If you could nuke a country?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

How about Israel and Palestine. We'll soon solve that fucking argument!

I would encourage Rick Perry to follow through on his ignorant dreams of a secessionist Texas and then nuke the stupid out of him.

Private Custard:
How about Israel and Palestine. We'll soon solve that fucking argument!

"If you can't play nice, noone can have that land!" *Yoink!*

A kindergarten solution for kindergarten diplomacy, perhaps?

Muspelheim:

Private Custard:
How about Israel and Palestine. We'll soon solve that fucking argument!

"If you can't play nice, noone can have that land!" *Yoink!*

A kindergarten solution for kindergarten diplomacy, perhaps?

It's the only thing that'll work. Otherwise they'll stay stuck in 'rocket attacks and bombings lead to airstrikes and special forces incursion' (or is it the other way around?!!) for all eternity.

Idiots!

I have no real problems with Chinese people. But I think the world would be a much better place with less humans on it and a much weaker world economy. Therefor sorry China, but you've got to go by by. Second option would be the US for the same reason listed above.
If I couldn't nuke a whole country to oblivion, but only cities/regions then I wouldn't bother. It wouldn't chance the balance by enough, and only be pointless suffering.
Also sorry to say, but I do considere Isreal to be a rogue nation. I wouldn't want to kill it's people, but destabalizing the country to such a degree all the inhabitants would flee seems like a just thing to me. So maybe a few small tactical nukes on purely militairistic targets. (Sorry for any Hebrew people here, but you can't convince me you have any right to take land from Palistina and call it your own. There is nothing wrong with a little colonization, but if you chase the natives out / destroy their culture I can't condone it)
Otherwise a extremly small one on vatican city. Sorry Catholics, but the Vatican has been a corrupt and extremly morally flexible (at best) or evil (at worst) organization pretty much from the moment it began. It has brought some good things to the world, and there have been many amazing catholic people with a high rank in the Vatican. But they don't weigh up against the monstrousities the Vatican commited, and the wrong doings they are commiting right now. Again sorry to all Catholics, I have no beef with you guys. It's your highest official that I hate. Kinda with Bush and the Americans, (but at least Bush was funny)

Muspelheim:

Private Custard:
How about Israel and Palestine. We'll soon solve that fucking argument!

"If you can't play nice, noone can have that land!" *Yoink!*

A kindergarten solution for kindergarten diplomacy, perhaps?

Kinda have to agree with this one. But it's an oversimplification of the problem. By now the land belongs to the country that's the least wrong, at this point that's Palastina.

Obviously none, I'm not a mass-murdering maniac.

If I were forced to, it would be Tuvalu; I believe it is the second-least populated country in the world, and as it is an Oceanic country the fallout wouldn't be AS bad since human population is more sparse in that area, compared to nuking Vatican City, the least-populated, which would also involve nuking Rome and spreading fallout all over Europe.

Why is everybody talking about radiation/fallout. In the modern day we bomb with H boms, nuclear fussion of two (okay likely a hell of a lot more) H atoms in to 1 He atom. Leaves hardly of any radiactive (He is the second most stable atom in the universe) material behind. Also they deliver a much bigger punch, and you only need water instead of urinaium (which I'm told is rather expensive).
I must admitt I don't known the exact workings of a hydrogen fussion bomb, maybe they'll use some radiactive energy source to get the fussion reaction going.

France. During war game sessions back in the Cold war scenarios, France was always the first country to die. Noit because they were a threat or anything, but because they are mercs. They would side with the highest bidder.

Why would I want to nuke a country? That's terrible

Hmm, I would nuke Mexico I think

Actually...wait I change my vote!

I would nuke france because that would take Ubisoft with it.

(Real answer: None, before people with no sense of humour call me a maniac)

OT: Greece, they've been nothing but trouble lately.

ElPatron:
I can't nuke Palestine because it's not even a real country. (there, I said it - come at me, bros)

Just nuke? That's ridiculous. I would definitely nuke the US because I could get away with it, but not destroy it. Then just invade the country.

Partially because I am jealous of the second amendment and I would defy the populace with a defeated army to surrender their weapons. "Oh, so you want to give me an excuse to shoot civilians and not be accused of war crimes? What do your puny little bullets do against my tanks? You should have also learned how to make explosives!"

I'd be doing a favor to those "preppers"and "SHTF" fanatics.

Jazoni89:
[and all the inbred rednecks will be blown sky high.

That is just hateful as saying "all n-words need to die".

Seriously. What did rednecks do to you? They are probably the last kind of people to give you any trouble.

Just leave them alone because they leave us alone too.

I don't have any problem with southerners and I don't mean to perpetuate stereotypes, but I think the term "redneck" generally implies a degree of hostility and intolerance that I think most Americans DO have a problem with. At the risk of being incorrect and offensive, I associate the term "redneck" with homophobia and racism, religious fanatacism, and guns........and the three combined don't make for a stable society.

MammothBlade:

Caleco:
NO ISRAEL OR PALESTINE! I'm sick and tired of that argument but that being said what country would you nuke only one WITHOUT ANY RETALIATION! I know that there are sh*ton of nukes out there but just make a country dispear...POOF!

Israel. There, I said it. I'm sick and tired of its genocidal shenanigans in the name of its persecution complex. (You don't want people to nuke either of those countries, don't make threads about this sort of thing at all...)

However, I don't think any country deserves to be nuked. If only there were a way to purge a rotten establishment without brute force...

This ^^

Don't like it? Too bad. If there are any countries that deserve extermination (there aren't, by the way), it's one of those two.

California, 'cause I just don't like them.

Electrogecko:
I associate the term "redneck" with homophobia and racism, religious fanatacism, and guns........and the three combined don't make for a stable society.

Yet a true redneck won't care enough to put those things in practice, and you do understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?

Guns are amazing. When criminals jump on you with knifes and intend to stab you and your family to death a redneck will be more than happy to bring a shotgun and 3" 00-buckshot.

People from the city won't give a fuck and won't even call the police if they see a blood trail in the morning.

Rednecks > city yuppies who won't lift a finger to protect you. At least rednecks have guns to protect their freedom, while people from the city try to restrain those freedoms.

EDIT: cross thread quote fail.

why dont we nuke all the poor counties. POOF! all poverty gone

Rohan, those horsey bastards.

Although, technically it's a realm, does that count?

so many peeps are gonna be banned in this thread....

North Korea. Their dictator is batshit crazy (yes the new one is worse than the old one). Nothing good ever came out of North Korea, Kim Jong Un is mad enough to hit the launch button on their nukes. Best to be safe.

ElPatron:

Electrogecko:
I associate the term "redneck" with homophobia and racism, religious fanatacism, and guns........and the three combined don't make for a stable society.

(1) Yet a true redneck won't care enough to put those things in practice, and you do understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?

(2) Guns are amazing. When criminals jump on you with knifes and intend to stab you and your family to death a redneck will be more than happy to bring a shotgun and 3" 00-buckshot.

(3) People from the city won't give a fuck and won't even call the police if they see a blood trail in the morning.

(4) Rednecks > city yuppies who won't lift a finger to protect you. At least rednecks have guns to protect their freedom, while people from the city try to restrain those freedoms.

EDIT: cross thread quote fail.

Wow, and I thought I was stereotyping....responding to this requires that I leave the formality of my last post behind, and I'll be playing devil's advocate at some points....so without further ado....

(1) I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that, although "rednecks" might be intolerant, they don't act on their personal opinions? I suppose that's good, even if it's not always true, (because that's not true no matter where in the world you are) but I would prefer if people didn't have to go against their conscience to be friendly and accepting.

(2) This basically sums up the "redneck" mentality that so many have a problem with, and you did it so subconsciously that it's quite fascinating. "Guns are amazing" as apposed to "guns are a necessary fixture to uphold societal values." "A redneck will be more than happy to bring a shotgun" as apposed to "a redneck will feel a moral responsibility to protect their family and neighbors."

(3) This is a stereotype, and it's one that's more blanketing and offensive than "redneck." Not all southerners are "rednecks" and being a "redneck" isn't inherently a bad thing, but when you say that all people in the city are impassioned or uncaring toward their neighbors and friends....that's just plain wrong. Of course they're going to care.....they can hear their neighbors through the damn wall!

On top of that, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare the behavior of people in two completely different types of societies. If I see a trail of blood in the city, you're damn right I won't call the police, because I'll assume that 1- someone already did, 2- it's been there for a long time, 3- it wasn't the result of violence, 4- the matter has been resolved by this point, or 5- the police have better things to worry about. All of these reasons are more likely than "someone was just seriously injured and if I follow the trail of blood it will lead to someone in need."

You just can't compare the mentality of those who walk to work through thousands of people every morning to those who have enough space in their backyard for a firing range. It's perfectly understandable that urban-dwellers will want less guns on the streets....the streets that they would like to be able to walk on without feeling the need to carry a gun.

(4) When you say one group of people is better than another, you lose all credibility. "City yuppies" have friends and family too, and if you think that there are none amongst them who wouldn't give their lives for those they love, you are totally and utterly wrong. Some of them wouldn't even need a gun in their hand in order to have the courage to do it.

Guns don't protect freedom. People do. Owning a gun is a freedom, and the idea that the second amendment is somehow in jeopardy false....a fabrication of the media in order to get "rednecks" to vote against their best interests. States have their individual rights, and a federal ban on guns is about as likely as a second prohibition on alcohol.

Electrogecko:
snip

You are preaching to the choir. I lived in the city all of my life (and still live) and I know that people don't give a fuck about me, hence I don't give a fuck about them.

I am not exaggerating. People won't warn me the A/C was leaking on the place I am going to sit before I feel the water on my ass.

"Oh, the A/C is leaking on that seat..."

No shit, Sherlock - my pants are soaked.

ElPatron:

Electrogecko:
snip

You are preaching to the choir. I lived in the city all of my life (and still live) and I know that people don't give a fuck about me, hence I don't give a fuck about them.

I am not exaggerating. People won't warn me the A/C was leaking on the place I am going to sit before I feel the water on my ass.

"Oh, the A/C is leaking on that seat..."

No shit, Sherlock - my pants are soaked.

The entire point of my post was basically "stereotypes are bad," and that includes stereotyping all of humanity. You don't know that people don't give a fuck about you.....I give a fuck about you, and I promise, I would try to warn you if I knew you were about to sit down on a chair with ice cold water on it.

Have faith my friend. I think the average person is much kinder than you may imagine.

Electrogecko:
The entire point of my post was basically "stereotypes are bad," and that includes stereotyping all of humanity. You don't know that people don't give a fuck about you.....I give a fuck about you, and I promise, I would try to warn you if I knew you were about to sit down on a chair with ice cold water on it.

The problem is that they won't lift a finger when it's something not that serious, but the fact that even if your apartment stinks and they haven't seen you around, they will only call the police a month later.

I have been mugged in a subway station in plain daylight. It was a goddamn avenue, and they were not armed.

But I bet that if I had brought an xacto knife with me and brandished it, there would be witnesses of my "hate crimes".

France. no thought about it...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked