just for fun let's say.....?

Question

that another nation launched a nuclear missle at the US.would all you people ,who think that America is the root of all things bad,say we used too many if we responded with 5 missles?we should have used just one because that was all that was used on us.

or how many would say we shouldn't have retaliated at all because we brought it on ourselves?

c'mon get past all the MAD stuff and end of the world trivia.
answer the question.only 2 have so far.

Answer 1

the liberals would complain if we retaliated with just one bomb, think of the country's sovereign rights to kill other people for no reason, if we killed them back it might hurt their feelings and stunt their creativeness.

Answer 2

Yeah, that's fun? If another nation launched a nuclear missile, it would pretty much be the end of the world (for humanity, at least) because everyone would just start throwing out whatever they had. And all that fallout gets into the environment, and travels in the atmosphere. Do some research on how Chernobyl effected other countries, it's scary.

Answer 3

Grow up, It's Jompeizo. "Not the root of all things bad but pretty much the trunk of the tree?" I've got this feeling now like maybe you're going to share with us the rest of that illustration. Like, what are the roots? What's the rest of the trunk? What are the limbs? What seeds are falling and what leaves are dying? You know, that mixed up litle metaphor may sound cute in your mind, like Earl saying "just for fun let's say we start a nuclear war..." but, trust me, it's not cute and it doesn't amount to diddlysquat.

Look, if anyone starts blasting away with the thermonuclear warheads, this world is going into the shitter like no one can imagine, and for that reason, it just isn't going to happen.

Well, certainly not like Earl so blithely conjectures.

It's not an absolute that one nuclear strike will invoke a terrible punitive counterstrike, nor that a counterstrike will lead to global nuclear war. No one wants that, and that's what will stay the hands on all those buttons.

My God, how can you so casually toss such horrific ideas around, like a discussion of a pep rally fracas? Does this even get through to you on any real level?

Answer 4

I'd hope there would be a grown up in charge in the event of a nuclear strike on the US, and that the response would be based on school yard politics.

It would make sense that any reponse would be proportional and effective. It would need stated aims (those aims could be to bomb them back to the stone age for example, but would that be helpful and protect the rest of the US in the future?)

It might be that the Defence Chiefs decide that a conventional strike to neutralise the threat might be more effective, and then some sort of action to topple the regime that fired the missile... (firing the missile would be a war crime, and the president or whoever of the county the initiated the first stike would face trail)

Answer 5

If America sent 5 back and then they sent another 7 to America...and so on.......who would win no one. Who would lose both countries. So hopefully America will find a different way to retaliate and hopefully it would be a way to bring about peace not death and destruction. Difficult for the American leader to decide exactly what to do, but then being president of the worlds Super power isn`t a easy job.

Answer 6

Nuke 'em. Provided we have not initiated hostilities, the other nuclear nations SHOULD back us and prevent TOTAL nuclear annihilation.

Answer 7

5 so no one else thinks it is worth doing.

Answer 8

Nuke them back to the stone age.

Answer 9

i think that we should do nothing. I like my revenge, but this isn't my problem, it's george w. bush's problem.