Author Topic: Nuclear Retaliation (Read 5399 times)

vh · « **on:** December 19, 2011, 07:18:08 PM »

Imagine you're the leader of a nuclear country (you posses nuclear weapons). A war starts and you are targeted. Hundreds of millions of your innocent citizens are killed. Do you retaliate? You probably won't kill the enemy leaders in their bunker, but hundreds of millions of other innocent citizens will die. What would you do

On one hand, it's the whole point of nuclear deterrent. Or you just attack..out of spite i guess
Fiah's opinion
[21:11] <+Aeryana> skirty, who would'nt retaliate
[21:11] <+Aeryana> They killed your fucking citizens, kill tiehrs.

On the other hand, you're not getting back at the people who hurt you/ your country, just killing their people.

If you were the mayor of a city, and a mayor of a neighboring city became a murdered and killed someone from your city. Would it be justifiable to go and kill someone randomly in their city? Is it a different case?

FiahOwl · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2011, 07:20:10 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '49840'.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2011, 07:21:53 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '49841'.

Naru523 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2011, 10:32:26 PM »

Eat the enemy's government and world peace is established.

In all seriousness, it would be a bit more senseful if we could nuke the enemy. I mean, the opposing side SHOULD know that their civilians would be killed, and a lot of protests could be going on in the country.

Personally, I think the United Nations would be able to stop the nuclear war, since they stopped the Pakistan-Indian conflict which almost lead to a nuclear war.

vh · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2011, 12:39:31 AM »

Well, you would have nukes too, the enemy nukes you first. Is there any point in firing back when all your people are dead? Thats the whole point on nuclear deterrence and it just failed

vh · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2011, 12:41:44 AM »

Quote from: FiahOwl on December 19, 2011, 07:20:10 PM

Quote from: mudkipz on December 19, 2011, 07:18:08 PM
If you were the mayor of a city, and a mayor of a neighboring city became a murdered and killed someone from your city. Would it be justifiable to go and kill someone randomly in their city? Is it a different case?

They didn't destroy your entire city, which would be what a nuclear war would be.

Ok what if one nukes was sent and it destroyed chicago. Would you hit back with one nuke, a whole arsenal, or none.
I don't see why him killing one citizen instead of a whole bunch matters.

Quote from: FiahOwl on December 19, 2011, 07:21:53 PM

Quote from: mudkipz on December 19, 2011, 07:18:08 PM
Imagine you're the leader of a nuclear country (you posses nuclear weapons). A war starts and you are targeted. Hundreds of millions of your innocent citizens are killed. Do you retaliate? You probably won't kill the enemy leaders in their bunker, but hundreds of millions of other innocent citizens will die. What would you do

See the U.S. and Russia during the cold war.

yeah the kinda didn't do anything. as in nuclear war.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2011, 09:23:47 AM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '49906'.

vh · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2011, 01:08:22 PM »

Wait, what? Chicago was destroyed in the Cold War? What!?!?

"They would have known it would still be suicide. The moment we see the nukes on our radars, we would have striked back. Hard."

I doubt the leaders of the soviet union would stay around for the nukes. they'd be underground, or somewhere in south america.

they only people you'd nuke are innocent citizens.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2011, 01:09:13 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '49934'.

atomic7732 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2011, 02:41:09 PM »

Funny we were watching "War Games" yesterday and today in programming class...

Code: [Select]

The only way to win is 
not to play.

deoxy99 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 20, 2011, 03:02:24 PM »

Quote from: atomic7732 on December 20, 2011, 02:41:09 PM

Code: [Select]
The only way to win is not to play.

Quoted for truth.

vh · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:40:17 PM »

Quote from: atomic7732 on December 20, 2011, 02:41:09 PM

Funny we were watching "War Games" yesterday and today in programming class...

Code: [Select]
The only way to win is not to play.

Unfortunately, war isn't really a one-sided thing. If they "play" you either "play" or die in a hole. kol.

atomic7732 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:43:24 PM »

It's about nuclear war, only. I suppose it's also about tic-tac-toe.

It means that why cause a nuclear war with some country if they are just going to do the same back to you. Two destroyed countries. That's all you achieve. Two completely and utterly destroyed countries. Everyone loses.

vh · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2011, 05:05:05 PM »

um, extremists from all sorts of countries who rise to power and want to nuke us after using some twisted interpretation from their holy text as a message

Bla · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2011, 04:15:27 AM »

How is it a twisted interpretation to base "extremist views" on these verses?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html

It's more like the verses themselves which are extremist and twisted, and some religious people who are just not taking them literally. And it's the same in the Bible.

But no, I don't think I would retaliate. Maybe it would depend. If it wasn't a world wide nuclear war, but a country like Nazi Germany was nuking my country, and it was likely to take over the rest of the world if not stopped, the red buttons might be too tempting. Yes, millions of innocent people would die, but I think it would be worse if all of the human population would have to live in a nightmare forever.
Then again, how long will countries last? I think every few centuries they will either have changed so much that they can't be compared to what they once were, or their governments will have been overthrown.

I think the idea of getting revenge against a few individuals which you're unlikely to hit, while killing millions of innocent people in the process, is an extremely bad and irrational excuse to do it.

FiahOwl · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2011, 08:10:20 AM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '50094'.

Darvince · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2011, 10:12:16 AM »

Quote from: Bla on December 21, 2011, 04:15:27 AM

How is it a twisted interpretation to base "extremist views" on these verses?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html

It's more like the verses themselves which are extremist and twisted, and some religious people who are just not taking them literally. And it's the same in the Bible.

So I herd AmericaxIran is now a viable nation shipfic. (as nearly all adults in the United States are religious or very religious, and almost all people in Iran are either religious, tortured, or very religious.)

Bla · « **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2011, 10:29:16 AM »

What does shipfic mean?

Quote from: FiahOwl on December 21, 2011, 08:10:20 AM

You see mudkipz, you need to input more factors. Like am I a superpower and a superpower launches nukes at me, etc.

atomic7732 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2011, 11:26:12 AM »

(relation)shipping fiction

vh · « **Reply #19 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:00:52 PM »

Quote from: Bla on December 21, 2011, 04:15:27 AM

How is it a twisted interpretation to base "extremist views" on these verses?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html

It's more like the verses themselves which are extremist and twisted, and some religious people who are just not taking them literally. And it's the same in the Bible.

But no, I don't think I would retaliate. Maybe it would depend. If it wasn't a world wide nuclear war, but a country like Nazi Germany was nuking my country, and it was likely to take over the rest of the world if not stopped, the red buttons might be too tempting. Yes, millions of innocent people would die, but I think it would be worse if all of the human population would have to live in a nightmare forever.
Then again, how long will countries last? I think every few centuries they will either have changed so much that they can't be compared to what they once were, or their governments will have been overthrown.

I think the idea of getting revenge against a few individuals which you're unlikely to hit, while killing millions of innocent people in the process, is an extremely bad and irrational excuse to do it.

lol i doubt there's only 1 way to translate a text and the people who translated probably did so in a way they wanted it to go.

Bla · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:30:01 PM »

That's true, the English Bibles are likely very different from the original texts.
But usually people have some version which they consider the "only true, infallible version", like Westboro Baptist Church and the King James Bible.

vh · « **Reply #21 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:31:39 PM »

Quote from: Bla on December 21, 2011, 01:30:01 PM

That's true, the English Bibles are likely very different from the original texts.
But usually people have some version which they consider the "only true, infallible version", like Westboro Babtist Church and the King James Bible.

i lol'd babtist

Bla · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:33:25 PM »

Kol I meant baptist!