You have been forced to nuke a country.
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
I would refuse and instead ask the entire world to be blown up from the get go. This place sucks.
Nooooo! Not Sealand! If that counts, you could just open a micronation by seceding your patch of land from the US or your Commonwealth country, if you live in either, then nuke that.LiberalSquirrel said:
To all those thinking it's a great idea to nuke Vatican City because of its small population, a quick look at a map will show you that it's located within the borders of Rome, a city of just under 3 million. In other words, not a good idea. Plus you'd be taking out a wonderful place to visit. Even if you're not Catholic, the architecture alone is something worth going to see.
If you want to avoid loss of human life, Mongolia is probably the place because it's population density is under 2 people per square kilometer. I think Greenland has a lower density but it's mostly covered with ice and the melting ice cap could cause more environmental issues than a nuke in the steppe would.
That is all from me. Won't go near the rest of this discussion.
If you want to avoid loss of human life, Mongolia is probably the place because it's population density is under 2 people per square kilometer. I think Greenland has a lower density but it's mostly covered with ice and the melting ice cap could cause more environmental issues than a nuke in the steppe would.
That is all from me. Won't go near the rest of this discussion.
When you say nuked do you mean one nuke or full on blow everything up? If it's one nuke I'll blow up the grand canyon and it's surrounding area, and warn people not to be there when it happens. If it's got to be total destruction then somewhere small and filled with very few people. Sorry Belgium...
You've been to every inch of Wales have you then? -_- So much hate for a country who has done nothing to you to warrant it. :/CrashBang said:
Also, the term principality is sometimes used in a modern sense to denote all of Wales, but this has no constitutional basis. The Principality of Wales only existed in the northern and western parts of what is now Wales between the 13th and 16th centuries, no principality covering the whole of Wales was ever created. Although the title Prince of Wales (together with Duke of Cornwall) has been a title traditionally granted to the heir apparent to the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, it confers no responsibilities for government in Wales.
End of.
Now then, OT: If I was really forced to I would nuke Antarctica. Because it pretty big and no people live there, to my knowledge...sorry Polar Bears.
EDIT: So much hate towards other countries in this thread, very dissapointing. :/
Whatever country Jersey Shore is being filmed in. I would love to see Mike "The Situation" in the confession room talking about girls and you just hear this loud whistle get gradually louder and watch the entire room erupt into nuclear fire. (Smile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_SealandLiberalSquirrel said:
What did Sealand ever do to you?
Also If someone forced me to nuke a country I'd nuke the country of the person forcing me.
The weird thing in this thread is that there are occasionally people suggesting places with really high populations because it'll put a dent in the population. Which is silly because there'll be less people, but there'll be an even smaller inhabitable part of the world. And after wars and plagues other things that cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, there's generally a big spike in birth rates that outweighs any "good" done by the horrible thing that caused many people to die.
Not that I want to get facts in the way of certain peoples' misanthropic suggestions on population control.
Anyway, there's not really any nation I hate so much that I would want to have it bombed for any serious reason. So I'll go with Belgium, because I really hate Tintin.
Edit:
Not that I want to get facts in the way of certain peoples' misanthropic suggestions on population control.
Anyway, there's not really any nation I hate so much that I would want to have it bombed for any serious reason. So I'll go with Belgium, because I really hate Tintin.
This was insanely funny. I'm not entirely sure if it's supposed to be, but I found it hilarious.kickassfrog said:
Everybody? In three pages I seen the USA mentioned, like, four or five times. I've seen Sealand and North Korea mentioned more times than the US. I personally expected France to be mentioned more often than it has been, because France is one of those countries that it's acceptable to hate in the UK and the US.Raika said:
Edit:
Come on, guy! Just before my post, as well. That's just bad timing, that's what that is.Popadoo said:
Comrade Stalin said:
Western Sahara.
No government, sparse population, comparatively low biomass, very little there of interest to anyone.
Due to the wind pattens though, it could be very hazardous if "Nuking the country" means using enough bombs to turn every square inch into glass.
In that case I would say bomb a microcountry that only needs one warhead, the Vatican or Monaco for example.
No government, sparse population, comparatively low biomass, very little there of interest to anyone.
Due to the wind pattens though, it could be very hazardous if "Nuking the country" means using enough bombs to turn every square inch into glass.
In that case I would say bomb a microcountry that only needs one warhead, the Vatican or Monaco for example.
