Would you, as Americans, support the U.S. Gov in INITIATING a nuclear war with another major nuclear power?

Question

...without any prior input from Americans, and without giving the American people any prior notice? ...Even though you could be reasonably certain that such a war would kill the vast majority of Americans.

Sure, super man, those weapons seem to be doing a bang-up job in Iraq.

Answer 1

Sure, if I truly wanted to suffer from the agonizing effects of radioactive fallout.
"Go Nucular Team Go!"

Seriously, who in their right mind would even dare suggest going with a nuclear option to settle a petty score? Then again, there are the chickenhawks in PNAC who would advocate this kind of lunacy.

Answer 2

Such a war would kill the vast majority of the planet, never mind about the Americans. Anyone who would initiate a nuclear attack is sub-human, whether it's against a country with nukes or without them.

Answer 3

Absolutely not! I am opposed to the U.S. (or any country) initiating wars without major provovation in general, espeically nuclear wars!
It would be a stupid idea, almost everyone in the U.S. and whatever country they went to war with would get killed, not to mention plenty of people in nearby countries who would get killed from the fallout! Unfortunately, i've heard that George W. Bush wants to start a nuclear war against Iran, which probably has nuclear weapons by now. However, that was almost 2 years ago, so there's hope that it may not be true. Not that he'd be likely to announce it publicly if he were planning it.

Answer 4

Nukes are antiques! Try watching the Military Channel. At least you would be up to date on the weapons of today.

The US now has Paritot Missles. These are anti-missile missiles. Only a very small percentage of any attack could actually land much of anything on US soil.

We can blow away entire nations, without Nuclear weapons, we have MOABs. 22,000lb conventional smart bombs with nuke blast power but NO radiation. Of course anyone that wished to surrender before the blast would be allowed to do so. Leaflets dropped before the blast could tell those that wished to surrender where and how go about it.

M…..Mother
O…..of
A…..all
B…..bombs

WE have Tomahawks with fuel-air explosive war heads. The big Tomahawks can carry 10 war heads. They can burn entire cities with fuel-air explosive.

First the MOAB, when the shock wave clears, in comes the Tomahawk. The entire city is flattened and then burned with fuel-air explosive. The fuel-air explosive burns everything left and it burns off all the oxygen. There is no way to survive!

With our satellites we can target every city in any terrorist nation, and then lock them all into a firing solution. Then at 3am any morning the order was given, every city targeted could be blown clean off the face of the Earth, all at the same time.

We could land our troops 30 minutes later and own the entire nation. There wouldn’t even be anyone left to shoot at our soldiers. The only thing that would be left are giant smoking holes in the sand. Maybe then the other nations would say “ What ever you do don’t **** off the Americans! They can blow away our whole nation with the push of a button!”

Maybe being “ Dust in the Wind” would stop all stupid BS America bashing. At least to our face, what they to themselves behind our backs doesn’t matter.

Then the US has airplane mounted chemical lasers. These knock missiles down before they can reach orbit. That rains the nukes right down on our enemies our land!

If I know this from watching TV, just think about the things the US military has that are still secret. The devestation the US military could unleash on an enemy boggles the mind.

What the world has seen so far is our military with their hands tied behind their back by our politicians. God help the fools that provoke an all out full blown military response!

Answer 5

It sort of takes the surprise out of it when you let the whole country in on matters of National Security. I feel confident that the US Government would only work in our best interest when it came to nuclear war. This decision would not be made in a bubble.

Answer 6

Never.
If we need to start a war, we can use something other than nuclear weapons. There's no reason to use a weapon that will still affect victims generations later (fallout).

Answer 7

As this would lead to the complete destruction of the earth and probable "nuclear winter" for at least 100 years, I don't believe I would support it. I will take my chances with the Apocalypse of Armageddon instead.

Answer 8

That is the job of the President and based on who holds that office currently, I really don't like your chances. He will probably invade Iran a mere few weeks before he leaves Office. Just one last F-You, and icing on the cake of turning 'Amerika' Third-World.

Answer 9

That wouldn't happen and if it did, I'm sure it would be for a good reason.

-And if we have to choose between nuking Iran and letting them get nukes...well....I think the choice is clear.
Only the Iranian people can save themselves now. Their dictator and the mullahs will bring fire down upon Iranian cities. May God be with them.

Answer 10

Supporting a nuclear exchange with another nuclear country? Nope, can't say I'd be too thrilled with that.