Would you retaliate on the USSR when a nuclear attack is imminent.
Fire them missiles!
61.3% (19)
61.3% (19)
Dont fire them missiles!
35.5% (11)
35.5% (11)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: MAD or Mutual assured destruction

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Gold:
I'd fire without second thought.

Then issue evacuation orders to whatever were the target cities.

That's just sadistic; missiles travel fast enough to mean that only those at the outskirts of the cities who were already in their cars have a chance at getting far enough away from the blast and radiation to survive.

Shaoken:

Gold:
I'd fire without second thought.

Then issue evacuation orders to whatever were the target cities.

That's just sadistic; missiles travel fast enough to mean that only those at the outskirts of the cities who were already in their cars have a chance at getting far enough away from the blast and radiation to survive.

Not enough time to evacuate, but time for basic precautions to be taken. The US would only get a few minutes due to its early warning system, but enough to sound the sirens and get people running to shelter.

Of course, they also need to be in parts of the cities not too close to the targets.

Shaoken:

Gold:
I'd fire without second thought.

Then issue evacuation orders to whatever were the target cities.

That's just sadistic; missiles travel fast enough to mean that only those at the outskirts of the cities who were already in their cars have a chance at getting far enough away from the blast and radiation to survive.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said.

I'd issue evacuation orders to the US cities, not the ones I targeted.

Gold:

Shaoken:

Gold:
I'd fire without second thought.

Then issue evacuation orders to whatever were the target cities.

That's just sadistic; missiles travel fast enough to mean that only those at the outskirts of the cities who were already in their cars have a chance at getting far enough away from the blast and radiation to survive.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said.

I'd issue evacuation orders to the US cities, not the ones I targeted.

Like thalu pointed out, that would amount to a few minutes knowledge. Enough if you happened to be next to a fallout shelter, but largely you'd just create a lot of panic and make anyone not next to a shelter suffer for the remaining five minutes of their life.

Shaoken:

Gold:

Shaoken:

That's just sadistic; missiles travel fast enough to mean that only those at the outskirts of the cities who were already in their cars have a chance at getting far enough away from the blast and radiation to survive.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said.

I'd issue evacuation orders to the US cities, not the ones I targeted.

Like thalu pointed out, that would amount to a few minutes knowledge. Enough if you happened to be next to a fallout shelter, but largely you'd just create a lot of panic and make anyone not next to a shelter suffer for the remaining five minutes of their life.

So it's better to let people go on their every day lives until they're bombed into oblivion then?

I disagree with that.

Gold:

Shaoken:

Gold:

I think you're misunderstanding what I said.

I'd issue evacuation orders to the US cities, not the ones I targeted.

Like thalu pointed out, that would amount to a few minutes knowledge. Enough if you happened to be next to a fallout shelter, but largely you'd just create a lot of panic and make anyone not next to a shelter suffer for the remaining five minutes of their life.

So it's better to let people go on their every day lives until they're bombed into oblivion then?

I disagree with that.

So you'd be happy on the off chance that someone close enough to a fallout shelter might survive with thousands to millions of the rest spending their last moments in absolute chaos and anarchy at the death they can do nothing to prevent or escape? People running, trambling over themselves, people unable to get in touch with their loved ones, you'd have to be a sadist to want that outcome.

What point does letting them know that they're going to die and there's nothing they can possibly do to avert it achieve? At least leaving them in ignorance ensures they don't spend their last moments in absolute fear and suffering over an unavoidable fate.

Hell your wording is that you'd give evac orders...no evacuation is possible since people have minutes to live from when you'd first find out about the missiles. So really, what are you trying to achieve here, because it's certainly not saving anyone.

Shaoken:

Gold:

Shaoken:

Like thalu pointed out, that would amount to a few minutes knowledge. Enough if you happened to be next to a fallout shelter, but largely you'd just create a lot of panic and make anyone not next to a shelter suffer for the remaining five minutes of their life.

So it's better to let people go on their every day lives until they're bombed into oblivion then?

I disagree with that.

So you'd be happy on the off chance that someone close enough to a fallout shelter might survive with thousands to millions of the rest spending their last moments in absolute chaos and anarchy at the death they can do nothing to prevent or escape? People running, trambling over themselves, people unable to get in touch with their loved ones, you'd have to be a sadist to want that outcome.

What point does letting them know that they're going to die and there's nothing they can possibly do to avert it achieve? At least leaving them in ignorance ensures they don't spend their last moments in absolute fear and suffering over an unavoidable fate.

Hell your wording is that you'd give evac orders...no evacuation is possible since people have minutes to live from when you'd first find out about the missiles. So really, what are you trying to achieve here, because it's certainly not saving anyone.

At least people could either get in their shelters if they had them, if not say goodbye to their family or something.

I'd certainly rather know I was about to be annihilated, and what was about to do said annihilation than just suddenly get bombed.

I'd also rather an ineffective evac than none at all because "lol didn't feel like you should know".

Shaoken:
So you'd be happy on the off chance that someone close enough to a fallout shelter might survive with thousands to millions of the rest spending their last moments in absolute chaos and anarchy at the death they can do nothing to prevent or escape? People running, trambling over themselves, people unable to get in touch with their loved ones, you'd have to be a sadist to want that outcome.

What point does letting them know that they're going to die and there's nothing they can possibly do to avert it achieve? At least leaving them in ignorance ensures they don't spend their last moments in absolute fear and suffering over an unavoidable fate.

Hell your wording is that you'd give evac orders...no evacuation is possible since people have minutes to live from when you'd first find out about the missiles. So really, what are you trying to achieve here, because it's certainly not saving anyone.

Hey? Even with just a few minutes warning, everyone can take precautions that will increase their chances, if they have any, and they won't know if they do or not. A large number of people killed in an attack without warning could have been saved if their had been one. The US went to some effort telling people what to do when the sirens started (and building the sirens et al in the first place).

Not warning people is condemning large numbers of people to unnecessary injury or death.

With a few minutes warning you can get into a basement, or close the windows and draw the blinds. You can jump into a ditch if there's one nearby, or just hit the dirt and duck and cover if there is not.

If I got 30-60 seconds warning, I could shut the window, drop the blinds, and jump under the bed with a blanket over me. This might well save my life. If not mine, someone else's life a bit further away.

...

As an aside, does anyone know when ducking and covering when you see the flash (without prior warning), is it worth looking to see where the shadow is and going there (the things in shadow from the flash will be in shadow from the heat), or is it better to get down straight away and not waste time?

thaluikhain:

Shaoken:
So you'd be happy on the off chance that someone close enough to a fallout shelter might survive with thousands to millions of the rest spending their last moments in absolute chaos and anarchy at the death they can do nothing to prevent or escape? People running, trambling over themselves, people unable to get in touch with their loved ones, you'd have to be a sadist to want that outcome.

What point does letting them know that they're going to die and there's nothing they can possibly do to avert it achieve? At least leaving them in ignorance ensures they don't spend their last moments in absolute fear and suffering over an unavoidable fate.

Hell your wording is that you'd give evac orders...no evacuation is possible since people have minutes to live from when you'd first find out about the missiles. So really, what are you trying to achieve here, because it's certainly not saving anyone.

Hey? Even with just a few minutes warning, everyone can take precautions that will increase their chances, if they have any, and they won't know if they do or not. A large number of people killed in an attack without warning could have been saved if their had been one. The US went to some effort telling people what to do when the sirens started (and building the sirens et al in the first place).

Not warning people is condemning large numbers of people to unnecessary injury or death.

With a few minutes warning you can get into a basement, or close the windows and draw the blinds. You can jump into a ditch if there's one nearby, or just hit the dirt and duck and cover if there is not.

If I got 30-60 seconds warning, I could shut the window, drop the blinds, and jump under the bed with a blanket over me. This might well save my life. If not mine, someone else's life a bit further away.

Right, but then that raises more issues; even surviving the initial blast will still leave you exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation, there's no gaurentee that the fallout shelter will have enough food and water to avoid dying a slow death of hunger and dehydration.

Really though there are a whole lot of variables, like the strength of the bomb, where it hits, hydrogen, neutron, etc. etc., so this is really just getting into hypotheticals since no one has really tested if all of these precautions actually hold up to snuff when the real thing happens.

As an aside, does anyone know when ducking and covering when you see the flash (without prior warning), is it worth looking to see where the shadow is and going there (the things in shadow from the flash will be in shadow from the heat), or is it better to get down straight away and not waste time?

Trick question, the intensitity of the flash would be enough to blind you if you saw it directly.

But assuming it was a choice, I'd say just getting straight down. Time is crucial and the shockwaves from an explosion will be on you very quickly. Sure a shadow would represent some form of protection, but do you have time to reach it before the heat hits? Plus there's no gaurentee that the thing creating the shadow will survive.

The best way to survive a nuclear bomb is to not be in the area to take the cheapest answer.

Shaoken:
Right, but then that raises more issues; even surviving the initial blast will still leave you exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation, there's no gaurentee that the fallout shelter will have enough food and water to avoid dying a slow death of hunger and dehydration.

Really though there are a whole lot of variables, like the strength of the bomb, where it hits, hydrogen, neutron, etc. etc., so this is really just getting into hypotheticals since no one has really tested if all of these precautions actually hold up to snuff when the real thing happens.

Certainly there's a lot of variables. You are still more likely to survive if you are warned and take precautions. Again, the precautions may or may not save me, but if everyone takes them, they will save a proportion of them, which is not to be sniffed at.

As it happens, though, the US went to a lot of effort finding out what would happen. Also, there's a lot of information from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Conventional bomb shelters saved many people, and the police in Nagasaki had been warned (to some amount) about Hiroshima, and so survived in disproportionately large numbers.

(Also, you may or may not get unhealthy amounts of radiation, putting large amounts of anything between you and the device will reduce the amount you receive, a deep hole is good protection)

Shaoken:
Trick question, the intensitity of the flash would be enough to blind you if you saw it directly.

But assuming it was a choice, I'd say just getting straight down. Time is crucial and the shockwaves from an explosion will be on you very quickly. Sure a shadow would represent some form of protection, but do you have time to reach it before the heat hits? Plus there's no gaurentee that the thing creating the shadow will survive.

The best way to survive a nuclear bomb is to not be in the area to take the cheapest answer.

There's no guarantee you'll be close enough for the flash for it to blind you, but yeah, you don't know how much time you have.

Of course I would commit mass murder out of spite, I mean, it would be entirely the fault of Soviet civilians if their crazy autocratic dictatorship government attacked the US.

I think loss of life can be justified only if it advances a good that outweighs the moral bad of the death count.
Retaliation to a nuclear strike does nothing but kill more people, so it is not justified.

hmmm, if i were able to target only military targets then i guess yes, but i would not shoot missiles at civillian centres

spartandude:
hmmm, if i were able to target only military targets then i guess yes, but i would not shoot missiles at civillian centres

What about the military targets in or near civilian centres, though?

...

Also, from a fallout point of view, it's more humane to use airbursts on cities than groundbursts on hardened military sites. The less material you dig up and spit out, the less fallout you get.

Absolutely fire back. Consider what doing nothing really does:

Yes, your nation is destroyed and is no longer relevant on the world stage. However, through your inaction, you leave a world power ready, able, and clearly willing to use nuclear annihilation to get its way and with you dies the last best hope of stopping that power (with the possible exception of China).

What happens in the days that follow? Do the Soviets just sit nice and cozy behind the iron curtain now that the greatest impediment to world domination is gone? I. Think. Not.

By firing back, with your last breath you teach a lesson to the world: There is nothing -NOTHING- to gain by aggression in a MAD scenario. It is better to reconcile your differences, whatever they are, peacefully. If you need proof; there are two glowing parking lots where world superpowers used to be.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked