Would you support a pre-emptive strike?

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.

nope, there are better bombs.

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

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

sonicare

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

sonicare

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

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Why does the pre-emptive strike have to be nuclear?scorch-62

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

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

mr_poodles123

no.smc91352

Care to elaborate?mr_poodles123

no.smc91352

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.

No, unless they were zombies..

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.