Would you support a pre-emptive strike?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for mr_poodles123
mr_poodles123

1661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 mr_poodles123
Member since 2009 • 1661 Posts

Would you support a nuclear bomb being dropped on a nation that had obviously developed nuclear weapons and were 99% likely to use them on western civilization, even if it meant killing a million civilians? Also, the leaders of this country are insane and have blocked all contacts with us and refuse to talk.

Avatar image for bloodling
bloodling

5822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 bloodling
Member since 2006 • 5822 Posts

nope, there are better bombs.

Avatar image for Ken_Masterz
Ken_Masterz

600

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Ken_Masterz
Member since 2010 • 600 Posts
If I could see video of them loading the nuclear bombs into the planes and missles and have evidence of flight plans. Yes. Cause at the end of the day it comes down to a "million civilians" or my family. Sorry my wife and kids win.
Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

57096

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#4 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 57096 Posts

Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?

Avatar image for Ken_Masterz
Ken_Masterz

600

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Ken_Masterz
Member since 2010 • 600 Posts

Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?

sonicare
To be fair in my answer I assumed that it was the only option on the table. If not I would indeed change the weapon used.
Avatar image for mr_poodles123
mr_poodles123

1661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 mr_poodles123
Member since 2009 • 1661 Posts

Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?

sonicare
They have missile silos and huge military factories in a city and something smaller would give them time to launch a nuke.
Avatar image for scorch-62
scorch-62

29763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 scorch-62
Member since 2006 • 29763 Posts
Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?sonicare
If you're gonna hit first, you gotta hit 'em fast and hard? idk
Avatar image for mr_poodles123
mr_poodles123

1661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 mr_poodles123
Member since 2009 • 1661 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"]Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?scorch-62
If you're gonna hit first, you gotta hit 'em fast and hard? idk

This.
Avatar image for Baconbits2004
Baconbits2004

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 Baconbits2004
Member since 2009 • 12602 Posts
[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?

mr_poodles123
They have missile silos and huge military factories in a city and something smaller would give them time to launch a nuke.

And essentially be sending our troops to slaughter. :o I support bombing them. Take that whoever you are.  .... who are we talking about?
Avatar image for Roushrsh
Roushrsh

3351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Roushrsh
Member since 2005 • 3351 Posts
If we can prove they have them and state that they will, than they sure as hell deserve that fate on them before they use it themselves.
Avatar image for smc91352
smc91352

7786

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 smc91352
Member since 2009 • 7786 Posts
no.
Avatar image for mr_poodles123
mr_poodles123

1661

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 mr_poodles123
Member since 2009 • 1661 Posts
no.smc91352
Care to elaborate?
Avatar image for smc91352
smc91352

7786

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 smc91352
Member since 2009 • 7786 Posts
Care to elaborate?mr_poodles123
no.smc91352
Avatar image for Steyrvolt
Steyrvolt

1762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#14 Steyrvolt
Member since 2009 • 1762 Posts

There is still a chance that they won't attack, and if we attack first, there is no guarantee that they don't have other nukes to strike back with. Striking first is a very dangerous move. That's why Launch on Warning and Launch Under Attack are such dangerous defensive stances. I'm purely a supporter of Launch on Impact, though I certainly understand the feeling of wanting to attempt to take out all of their munitions. It's just not worth the risk. Most countries are smart enough to not actually start the end of the world, even if they threaten it.

Avatar image for CRS98
CRS98

9036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#15 CRS98
Member since 2004 • 9036 Posts
By those circumstances, yes.
Avatar image for -The-G-Man-
-The-G-Man-

6414

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 -The-G-Man-
Member since 2007 • 6414 Posts
are we assuming our support or lack of support matters?
Avatar image for XD4NTESINF3RNOX
XD4NTESINF3RNOX

7438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#17 XD4NTESINF3RNOX
Member since 2008 • 7438 Posts

No, unless they were zombies..

Avatar image for calzeta930
calzeta930

720

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 calzeta930
Member since 2010 • 720 Posts

well consider theneighbor nations and how the nuclear attack may affect them via the winds carrying hazardous material in the air or even by the water. Also how the worlds nations would respond to a nuclear attack. Other types of explosive devices can be used to cause major damage to the hostile nationsinfrastructure.