2006-10-27 03:15:01 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
USA - world peace
2006-10-27 08:10:00 · answer #1 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What no reprisals? There's such a thing called the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine which is based on the idea that if you nuke someone, everybody dies.
For the record though, I'd nuke North Korea.
2006-10-27 04:16:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's probably best you keep me away from the big red button altogether, I'd just nuke everyone!
I'd be tempted to try and end world hunger in one stroke and nuke Africa, though to be quite honest that would only be with my third or fourth bomb - the first two would be aimed directly at the White House and 10 Downing Street, so that I could become the totally undisputed master of the world. Not that they'd be much of a world left to rule, as by the time I'm finished entire continents would resemble something out of 'Mad Max' (nuclear wastlelands) and people would live in fear of mutant motorcycle gangs or something!
2006-10-27 03:41:18 · answer #3 · answered by Mental Mickey 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The implication being that the only reson we don't is because of fear of reprisal?
I would not want to nuke any country. I may hate the governments of many but not enough to kill millions of inocent people.
How long have you been a sociopath?
2006-10-27 03:25:51 · answer #4 · answered by PETER F 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
None, you do not nuke a country, you are in reality nuking innocent men, women, children, unborn children, pets and wildlife.
Perhaps you should consider living by the Kung Fu creed:
It is better to avoid than to check.
It is better to check than to hurt.
It is better to hurt that to mame.
It is better to mame than to kill because all life is precious, and none can ever be replaced.
Congratulations Katie B. Out of 10 respondents to your Question???, you had only one affirmative reply.
Forgive me for inquiring, but have you ever considered a psychological evaluation as there could be the possibility of a clear and present danger residing within.
I can only imagine how a question like that was conceived.
If I have humiliated you, . . . .that was my intention. It's refered to as tough love for a fellow human being.
Darryl S.
2006-10-27 03:37:29 · answer #5 · answered by Stingray 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't nuke anybody that isn't about to nuke us. As much as I despise the leaders of places like Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, there are lots of people who don't deserve to die because of their leader's sins.
It sounds like it would solve problems, the proverbial "nip it in the bud" (although these countries' leaders are long past the "bud" stage), but it isn't. Sorry, your solution is too much.
2006-10-27 03:26:05 · answer #6 · answered by Rabbit 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
None.
The Earth is looking crappier everyday, why would anyone want to make it worse? The Earth will be a dead planet soon enough.
2006-10-27 04:36:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What and kill millions of innocent people?
You need to go back to school maybe it would educate and enlighten you.
You may even learn how to spell properly.
2006-10-27 03:25:45 · answer #8 · answered by bluenose 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't nuke anyone! it's not about fear of reprisal, it's about not wanting to kill millions of people.....................
Oh, alright, if you push me, it would have to be America. I've never quite forgiven them for what Disney did to Winnie the Pooh!
2006-10-27 03:20:23 · answer #9 · answered by Avondrow 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Iran, Syria and North Korea.
2006-10-27 04:08:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wales.
Because the prevailing winds would carry the radiation over Scotland, and then the Scots would all die that much more slowly.
2006-10-27 04:22:39 · answer #11 · answered by George D 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋