If you could nuke a country?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

None.

The correct answer is of course hold the world to ransom for one million dollars.

New zealand or Iceland just to be different and totally unexpected! in your face, paradise!

Sealand.....they had it coming.

Well, first I'd make it known that I have nuclear weaponry and demand everone surrenders unconditionally.
Then I nuke whatever country didn't surrender.
Well, I guess France would be safe then...

winginson:
None.

The correct answer is of course hold the world to ransom for one million dollars.

Just one million? You can probably sell your nukes for more. No, think more evil - demand money and all the ice cream in the world or something. Make them suffer!

Iran or saudi arabia nuff said

370999:

dobahci:
This is a bad thread.

You're either asking people to jokingly and arbitrarily name a country without having good reasons (in which case the responses are meaningless), or you're asking them to be serious and have good reasons and prove they're a complete fucking lunatic.

You might as well have asked, "Which ethnic group would you like to cleanse?"

I agree with this so completely. Anyone who seriously is thinking about casually committing that scale of death and is not in a Cold War scenario is insane or evil.

There's a difference about thinking about something, and actually doing. I have often thought of how I could kill people and get away with it, but I'd never do it.
Just as I'd never nuke a country if I had the chance, but it's fun to think about.

"I'm not anti-any country! Except the French, they're the world's punching bag" - Totalbiscuit
So yeah, probably the French :P

Alright! Time to murder millions of innocent, helpless people! YAY INTERNET!

Guam. It's time those guys were taken down a peg. "Oh, look at me, I'm from Guam, I went to Harvard, I'm so cool"--no, you're dead! Well, I guess that also means the United States, where I live... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmworthit.

DoPo:

winginson:
None.

The correct answer is of course hold the world to ransom for one million dollars.

Just one million? You can probably sell your nukes for more. No, think more evil - demand money and all the ice cream in the world or something. Make them suffer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs

Pinkamena:

370999:

dobahci:
This is a bad thread.

You're either asking people to jokingly and arbitrarily name a country without having good reasons (in which case the responses are meaningless), or you're asking them to be serious and have good reasons and prove they're a complete fucking lunatic.

You might as well have asked, "Which ethnic group would you like to cleanse?"

I agree with this so completely. Anyone who seriously is thinking about casually committing that scale of death and is not in a Cold War scenario is insane or evil.

There's a difference about thinking about something, and actually doing. I have often thought of how I could kill people and get away with it, but I'd never do it.
Just as I'd never nuke a country if I had the chance, but it's fun to think about.

Interestingly enough when ole Herman Kahn wrote On Thermonuclear War a lot of individuals saw it as being horrific as the very act of thinking and talking about nuclear war made it more likely. Of course another group of people actually really reccomended his book as a strong argument for disarmament.

However notice the difference between the concept of "how would you murder someone?" and "who would your murder?"? This thread isn't about how you would commit a nuclear war but against how would you drop a nuclear device against if they had no ability to retaliate. The emphasis is very much not on the art of the operation but on who the poster believes deserves a terrorist atrocity the most.

I'd bomb Antarctica.
Penguins are up to something, better be one step ahead of them
Plus, if the Thing is real, that'll be one less thing to worry about.

If I have to bomb humans, then I'd go with Ukraine, more specifically, Chrenobyl. It's long overdue for rebuilding the sarcophagus over the reactor, so might as well blow the old one to kingdom come and build over the rubble. It's not like the radiation was going to decrease to acceptable living levels anytime soon anyways.

Sonic Doctor:

Carrots_macduff:
oh internet, you so good. what would i do without you. if anyone can direct me to somewhere else i can find more casual discussions of genocide, please by all means! seriously why does this exist? what nation would i like to destroy? really? wtf people

As much as I am open for free discussion, I have to agree with you. I find nothing productive are even interesting coming from this thread.

All this thread will do is create hostility and flaming.

Edit: Case point, the post above this one.

Well, there have been a few random jokes. That have not been so bad.

Oh, and it has been helpful as it has pointed out to me how retarded some posters are. No, not politically insensitive, just educationally subnormal.

Nukes are evil. As a community it seems we agree upon this.

370999:

dobahci:
This is a bad thread.

You're either asking people to jokingly and arbitrarily name a country without having good reasons (in which case the responses are meaningless), or you're asking them to be serious and have good reasons and prove they're a complete fucking lunatic.

You might as well have asked, "Which ethnic group would you like to cleanse?"

I agree with this so completely. Anyone who seriously is thinking about casually committing that scale of death and is not in a Cold War scenario is insane or evil.

It seems we do.

Look, Guys, this thread is wrong. There are some jokes you do not make. Even on the internet.

This thread is akin to asking "If you could put the people of any given nation into a camp similar to Auschwitz, what would you do?" There is no real humour to be had here. No real point behind this thread.

Loud Hawk:
Seeing as Palestine isn't a real country, I would have to go with Iran.

Oh good god.

Right. A few things to say before I get out of here.

Palestine was there before Israel. If you think that nations should be returned to their historical boundaries then lets start with America. So all of you white boys fuck off back to Europe and give the land back to the Cherokee and other native tribes. Oh wait! Thanks to deliberately infecting them with Smallpox more than 97% of them died out! Yay! Oh, and then we can start World War 3, the War that Never Ends in an attempt to return ALL nations to their historical boundaries. Or we could admit that Israel was given land illegally and then took a lot more illegally. I am not saying Israel should be removed from the face of the earth, more that it needs to admit its past and perhaps start a process of paying the Palestinians back for the rest of time.

Poland used to dominate most of Eastern Europe. As did Lithuania. Especially when they were allied, oh boy, that was one motherwhaling huge country. I say we bring back Austria! And I mean old austria. Oh, and the Kingdom of Aragon whilst we are at it. Cause you know, those were places. Kingdoms. Empires even. Seriously, this is an inane conversation which I will now end.

Palestine is a real country. It was a real country prior to Israel and the world would be a happier place if Israel and its allies admitted this. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things.

But see? This is why this thread is bad. Because it drags people like the person I just quoted out of the woodwork. Please tell me you are a troll!

I would be happier if you are a troll.

TLDR; Nukes are bad. People who joke about Nukes are bad.

I have another fun question!

If you could rape anyone without being punished for it, who would you rape?

EDIT:

themutantlizard:
Iran or saudi arabia nuff said

Why, because one of them provides you with Oil and the other one acts as a regional counterbalance to a psychotic warmongering nation?

Antarctica, then i can take my mutated arctic animals and take over the world! Come my mutant penguins!

First, I'd make sure the nukes would be weak enough to only destroy a small city. No reason to nuke a state, most of the people in the nuclear crossfire might not even deserve it.

North Korea is a good example for a target, but those who suggested it aren't considering what that means. It's not the people's fault they're being brainwashed by their own militant government. They're starving because thanks to their oh-so-great-dam they can't farm rice to feed their own people. If it wasn't for the resources they bribe out of other countries by threatening them, they'd be starving a lot more. I'd nuke the military staff in Pyongyang and down Checkpoint Charlie, opening the borders between South and North Korea. But maybe Kim Yong Ill's son will do just the right thing and get into peace talks with South Korea on his own. Here's hoping.

Then there's Iraq/Iran/Syria (Sorry), but that again puts innocents at risk, and I'd do nothing different than what is happening in those places already, except crank it to eleven. Yes, most of them go nuts now over the koran-burnings that took place (even though no other country so far complained about all the burning flags so far, flag-vendors must love this), but again, brainwashed into false security, this time via religion. So a mini nuke for each of their governments. Better check your seat twice in parliament next time.

Also on the list, yes, America. However, since there's no government left what-so-ever, certain CEO's of corporations and the real behind-the-scenes jerks get some grade A Gamma bursts (Wait, do they prepare for that? Is that why they all usually have the fried-chicken-brown tan? O_o).

There's also Russia, but that could trigger WW3. While Americans would hold back from firing straight away (even though the nukes are falling apart, hence two new reactors, yay -.-) because the F22's are grounded, the nautical fleet close to the drydock for repairs and the troops just came home from a war. No one in the military will enter another one for some time now. But Russia's Government wouldn't care that much about the aftermath as it would about prestige in their political ranks. So, again, it's down to Putin. As in under the seat.

In the long run, a nuke isn't even cost effective for the task at hand. It would only take a couple well placed shots from a drone/siper rifle. The only ones hit are usually never the real men behind the curtains.

Then again, I don't even need a nuke or assassins. At this point in our capital system, all you'd have to do is Hyperinflate a couple of resources on the stock market, drive people to withdraw their money from banks, and then start robbing houses when no one is home. Then burn the cash.

All of it.

Oh wait, you meant it jokingly who I'd nuke?

Umm, no one.

370999:

SNIP

Interestingly enough when ole Herman Kahn wrote On Thermonuclear War a lot of individuals saw it as being horrific as the very act of thinking and talking about nuclear war made it more likely. Of course another group of people actually really reccomended his book as a strong argument for disarmament.

However notice the difference between the concept of "how would you murder someone?" and "who would your murder?"? This thread isn't about how you would commit a nuclear war but against how would you drop a nuclear device against if they had no ability to retaliate. The emphasis is very much not on the art of the operation but on who the poster believes deserves a terrorist atrocity the most.

Ah, you're right about that. I think that's wrong as well, and I haven't got any "special country" in my head that I think deserves to be nuked. It would be fun to nuke North Korea, but I don't think they deserve it. I'd just do it to see how they'd react, not because I feel they deserve to be destroyed.

South Africa. Seriously, that country is a shithole and the world would be better off without it.

Pinkamena:

370999:

SNIP

Interestingly enough when ole Herman Kahn wrote On Thermonuclear War a lot of individuals saw it as being horrific as the very act of thinking and talking about nuclear war made it more likely. Of course another group of people actually really reccomended his book as a strong argument for disarmament.

However notice the difference between the concept of "how would you murder someone?" and "who would your murder?"? This thread isn't about how you would commit a nuclear war but against how would you drop a nuclear device against if they had no ability to retaliate. The emphasis is very much not on the art of the operation but on who the poster believes deserves a terrorist atrocity the most.

Ah, you're right about that. I think that's wrong as well, and I haven't got any "special country" in my head that I think deserves to be nuked. It would be fun to nuke North Korea, but I don't think they deserve it. I'd just do it to see how they'd react, not because I feel they deserve to be destroyed.

I hope you can understand why individuals feel a bit nervous when you throw nuclear and fun in the same sentence. War is a tragedy. I'm not a pacifist so I believe sometimes it's a necessary tragedy, a preferable one but nuclear war is even greater. Now I would concede there are certain situations where nuclear war is probably not only logically but morally just. Possibly.

But casually talking about nuking a country is well, it's in bad taste for me.

Even say North Korea which has a shitty government, I feel sympathy for the people. I certainly don't want them to die.

So I'm out. I'm sorry but I just can't engage in this conversation without losing my temper.

370999:

I hope you can understand why individuals feel a bit nervous when you throw nuclear and fun in the same sentence. War is a tragedy. I'm not a pacifist so I believe sometimes it's a necessary tragedy, a preferable one but nuclear war is even greater. Now I would concede there are certain situations where nuclear war is probably not only logically but morally just. Possibly.

But casually talking about nuking a country is well, it's in bad taste for me.

Even say North Korea which has a shitty government, I feel sympathy for the people. I certainly don't want them to die.

So I'm out. I'm sorry but I just can't engage in this conversation without losing my temper.

Well, I guess that's it for this conversation. Let me just say that I agree on you on most of those things. But I still think it would be interesting to see how a country like north korea would react to getting bombed. Yes, it would be a horrible, horrible thing, but I can't say I wouldn't be excited about it.

ChromaticWolfen:
Ireland. I sick of living here for so long. I want to go back to the British Empire. Home is where the heart is. My heart tells me to nuke Ireland so that it would force my parents to move back to England so that I may live there forever more.

You sir are a man after my own heart.
I'd also nuke Ireland.
For different reasons.
Or at least say "you are now part of our empire, obey or die." > >

I would nuke US simply for the shits and giggles

Iran. No doubt about it at all.

Atlantis, it's out there, and I say we get rid of it.

I'm an American, I'd nuke my own country and Israel. For world peace. I'd have a statue in my honor.

Razada:
This thread is akin to asking "If you could put the people of any given nation into a camp similar to Auschwitz, what would you do?"

A cake? I can make a cake.

But I see how that isn't as funny.

The US. Probably New York. Just because I would love to give them a taste of their own medicine and maybe the threat of further attacks would get them to stop acting like world police.

Monkeyman O'Brien:
The US. Probably New York. Just because I would love to give them a taste of their own medicine and maybe the threat of further attacks would get them to stop acting like world police.

More than likely it would have the opposite effect. New York got attacked once already, and the US's response was to invade two countries.

Nuking ... countries ... why? Nobody deserves that, and no country has ever done anything to me ...

Even if I could nuke any country, I wouldn't. Why would I want to bring about that level of destruction on anyone? Nice to know everyone here has such genocidal thoughts.

I live in Iran and came to this thread solely to see how many "Iran" replies there were going to be, and I'm positively surprised there aren't that many! Congratulations Escapist for having a low density of simpletons that believe everything the media spoonfeeds to them.

As for the question, nowhere. I'd rather die 10 times over. Living with the innocent blood of millions of people on my hands is not something I am able to do. Nukes are retarded weapons and should have never existed.

I wouldn't nuke a country. I would demand all major nations pay me an obscene amount of money OR they would be first.

Mwahahahahahahahaha

Considering all nations mostly consist of innocents I wouldnt nuke any. For fun however lets nuke France. Im British what else do yu expect.

Monkeyman O'Brien:
The US. Probably New York. Just because I would love to give them a taste of their own medicine and maybe the threat of further attacks would get them to stop acting like world police.

... yeah, you obviously don't know the US very well lol. The main reason we're acting like world police right now in the first place is because over a decade ago some douche flew a plane into one building in New York, so I'm pretty sure a nuke would just make it that much worse ...

Sweden, the only things that have slithered out of that miserable hole are Pirates, "SWE?" brats and open-source using kneejerks who believe "the man" is hiding all the cancer cures because they somehow make money off it

None. I've got nothing against any people of any nation, just their leaders.

None, I'm not an arsehole and people are inherently similar. I think that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked