Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, definitely.

84 (53.8%)

Probably.

32 (20.5%)

Maybe, maybe not.

15 (9.6%)

Probably not.

14 (9%)

No, definitely not.

6 (3.8%)

Don't know.

5 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

[thobal]

Look at it this way. If they launch all their missiles at you and you know that some of your missiles will survive, why retaliate? They'll be under your thumb.

[Bauglir]

Because nobody is stupid enough to launch all their missiles the first time (or, if they do, they can just build more), and if you don't retaliate, you suggest to them that nuking you is consequence-free.

[Criptfeind]

Look at it this way. If they launch all their missiles at you and you know that some of your missiles will survive, why retaliate? They'll be under your thumb.

Cause your country would be devastated and would never be able to support the following war, and the missiles that survive would be less then the amount launched at you, so you know that they will be more powerful then you afterwards. Also known as you will be under their thumb.

[ChairmanPoo]

if I was a ruler of a country, and a nuclear war was about to happen (nukes already coming at my country) I wouldn't launch nukes in retaliation, as what would that achieve? less people&wildlife alive, so more of a chance all of humanity and nature would be destroyed. I don't think everyone would think like this though...

in other words, no, I don't think I could launch nukes and start a war, but there would definately be some willing, hell, even happy to start a nuclear war

Next time you and me are the rulers of two countries in a war I will remember this and nuke the shit out of you for quick and easy victory.

and win what exactly? One reason nukes are impopular is that there's not much profit in planting your flag over a radiactive wasteland.

[Supercharazad]

In my opinion, Yellowstone would be a good place to bomb. It's a supervolcano, so I'm guessing a good explosion has serious potential to fuck up the immediate area, not to mention volcanic winter over a large area.


Also: "it appears that the only winning move is not to play"

[redacted123]

Also: "it appears that the only winning move is to do nothing"

Pretty sure the quote is "The only winning move is not to play" which seems to me far more appropriate as "do nothing" simply suggests not reacting.

[Criptfeind]

if I was a ruler of a country, and a nuclear war was about to happen (nukes already coming at my country) I wouldn't launch nukes in retaliation, as what would that achieve? less people&wildlife alive, so more of a chance all of humanity and nature would be destroyed. I don't think everyone would think like this though...

in other words, no, I don't think I could launch nukes and start a war, but there would definately be some willing, hell, even happy to start a nuclear war

Next time you and me are the rulers of two countries in a war I will remember this and nuke the shit out of you for quick and easy victory.

and win what exactly? One reason nukes are impopular is that there's not much profit in planting your flag over a radioactive wasteland.

Well, assuming the real world example of the cold war between the USSR and several other countries, which ever side nuked the other, if the other had not nuked back, would now be the sole super power in the world, invincible to other nations and being able to do whatever they wanted with the world. And of course they would be totally secure from attacks from the other, seeing as the other is just a pile of radioactive dust.

[Supercharazad]

Also: "it appears that the only winning move is to do nothing"

Pretty sure the quote is "The only winning move is not to play" which seems to me far more appropriate as "do nothing" simply suggests not reacting.

Eh, I havn't watched that movie in ages. "The only winning move is not to play" sounds correct, though.

[thobal]

if I was a ruler of a country, and a nuclear war was about to happen (nukes already coming at my country) I wouldn't launch nukes in retaliation, as what would that achieve? less people&wildlife alive, so more of a chance all of humanity and nature would be destroyed. I don't think everyone would think like this though...

in other words, no, I don't think I could launch nukes and start a war, but there would definately be some willing, hell, even happy to start a nuclear war

Next time you and me are the rulers of two countries in a war I will remember this and nuke the shit out of you for quick and easy victory.

and win what exactly? One reason nukes are impopular is that there's not much profit in planting your flag over a radioactive wasteland.

Well, assuming the real world example of the cold war between the USSR and several other countries, which ever side nuked the other, if the other had not nuked back, would now be the sole super power in the world, invincible to other nations and being able to do whatever they wanted with the world. And of course they would be totally secure from attacks from the other, seeing as the other is just a pile of radioactive dust.

Only they wouldn't be totally secure, as the other side would still have a substantial arsenal at their disposal. Given that the attack would likely have been a surprise to both populations, the so-called "loser" would be in the perfect position to use terrorism (via truck or missile) to exact tribute from the apparent "winner." Sure you got most of their cities by surprise, but imagine the panic when millions of your citizens realise they are just as vulnerable as the day before the war, except they have no deterrent. They'd be demanding their own surrender in a few weeks.

[Soadreqm]

if I was a ruler of a country, and a nuclear war was about to happen (nukes already coming at my country) I wouldn't launch nukes in retaliation, as what would that achieve? less people&wildlife alive, so more of a chance all of humanity and nature would be destroyed. I don't think everyone would think like this though...

in other words, no, I don't think I could launch nukes and start a war, but there would definately be some willing, hell, even happy to start a nuclear war

Next time you and me are the rulers of two countries in a war I will remember this and nuke the shit out of you for quick and easy victory.

Can you think of a realistic scenario where a ruler of one country can know with no chance of error that the other country would not retaliate if attacked with nuclear weapons? If I was the Emperor of Oceania, and found myself suddenly playing Mutual Assured Destruction, I probably wouldn't bother launching any nukes either. What difference would it make? I've already lost. But how could the King of Eurasia know that?

And if he did know, why would he want to nuke me? The main reason for shooting first is to stop the other guy from shooting back, and that's not an issue here.

[Nikov]

Because suppose they hold back most of their arsenal and then invade with a conventional force once your military is vaporized. If you don't bother to retaliate, you're annexed.

[Lord Shonus]

Nobody would launch everything at once. The most likely scenario would be a limited first strike by one power in the midst of a conventional war, targeting key strategic assets with the most accurate and powerful weapons availiable. In such a scenario, a retaliatory strike could end the exchange there, either by defeating the enemy command and control network at the same time your own is destroyed, or by impressing on the enemy high command that you are still willing and able to shoot back. Of course, it also has the potential to escalate.

[Bauglir]

Hey, do you want to give future rulers the impression that the casual use of nukes in warfare is acceptable policy? Hell, no. You want them to know it can lead to nothing that is not an enormous clusterfuck that destroys them, too.

[Nadaka]

Nuclear war isn't as bad as people say.

Ok, let me rephrase that, humanity is incapable of committing suicide by nuclear bomb, much less destroy the biosphere, much less the entire earth. There are not enough bombs to take us out.

Reclamation of the strike areas could take decades, but for a global nuclear war most nations are going to have about 1% of their land hit. Most of that is going to be cities, so starvation won't be that bad. Nuclear Winter is also somewhat overblown as shown by the recent volcanic eruptions providing only mild changes. Billions would die, but the biggest challenge would be a backlash political movement in the aftermath that wipes out modern knowledge and causes us to regress to a pre industrial civilization.

[Il Palazzo]

Sounds like death would be preferable.