India, I suppose.
Cause they're sitting upon all the resources were gradually running out of.Sordak said:
You have been forced to nuke a country.
- Thread starter Sean Hollyman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Acording to Wikipedia, the Pitcairn Islands has the least inhabitants, so sorry Pitcairn people...
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density)
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density)
Vatican City. Not that I have anything against Christianity, I just want to see how the religion would work itself out after the fact.
This, just nuke any part of russia that isn't the west/south-western part, as its the only part of Russia that is livable.Electric_Eagle said:
The Middle East, in its entirety. I have no problem with people or religions present there - and if possible all civilians should be able to evacuate - but to be honest, their political groups' constant irrational behaviour threatens everyone, especially that of both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If we create enough explosions to imitate the impact of the (theoretical) asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, it could bring enough dust and dirt into the atmosphere that can create major global changes in temperatures that in turn affect everything on this planet.Valiant The Gamer said:
America. Biggest threat to the world's security.
Wales is a Principality, not a country.Sean Hollyman said:
Well then you have a big chance of nuking Russia, but no nukes can effectively destroy such a big country, so... retaliations, and then the world ends :/Rawne1980 said:
Back To The OT, starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd: North Korea needs to go like that-one-hot-girl-at-the-beach's top. We don't need frenzied supranationalist commies waving around big bad nuclear weapons like a gigolo waves around his dick at a widowed aristocrat's house in one of these stereotypical porno scenarios.
Nah, not talking about the populated places, I wouldn't condone but I'd like to make sure they don't have some nuclear warheads in one of 'em unpopulated areas, just next to one of 'em nuclear facilities for "electrical power".
China or India, provided that I'd get to lay waste to the entire country.
Reason: Too much people, tearing on resources that could be used by me instead. If I could I'd blow them both to hell. That's a few billion people gone. Shame on the animals though. It would be better to design a disease to take out humans only release it and vaccinate the western countries (Perhaps not the U.S, don't like them either).
Reason: Too much people, tearing on resources that could be used by me instead. If I could I'd blow them both to hell. That's a few billion people gone. Shame on the animals though. It would be better to design a disease to take out humans only release it and vaccinate the western countries (Perhaps not the U.S, don't like them either).
America, my own country, particularly targeting where I live.
Oh sure I could pick the country of one of my enemies (of which I've been told there are many) but everyone would expect that.
But nuking my own country? They'll never see that coming.
MWA HA HA, I AM TRULY THE WORLD'S GREATEST TACTICAL GENIUS!
Oh sure I could pick the country of one of my enemies (of which I've been told there are many) but everyone would expect that.
But nuking my own country? They'll never see that coming.
MWA HA HA, I AM TRULY THE WORLD'S GREATEST TACTICAL GENIUS!
For the sake of argument: Why the hate for North Korea? The government is a horrid regime, but I do honestly believe the people there have been through enough already. At the same time, there are countries where broad sections of the populace are actually actively trying to kill other broad sections of the populace.
Also, Wales *is* a country, but not a sovereign state.
Also, Wales *is* a country, but not a sovereign state.
Simples, anywhere not the UK. Scotland doesn't technically count as the UK though, so they're fair game... In fact, let's just go with Scotland. Once it's gone we can use the irradiated land to dump garbage there which, let's face it, will make it look a little more presentable.
Personally, I'd go for the obvious. North Korea. Which means nuking Pyongyang and all other major cities mainly, to get rid of any and all government influence and hopefully take out the entire fucked up family of Kim Jong-Il. Then there's the least chance of retaliation, and we've gotten rid of one of the main threats to world security in one fell swoop. If the fallout happens to drift towards China, then even better news. Not that I have anything against China, it's simply if it does damage to their government as well then great, and fewer people in the world can only be a good thing (I'm an ardent believer in reducing the world's population, because let's face it, if it carries on like this we will end up screwed). After all, we had around 6 billion people in the world a decade ago, it's almost 7 billion now. Something needs to be done, and if nukes are the best option then so be it.
Easy choice. America, as its quite possibly one of the greatest mistakes in all of existence.
To be particular, your chain of command started the horrors of nuclear fallout by condemning Hiroshima and its harmless citizens to either instant death and radiation poisoning all those years ago. Your public is divided between political affiliations, race, lifestyle and key interests. While they are also as innocent as to believe your nation is one of 'the good guys,' the goodness can only be measured by the virtues of all its citizens and how they work together. That's up to you guys.
You have also proceeded to bomb many countries in order to either halt their development or limit the amount of control they have over their own resources. List is here: http://www.btinternet.com/~davidbeaumont/msf/listbombed.html
If I had to place an explosion tactically, it'd detonate it right smack in the centre of the Pentagon, while your president is in for a visit- I'm sure your chain of command has to go or change anyway. Like I said, I don't have a problem with your public and I'm sure that given the proper incentive to take control over their lives without the fear of debt or authority hanging over their lives, they'll prosper without their leaders or the inflictions of administration. That is, of course, if they don't riot in the streets in a fit of savagery, like what happened in Croydon.
One thing that I wouldn't do is set off the many nuclear armaments you already have. Sure, I'd have to go in and take them myself after the damage is done and dismantle them, to make sure nobody from your new administration rages like a little girl and takes it out on other parts of the world.
I hope that answers your question. Don't hold it against me, that government's just responsible for many evils, and it should end with them. At least the chaos that ensues cuts the line clear for the rest of that society, defining what is inherently good and what is inherently evil with all of its individuals, and deciding what side they stand on. Then, the other countries of the world will send over spy planes and judge for themselves what the real calibre of your post-apocalyptic society is.
To be particular, your chain of command started the horrors of nuclear fallout by condemning Hiroshima and its harmless citizens to either instant death and radiation poisoning all those years ago. Your public is divided between political affiliations, race, lifestyle and key interests. While they are also as innocent as to believe your nation is one of 'the good guys,' the goodness can only be measured by the virtues of all its citizens and how they work together. That's up to you guys.
You have also proceeded to bomb many countries in order to either halt their development or limit the amount of control they have over their own resources. List is here: http://www.btinternet.com/~davidbeaumont/msf/listbombed.html
If I had to place an explosion tactically, it'd detonate it right smack in the centre of the Pentagon, while your president is in for a visit- I'm sure your chain of command has to go or change anyway. Like I said, I don't have a problem with your public and I'm sure that given the proper incentive to take control over their lives without the fear of debt or authority hanging over their lives, they'll prosper without their leaders or the inflictions of administration. That is, of course, if they don't riot in the streets in a fit of savagery, like what happened in Croydon.
One thing that I wouldn't do is set off the many nuclear armaments you already have. Sure, I'd have to go in and take them myself after the damage is done and dismantle them, to make sure nobody from your new administration rages like a little girl and takes it out on other parts of the world.
I hope that answers your question. Don't hold it against me, that government's just responsible for many evils, and it should end with them. At least the chaos that ensues cuts the line clear for the rest of that society, defining what is inherently good and what is inherently evil with all of its individuals, and deciding what side they stand on. Then, the other countries of the world will send over spy planes and judge for themselves what the real calibre of your post-apocalyptic society is.
Dude, what? I'm romanian and this is offensive.
I agree that the society sucks, and the population is half retarded or half even more retarded, but it's full of wonderfull landscapes.
Nuking the Sfinx in Bucegi or the Padis landscape...or the danube...or the [insert one of the 9001 beautiful views the romanian landscape has] is a fucking shame, you twat.
Du-te sa mori sub un pod, idiotule.
On topic: I'd nuke Hungary. For the lulz.
I agree that the society sucks, and the population is half retarded or half even more retarded, but it's full of wonderfull landscapes.
Nuking the Sfinx in Bucegi or the Padis landscape...or the danube...or the [insert one of the 9001 beautiful views the romanian landscape has] is a fucking shame, you twat.
Du-te sa mori sub un pod, idiotule.
On topic: I'd nuke Hungary. For the lulz.
North Korea of course.
Or if I have to not choose the obvious and Principalities are counted then Sealand I guess since it's about as tiny as they get. 3 people dead. *shrug*
Or Russia in some section where the least amount of people are at. Nothing personal against Russians though <3
Or if I have to not choose the obvious and Principalities are counted then Sealand I guess since it's about as tiny as they get. 3 people dead. *shrug*
Or Russia in some section where the least amount of people are at. Nothing personal against Russians though <3
Concider this:
if you picked a nation with embassies all over the world then most capitol cities all over the world would get nuked as well as that where you will find land that belongs to the nation you just picked!
any way does this give you any ideas?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfxmWbelcQ
if you picked a nation with embassies all over the world then most capitol cities all over the world would get nuked as well as that where you will find land that belongs to the nation you just picked!
any way does this give you any ideas?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqfxmWbelcQ