Poll: Would it be right to fight back in a Nuclear War senerio?

[-Drifter-]

I would launch the nukes for ten lulz. And if it's Canada.

The only thing Canada has that are nuclear are families.

Really, the nuke war scenario isn't so much a war scenario as a "well, fuck everything" scenario. If someone had a gun to your head and you knew you only had a chance to fire one bullet, but it wouldn't make a difference whether you lived or not, might as well take them with you.

Actually, it'd be more like if you killed them and ten other people, or just died yourself.

 

[KenzS]

I would laser the nuke's with my jumbo jet, and kill the enemy with Kindness instead.

FYI: "Kindess" is the name of a strain of the T-Virus developed by Mormons.

But yes, if I was going to die I'd take the enemy with me.

 

[furnatic]

Ima Chargin' my LAZER!!

 

[Traun255]

Dieaaa!!!!! ya dammd countrys who are nuke happy!!!!

 

[Pendragon9]

Launch back.

They're willing to kill you just for power. What makes you think they won't kill others in their struggle? At least you're struggling with the deciison. When you nuke their asses, you feel bad, and you wouldn't want to nuke anyone else. Other countries will respect that, and if they decide to attack you, then they'll remember what you did.

Remember World War 2? Japan attacked first, so we retaliated with a horrifying atomic strike. The terrorists repeat, and we go over there to kill them.

tl;dr You don't mess with the guy who's hated by everyone.

 

[jonnosferatu]

Yes, I would launch back.

This is because I'd be ****ing stupid not to have a missile defense system already in place, thereby making it entirely possible that enough of my infrastructure would be left intact that I would "win".

This is even less plausible than mine... missile defenses are almost impossible, and it's far easier to design a better missile.

You are aware that the United States happens to have such a system, right?

It's still only operating at a very limited capacity, and I don't know that it'll survive long under Obama, but it's THERE.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Why do you care about lowering polulation? I mean were getting over poulated anyway

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

pre-emptive strike ftw
Send the bastards to hell before they get the chance to do it to you.

 

[Brett Alex]

Launch back.

They're willing to kill you just for power. What makes you think they won't kill others in their struggle? At least you're struggling with the deciison. When you nuke their asses, you feel bad, and you wouldn't want to nuke anyone else. Other countries will respect that, and if they decide to attack you, then they'll remember what you did.

Remember World War 2? Japan attacked first, so we retaliated with a horrifying atomic strike. The terrorists repeat, and we go over there to kill them.

tl;dr You don't mess with the guy who's hated by everyone.

What if they only launched because they thought you were about to launch and kill them just for power?

You have to remember, as much as you hate the enemy, he is not a fiery world killing demon, in fact, the other guy is still just the other guy.

 

[supermaster1337]

Use an EMP.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

I would. But not for the same reasons. I mean if I'm the leader i would probabaly be in some type of underground bunker; that way I and the other survivors could experience Fallout 3, in real life.

 

[Kajt]

I'd nuke their nukes.

 

[Lukeje]

I wouldn't have a choice; the DOOMSDAY DEVICE would have already been activated. After all, you can't trust that humans wouldn't shy away from actually firing these weapons. Therefore the job must be left to a computer.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Personally, I'm against nuclear weapons being used as a threat, but not being used. But if there was a nuclear war, that country's leader would have barely any choice in the matter. If a country did attack with nuclear weapons, the other country's real only choice is to respond as well. If it did come to a nuclear war situation, the whole country would be screwed anyway, and their only choice would be screwed anyway.

 

[Altorin]

Would never happen.

We have Dr Manhattan, they don't.

 

[Pendragon9]

Launch back.

They're willing to kill you just for power. What makes you think they won't kill others in their struggle? At least you're struggling with the deciison. When you nuke their asses, you feel bad, and you wouldn't want to nuke anyone else. Other countries will respect that, and if they decide to attack you, then they'll remember what you did.

Remember World War 2? Japan attacked first, so we retaliated with a horrifying atomic strike. The terrorists repeat, and we go over there to kill them.

tl;dr You don't mess with the guy who's hated by everyone.

What if they only launched because they thought you were about to launch and kill them just for power?

You have to remember, as much as you hate the enemy, he is not a fiery world killing demon, in fact, the other guy is still just the other guy.

If he was dumb enough to launch FIRST, then no. That is an impossibility.

 

[roboosh]

Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[Randall Savage]

Yes, I would launch back.

This is because I'd be ****ing stupid not to have a missile defense system already in place, thereby making it entirely possible that enough of my infrastructure would be left intact that I would "win".

This is even less plausible than mine... missile defenses are almost impossible, and it's far easier to design a better missile.

You are aware that the United States happens to have such a system, right?

It's still only operating at a very limited capacity, and I don't know that it'll survive long under Obama, but it's THERE.

Yeah, I'm willing to bet it doesn't work.

The whole concept just doesn't seem to make any sense (and I won't go into how America's system is against international law and treaties, or that as I understand it, it relies on delicate equipment spread across several countries all working together in perfect sync (including one in Yorkshire, England that's usually powered down due to freakish weather.))