actions internationally and with sympathisers within the country itself.
