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

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Lets say in was a Cold War type of situation. Two world powers in a deadlock, vying for the position of top dog in world.

You're the leader of one of the nations and you get news that the other nation had just launched nukes against your country. So what do you do?

Should you fire back? Plunging the world into even greater destruction and darkness, but insuring the death of surely an evil empire if they had chosen to launch nukes. Or would you do nothing, let your country fall, and guarantee the continued survival of millions of people?

Keep in mind that there are some other countries in the world that would go on unhampered. (Edit: I'm thinking countries to far out of the way to be affected, like less developed nations.)

Edit: I dunno, I mean if both nations launched nukes then you're laying to waster much of the civilized world. Sure some first world countries would survive, but your taking cuts at the world population and their whole structure would be severely crippled. I also imagine that no way a whole nation can be evil so that they would rebel and reform their own nation.

I also reason that once your nation is out of the way, it would be pretty much world domination by the other. And why would they blow up the rest of their assets?

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Why, yes. Nuke them. It's only human nature to be vindictive, and I am but a human.

Sort of like children fighting over a toy, and they say "well if I can't have it, neither can you!"

Except the toy is life. And the children have hundreds thermonuclear ICBMs.

Would I fire back? Yes. Would it be right? No.

 

[Birras]

Neither. I would have my science advisor, Dr. Manhattan, destroy all the incoming nukes. Then, I would have him go over to the nation that shot at us in the first place and ask him to blow all the enemy soldiers nto bloody chunks. Being emporer of Birra has advantages, you know!

 

[Gadzooks]

I'm always terrified by number of warheads that are still out there. Yes, I would launch a retaliatory strike.

Firstly, I'd be angry and have to have revenge. Secondly, in counter-attack you would hopefully cut off the other powers nuclear aggression not only against your own country but others/allies, hopefully saving more lives than are ended in your retalliation. Thirdly, if someone is power hungry/mad enough to use nuclear weapons as a first strike, they may be more interested in total destruction of your people than simply occupying your land, as it shows disregard for the ability to inhabit the land afterwards.

But always at the back of my mind would be the thought that it was just the same case as Dr. Strangelove, and the people of the other country were strongly opposed.

 

[Cuniculus]

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.

 

[megapenguinx]

Less talk talk, more boom boom. Plus who doesn't want to create a fallout-esque scenario?

 

[blaze96]

I'm just a firm believer of M.A.D (Mutually. Assured. Destruction. for those who don't know) so hell yea if my people and I are gonna go down I'm sure as hell taking them with me.

 

[bue519]

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.

/thread
This is pretty much the entire reasoning behind MAD.

 

[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.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

What is right and what is done don't coincide very often.

 

[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".

 

[jonnosferatu]

I suppose someone should mention that this is one game where the only way to win is not to play.

You don't have much choice if the other guy fired first.

 

[Randall Savage]

I'd probably nuke them even if it weren't my country being fired on.

Hell, if I had it my way there'd be a "Mouse that Roared" scenario, where a few tiny countries take everyone elses Nukes, and if any of the "Superpowers" were even found building one, the punishment is annihilation.

Then again, my true objective is the end of all governments and borders beyond those we make for ourselves, so...

 

[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.