You have been forced to nuke a country.
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
I live in Iran, so I came into this thread expecting to see many people choosing this country as their target. Surprisingly, there weren't that many!
(for the record I'm not Iranian, my parents are. I grew up in Italy and we moved here when I was a teenager.)
But I do agree that Iran is looking funny at the west. Hell I live here I'd know. The level of paranoia is high, they think the west has it in for them. The sanctions are heavy too to be honest. But if you think Iran would do any kind of military action that is not self-defence... you're wrong.
As for myself. Difficult choice. The first reaction would be Iran because I am stuck here and I hate the fact that I'm stuck here and it's driving me insane. And I hate the people and wouldn't mind seeing them go. But then when I'd realize I would not be able to kill that many innocent people because of my petty grudge so I'd do a thorough research in order to find out the location that would result in minimal casualties/damage.
(for the record I'm not Iranian, my parents are. I grew up in Italy and we moved here when I was a teenager.)
At the risk of drawing flak from everyone and their mothers, who asked anyone to "take care" of these countries? Truth is, they're rich in oil and have high strategic value, so that's why USA is here. Saddam and Bin Laden were puppets anyway.staika said:
But I do agree that Iran is looking funny at the west. Hell I live here I'd know. The level of paranoia is high, they think the west has it in for them. The sanctions are heavy too to be honest. But if you think Iran would do any kind of military action that is not self-defence... you're wrong.
Okay, you're stupid. Moving on.Doomsday11 said:
Interesting lineup of countries.DazBurger said:
Why would Iran overrun Iraq? As if there would be anything of value left in there after the US leaves it lol. If you seriously think a country like Iran would "overrun" anywhere you have no understanding of how things work. Which is understandable, considering you were deployed to Iraq and all..DrMegaNutz said:
Let's see. You'd nuke Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan because you hate Iran. What a champ. Though the "every country around Iran" mentality is something The US has been doing for a while, only instead of nuking they've been invading/planting military troops in them one by one slowly.DragonLord Seth said:
As for myself. Difficult choice. The first reaction would be Iran because I am stuck here and I hate the fact that I'm stuck here and it's driving me insane. And I hate the people and wouldn't mind seeing them go. But then when I'd realize I would not be able to kill that many innocent people because of my petty grudge so I'd do a thorough research in order to find out the location that would result in minimal casualties/damage.
im not sure i like most country Russia, Britin, China, and others...EXPECT ONE!!!! Japan. now dont get me wrong i like their culture, their history (the good history), and their people, BUT I HATE THEIR MEDIA. and when a country has entertainment that is sooo bad it makes me wanna turn it into a crater, u can see how much i hate it.
I've changed my mind: Israel. Then we could see if it really starts the Armageddon, and people might be able to say that I was partially responsible for starting the Final Days.
If not, then it would at least eliminate a huge source of conflict in the Middle East, and other countries might be forced to focus on their own internal problems instead of blaming Israel, (though they would probably go back to blaming each other).
If not, then it would at least eliminate a huge source of conflict in the Middle East, and other countries might be forced to focus on their own internal problems instead of blaming Israel, (though they would probably go back to blaming each other).
This is true if only sovereign states qualify, but otherwise the Pitcarn Islands [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands], with a population of fifty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population], would be chosen based on this criterion.The Last Gaijin said:
Seriously, however, the proper answer is to refuse, even if it leads to the destruction of the world, as nothing can justify murder (not even the silly circumstances of a thought experiment such as this). The whole scenario reminds me of Ursula Le Guin's story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas], in which the Utopia experienced by all citizens comes at the price of the misery of one child. I don't think that's justifiable either. (Of course, I am not a utilitarian.)
EDIT: Actually, I might not be using my brain properly here. The conditions of the thought experiment do not prohibit the evacuation of the country. Accordingly, while nuking a very small (but temporarily uninhabited) country would still be undesirable, it wouldn't be so wrong that one would be obliged to refuse if the physical fate of the planet was at stake.
non compliance sounds best
its more like a bullet to the brain of the world than a slow drawn out torture slow end
but if i was dragged to a secret evil villians hide out and forced to choose:
i would just draw a circle round the man asking the question and say that the nation of kissmyass and boarder patrol says you may not leave the country asshole
its more like a bullet to the brain of the world than a slow drawn out torture slow end
but if i was dragged to a secret evil villians hide out and forced to choose:
i would just draw a circle round the man asking the question and say that the nation of kissmyass and boarder patrol says you may not leave the country asshole
