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

[timmytom1]

arrange the missiles so the radar would pick the lauches up as spelling FUCK YOU!!!

 

[tsb247]

If nukes are launched at America, then we've already failed in the primary mission of nuclear deterrence. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's wrong, the secondary mission must be carried out. A swift, devastating, retaliatory strike. I'm a Missile Technician, so I work with Trident II missiles and if need be, take part in the launch. It's something I hope to the gods I never have to do, but if ordered, I will do it.

Isn't the Trident II designed to be fired from an Ohio class submarine?

 

[Insanum]

Id launch a strike back.

At the end of the day if they were nuking me, they wouldnt think twice at nuking another country after us.

 

[Gerazzi]

ever played Fallout 3?
I can't wait for nuclear apocalypse.

 

[Vorpals]

Screw just blowing up their country, I'd fire nukes at the moon AND their country to make sure everyone's equally (well, almost equally) fucked over.

Also, I'm listening to Muse's "City of Delusion" at the moment for teh lulz.

EDIT: But seriously though, I would just fire back enough to wipe their country off the map nice and evenly and nothing else.

 

[Gamer137]

Nuke the enemy miliatry and government sites, but not the entire popualation.

ever played Fallout 3?
I can't wait for nuclear apocalypse.

You can't live 200+ years to wait for the radiation to clear.

 

[furnatic]

If nukes are launched at America, then we've already failed in the primary mission of nuclear deterrence. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's wrong, the secondary mission must be carried out. A swift, devastating, retaliatory strike. I'm a Missile Technician, so I work with Trident II missiles and if need be, take part in the launch. It's something I hope to the gods I never have to do, but if ordered, I will do it.

Isn't the Trident II designed to be fired from an Ohio class submarine?

Yes

 

[Ginnipe]

I really don't know what I would do, launching more nukes would probably completely destroy the earths stratosphere (or something like that) just allowing the sun to turn the world into a slow cooker.

I wonder if this is how Fallout started

lol

 

[Nargleblarg]

..umm couldn't we just shoot the nukes down, we have that kind of technology just google "the star wars program" it's an anti missle defense system being built with satellites it's awesome.

 

[Ginnipe]

Has anyone ever thought that if any country launched a nuclear missile then they would already have their leaders and other important people in fallout shelters just in case their target shot back. Their government could probably be run in these shelters and launching a missile back wouldn't do much but kill innocet civilians.

And anyways, isn't a nuclear missile threat the entire reason why the U.S. has the SLAM system, to blow nukes out of the sky

 

[fulano]

People have this misguided idea that a nuclear war is a posibility. It isn't. Even a small, controlled war would fuck up the world badly, and it would last a few days, tops.

There is no way in hell that anyone short of a madman is going to launch nukes. Not here, not the U.S, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not anyone. If anything, there would be one strike and then nothing.

My question is this: Instead of accepting defeat, should we fuck up the world instead?

Please, don't be idiots.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Why wouldn't you launch back? Sure, you spare a few lives because you didn't kill everyone in their country, but who is to say that country won't launch some nukes at other countries once you're out of the way? It's stupid to think you'd save more lives by not acting.

I have to agree with you on this one. Launching a nuke at the enemy's artillery ranges would save more lives than simply letting them decimate our country and even letting them live to decimate other countries.

 

[flare09]

The answer should be obvious here...

 

[tsb247]

If nukes are launched at America, then we've already failed in the primary mission of nuclear deterrence. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's wrong, the secondary mission must be carried out. A swift, devastating, retaliatory strike. I'm a Missile Technician, so I work with Trident II missiles and if need be, take part in the launch. It's something I hope to the gods I never have to do, but if ordered, I will do it.

Isn't the Trident II designed to be fired from an Ohio class submarine?

Yes

Wow... Not many people can claim to work with nuclear missiles for a living. I hope you never have take part in a real launch (although I'm sure they drill you to death). Although firing a missile from the safety of a submarine a few hundred meters below the waves is the way to go. There is almost no fear of retaliation in a sub.

 

[tsb247]

People have this misguided idea that a nuclear war is a posibility. It isn't. Even a small, controlled war would fuck up the world badly, and it would last a few days, tops.

There is no way in hell that anyone short of a madman is going to launch nukes. Not here, not the U.S, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not anyone. If anything, there would be one strike and then nothing.

My question is this: Instead of accepting defeat, should we fuck up the world instead?

Please, don't be idiots.

You obviously haven't been keeping up on current events... Or international relations for that matter...

Of course there is a possibility nuclear weapons will be used in the future. In fact, that, "Madman," you described happens to be Kim Jong Il. He's like a child with his father's gun and I have no doubt he plans to use a nuclear weapon if it suits his needs. Will he? Honestly, there is no way to know for sure, but I assure you... Nobody is thinking about what will fuck the the environment (as that seems to be what you are referring to). People are thinking about what will defeat their enemies as quickly as possible. This large world-ending armageddon that people refer to is unlikely; the war would be over too quickly.

 

[fulano]

People have this misguided idea that a nuclear war is a posibility. It isn't. Even a small, controlled war would fuck up the world badly, and it would last a few days, tops.

There is no way in hell that anyone short of a madman is going to launch nukes. Not here, not the U.S, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not anyone. If anything, there would be one strike and then nothing.

My question is this: Instead of accepting defeat, should we fuck up the world instead?

Please, don't be idiots.

You obviously haven't been keeping up on current events... Or international relations for that matter...

Of course there is a possibility nuclear weapons will be used in the future. In fact, that, "Madman," you described happens to be Kim Jong Il. He's like a child with his father's gun and I have no doubt he plans to use a nuclear weapon if it suits his needs. Will he? Honestly, there is no way to know for sure, but I assure you... Nobody is thinking about what will fuck the the environment (as that seems to be what you are referring to). People are thinking about what will defeat their enemies as quickly as possible. This large world-ending armageddon that people refer to is unlikely; the war would be over too quickly.

Yeah, right. I don't agree with you and so that means I must not be keeping up with current events...right.

First, get off your high horse, and second, try to use your head. Do you think Kim Jong Il is running NoKo? For real? The man is ILL. How can you say that in any definitive manner when not even the CIA is one hundred percent sure of what goes on in there?

People in the know say the don't know for certain, and suddenly you do? Give me a break.

I'm talking about the continued existence of the human species and possibly most life on the planet short of the abyssal regions under the sea.

What exactly do you think will happen when one launches the first nuke against any nation that has one in commission and there is an actual confirmed strike? It follow through of anger with anything it has, that's what.

You don't purpose nukes the same way you do ICBMs, and you only need roughly 50 nuclear detonations (much, much less than the current quantity of existing stockpiles) to royally fuck up the entire planet and plunge it into a nuclear winter.

And, again, you really want to "win" this thing? because info points towards the fact that you just can't.

 

[tsb247]

People have this misguided idea that a nuclear war is a posibility. It isn't. Even a small, controlled war would fuck up the world badly, and it would last a few days, tops.

There is no way in hell that anyone short of a madman is going to launch nukes. Not here, not the U.S, not Russia, not China, not North Korea, not anyone. If anything, there would be one strike and then nothing.

My question is this: Instead of accepting defeat, should we fuck up the world instead?

Please, don't be idiots.

You obviously haven't been keeping up on current events... Or international relations for that matter...

Of course there is a possibility nuclear weapons will be used in the future. In fact, that, "Madman," you described happens to be Kim Jong Il. He's like a child with his father's gun and I have no doubt he plans to use a nuclear weapon if it suits his needs. Will he? Honestly, there is no way to know for sure, but I assure you... Nobody is thinking about what will fuck the the environment (as that seems to be what you are referring to). People are thinking about what will defeat their enemies as quickly as possible. This large world-ending armageddon that people refer to is unlikely; the war would be over too quickly.

Yeah, right. I don't agree with you and so that means I must not be keeping up with current events...right.

First, get off your high horse, and second, try to use your head. Do you think Kim Jong Il is running NoKo? For real? The man is ILL. How can you say that in any definitive manner when not even the CIA is one hundred percent sure of what goes on in there?

People in the know say the don't know for certain, and suddenly you do? Give me a break.

I'm talking about the continued existence of the human species and possibly most life on the planet short of the abyssal regions under the sea.

What exactly do you think will happen when one launches the first nuke against any nation that has one in commission and there is an actual confirmed strike? It follow through of anger with anything it has, that's what.

You don't purpose nukes the same way you do ICBMs, and you only need roughly 50 nuclear detonations (much, much less than the current quantity of existing stockpiles) to royally fuck up the entire planet and plunge it into a nuclear winter.

And, again, you really want to "win" this thing? because info points towards the fact that you just can't.

Do you honestly think that warring nations will take, "The good of mankind," into account when firing off ICBMs at each other? No. They will not. The concept is simple. If a nuclear strike is made, and equal nuclear response will most likely be given.

Not one person in either nation involved will say, "But wait, we could plunge the world into nuclear winter!" Instead the response will be, "Destroy them before they destroy us, and do it as quickly as possible!"

I don't know where you get this, "For the good of the world," nonsense. That simply won't be a factor if missiles fly. You can scream, "Save the world! No nukes!" all you want, but they will not go away, and the likelihood of them being used (especially with the instability in Asia and the Middle East going on) is ever increasing.

Any nation that gets nuked will nuke back if they have the capability. Of course it's the right thing to do! There's not much else to do when millions of your countrymens' lives are on the line. There's nothing wrong with force being met with equal force when it comes to warfare and international politics. Conventional warfare is not much of an option when your opponent can simply press a button and make everything you have disappear, but rather it only becomes an option after the nuclear exchange and the crucial targets are eliminated.

 

[thiosk]

You don't purpose nukes the same way you do ICBMs, and you only need roughly 50 nuclear detonations (much, much less than the current quantity of existing stockpiles) to royally fuck up the entire planet and plunge it into a nuclear winter.

And where did you get this number exactly? www.embracethechildren.org? www.earthliberationfront.org mayhaps? Oh, wait, you're just fusing bits and pieces of what you've heard somewhere together, and adding numbers you made up to make it sound like reality.

The us has reported 1054 tests
ussr: 715
france: 210
uk: 45
china: 45
india 6
pakistan 6
noko: 2ish

There were about 140 or so nuclear tests in 1961 alone. yes i got the running count from the wikipedia articles, which I highly reccomend to anyone who wants to know something about nuclear combat.

The true underground tests, which result in negligible fallout, didn't get in vogue until a little later, so a lot of those early tests in the 40s - 60s were aboveground and ground-level tests. Ground level tests generate the most fallout , but nuclear powers like america and russia have no interest in really blasting the bajeezus out of eachother and irradiating the countryside, as the nuclear strikes are really designed to destroy the will of the other side and make occupation possible.

But of course, for the most part no one who posts on threads like this seems to know any actual details about:

-How nuclear (sorry, nucular) weapons work
-How they are used
-their capabilities
-their history
-what fallout is
-where fallout comes from

and as a result you get a bunch of goons who listen to long discredited propaganda-- like nuclear winter-- and the result is that a lot of myths and misinformation get propogated.

I have no patience for myths or misinformation. At the very least, read the entire wiki articles before spouting off a bunch of silliness.

People have this misguided idea that a nuclear war is a posibility. It isn't.

True

Even a small, controlled war would fuck up the world badly, and it would last a few days, tops.

see above.

 

[Fallswhale]

Mutually assured destruction is the only real deterant.

If you ever question the reason that the US never invaded the north west of Pakistan because Bin Laden was hiding out in the "tribal lands" than look no further than they have got the bomb and are within striking distance of Isreal and India. There is no word or expression for that clusterfuck.

Does it lead to the end of all things as we know it, absolutely. But how else are we gonna get to the raging radioactive super mutant stage.