If you could nuke a country?
- Thread starter MrBaguette
- Start date
"If you can't play nice, noone can have that land!" *Yoink!*Private Custard said:
A kindergarten solution for kindergarten diplomacy, perhaps?
It's the only thing that'll work. Otherwise they'll stay stuck in 'rocket attacks and bombings lead to airstrikes and special forces incursion' (or is it the other way around?!!) for all eternity.Muspelheim said:
Idiots!
I have no real problems with Chinese people. But I think the world would be a much better place with less humans on it and a much weaker world economy. Therefor sorry China, but you've got to go by by. Second option would be the US for the same reason listed above.
If I couldn't nuke a whole country to oblivion, but only cities/regions then I wouldn't bother. It wouldn't chance the balance by enough, and only be pointless suffering.
Also sorry to say, but I do considere Isreal to be a rogue nation. I wouldn't want to kill it's people, but destabalizing the country to such a degree all the inhabitants would flee seems like a just thing to me. So maybe a few small tactical nukes on purely militairistic targets. (Sorry for any Hebrew people here, but you can't convince me you have any right to take land from Palistina and call it your own. There is nothing wrong with a little colonization, but if you chase the natives out / destroy their culture I can't condone it)
Otherwise a extremly small one on vatican city. Sorry Catholics, but the Vatican has been a corrupt and extremly morally flexible (at best) or evil (at worst) organization pretty much from the moment it began. It has brought some good things to the world, and there have been many amazing catholic people with a high rank in the Vatican. But they don't weigh up against the monstrousities the Vatican commited, and the wrong doings they are commiting right now. Again sorry to all Catholics, I have no beef with you guys. It's your highest official that I hate. Kinda with Bush and the Americans, (but at least Bush was funny)
If I couldn't nuke a whole country to oblivion, but only cities/regions then I wouldn't bother. It wouldn't chance the balance by enough, and only be pointless suffering.
Also sorry to say, but I do considere Isreal to be a rogue nation. I wouldn't want to kill it's people, but destabalizing the country to such a degree all the inhabitants would flee seems like a just thing to me. So maybe a few small tactical nukes on purely militairistic targets. (Sorry for any Hebrew people here, but you can't convince me you have any right to take land from Palistina and call it your own. There is nothing wrong with a little colonization, but if you chase the natives out / destroy their culture I can't condone it)
Otherwise a extremly small one on vatican city. Sorry Catholics, but the Vatican has been a corrupt and extremly morally flexible (at best) or evil (at worst) organization pretty much from the moment it began. It has brought some good things to the world, and there have been many amazing catholic people with a high rank in the Vatican. But they don't weigh up against the monstrousities the Vatican commited, and the wrong doings they are commiting right now. Again sorry to all Catholics, I have no beef with you guys. It's your highest official that I hate. Kinda with Bush and the Americans, (but at least Bush was funny)
Kinda have to agree with this one. But it's an oversimplification of the problem. By now the land belongs to the country that's the least wrong, at this point that's Palastina.Muspelheim said:
Obviously none, I'm not a mass-murdering maniac.
If I were forced to, it would be Tuvalu; I believe it is the second-least populated country in the world, and as it is an Oceanic country the fallout wouldn't be AS bad since human population is more sparse in that area, compared to nuking Vatican City, the least-populated, which would also involve nuking Rome and spreading fallout all over Europe.
If I were forced to, it would be Tuvalu; I believe it is the second-least populated country in the world, and as it is an Oceanic country the fallout wouldn't be AS bad since human population is more sparse in that area, compared to nuking Vatican City, the least-populated, which would also involve nuking Rome and spreading fallout all over Europe.
Why is everybody talking about radiation/fallout. In the modern day we bomb with H boms, nuclear fussion of two (okay likely a hell of a lot more) H atoms in to 1 He atom. Leaves hardly of any radiactive (He is the second most stable atom in the universe) material behind. Also they deliver a much bigger punch, and you only need water instead of urinaium (which I'm told is rather expensive).
I must admitt I don't known the exact workings of a hydrogen fussion bomb, maybe they'll use some radiactive energy source to get the fussion reaction going.
I must admitt I don't known the exact workings of a hydrogen fussion bomb, maybe they'll use some radiactive energy source to get the fussion reaction going.
France. During war game sessions back in the Cold war scenarios, France was always the first country to die. Noit because they were a threat or anything, but because they are mercs. They would side with the highest bidder.
(Real answer: None, before people with no sense of humour call me a maniac)
OT: Greece, they've been nothing but trouble lately.
OT: Greece, they've been nothing but trouble lately.
I don't have any problem with southerners and I don't mean to perpetuate stereotypes, but I think the term "redneck" generally implies a degree of hostility and intolerance that I think most Americans DO have a problem with. At the risk of being incorrect and offensive, I associate the term "redneck" with homophobia and racism, religious fanatacism, and guns........and the three combined don't make for a stable society.ElPatron said:
Yet a true redneck won't care enough to put those things in practice, and you do understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?Electrogecko said:
Guns are amazing. When criminals jump on you with knifes and intend to stab you and your family to death a redneck will be more than happy to bring a shotgun and 3" 00-buckshot.
People from the city won't give a fuck and won't even call the police if they see a blood trail in the morning.
Rednecks > city yuppies who won't lift a finger to protect you. At least rednecks have guns to protect their freedom, while people from the city try to restrain those freedoms.
EDIT: cross thread quote fail.
