Finger on the nuclear button.

Cuttooth wrote:
$ilva $anta wrote:Nah you can't computerise it, wouldn't people just seek other means to circumvent it?

As long as it triggered automatically and was also impossible to untrigger there wouldn't be a problem. Such a machine would be terrifying and simple to understand to anyone who would want to start a nuclear war.

Some lunatics just want to watch the world burn.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Crimson** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:12 pm

Jaxley wrote:You have to think about more than just revenge. The public may demand it, maybe people might even try to make it happen by breaking into wherever this red button is, metaphor or not.

It'd mess up the whole world's environment, for one. Ridiculous.

Exactly. After two countries have fired, no doubt the rest of the world would join in and eventually we'd being living in a wasteland. A nuclear war would do no good for anyone.

Cuttooth wrote:
$ilva $anta wrote:Nah you can't computerise it, wouldn't people just seek other means to circumvent it?

As long as it triggered automatically and was also impossible to untrigger there wouldn't be a problem. Such a machine would be terrifying and simple to understand to anyone who would want to start a nuclear war.

Have you not seen Dr Strangelove?!

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **FatDaz** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:22 pm

it's a wonderful moi wrote:Have you not seen Dr Strangelove?!

Or WarGames!!
[youtubeuk]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tAcEzhQ7oqA[/youtubeuk]

But its an interesting topic. The whole point of nuclear weapons is that we never use them, if one side effectively admits they are bluffing then the game is over. Global thermonuclear warfare, better than tic tac toe!

The Crimbo Clown wrote:
Jaxley wrote:You have to think about more than just revenge. The public may demand it, maybe people might even try to make it happen by breaking into wherever this red button is, metaphor or not.

It'd mess up the whole world's environment, for one. Ridiculous.

Exactly. After two countries have fired, no doubt the rest of the world would join in and eventually we'd being living in a wasteland. A nuclear war would do no good for anyone.

Nah, the other countries wouldn't join in. They see the damage and think, "ok I back up that country but I'm not getting nuked, they both nuked each other, fine, that's now their problem, strawberry float it, I haven't initiated any nukes so I won't receive any and that's fine for me".

it's a wonderful moi wrote:Have you not seen Dr Strangelove?!

That is what I've been taking lines from, yes.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Vermin** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:31 pm

$ilva $anta wrote:"Ok I back up that country but I'm not getting nuked..."

Cunny funt. Don't say stuff like that. People will take you seriously.

I don't know what the joke is. :oops:

Cuttooth wrote:
it's a wonderful moi wrote:Have you not seen Dr Strangelove?!

That is what I've been taking lines from, yes.

Aha. To be fair, as lines go they've hardly been in the 'Badges? We don't need no stinkin badges!' category.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Rightey** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:50 pm

$ilva $anta wrote::lol:

I don't know what the joke is.

That's not really very likely as so many countries are part of one alliance or another. Pretty much the only countries that would be left standing are the South American ones, and New Zealand. Assuming nuclear fallout doesn't rain down on them due to the movement of the winds.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Vermin** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:51 pm

$ilva $anta wrote::lol:

I don't know what the joke is.

No way!

Well, OK. Let's just start by assuming that 'backing up' a country may involve harbouring one of their bases (air, missile, whatever); a large amount do - clandestine or not. Nukes don't just automatically veer towards a country that has nuclear capabilities. They're awfully handy for wiping out conventional military targets in certain countries that possess no such big red button to press.

Do you not remember some of the fiercely threatening rhetoric spewed into the ether from Russia, directed with no doubt towards countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Ukraine a while back?

The power of nukes are so off the scale that when it comes to alliances, it'll come down to nuking the country and not their allies for now. America sets off a nuke from a base of theirs in a specific country? I doubt the retaliation will be to the bases they have in other countries but it'll be a revenge strike in the heart of America. That nuke will head for America. Before allies even let a base from another country fire off a nuke, they'll be doing everything they can to stop it for fear of becoming a victim of a nuke.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Vermin** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:08 pm

I don't know about that, Silva. It's not that simple.

But, meh. It's bad news whatever.

I know it's not that simple, but as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't want America to launch a nuke from Britain on another country just because our country is their ally. I don't think our government would allow it. We'd open ourselves up to nuclear attack.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Jax** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:59 pm

Nuclear bombs are a last resort, and using them, in my opinion, is very cowardly and makes whoever pushed the button seem very inexperienced with world affairs.

That's not the point Jaxley hun

Would you retaliate with one?

I'd say you'd have to retaliate with a nuke. There's absolutely no way you couldn't. You couldn't let a rogue state get away with it. It'd be suicide for the rest of the world.

The Crimbo Clown wrote:
Jaxley wrote:You have to think about more than just revenge. The public may demand it, maybe people might even try to make it happen by breaking into wherever this red button is, metaphor or not.

It'd mess up the whole world's environment, for one. Ridiculous.

Exactly. After two countries have fired, no doubt the rest of the world would join in and eventually we'd being living in a wasteland. A nuclear war would do no good for anyone.

$ilva $anta wrote:That's not the point Jaxley hun

Would you retaliate with one?

I'd say you'd have to retaliate with a nuke. There's absolutely no way you couldn't. You couldn't let a rogue state get away with it. It'd be suicide for the rest of the world.

"What would the captain do?"

"Don't Fire the torpedo's"

"FIRE the torpedo's!"

"Sir we've been hit by an officer!"
"Very well, we'll retaliate in kind, FIRE!... NOT ME A TORPEDO!"

As Arnie said (about the human race) - 'It's in your nature to destroy yourselves'

Sad, but true

Personally, I wouldn't retaliate. You're killing millions of people, animals and the planet. Wether they are Russian or not is imaterial to me. The theory that there could be a winner or a limited nuclear war is bollox IMO. The world would be totally destroyed by mass-murdering fuc**eads and I won't be a part of it. So there.

PostRe: Finger on the nuclear button. by **Shadow** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 8:11 am

I think you'd have to retaliate, if London was nuked (I assume that'd be the target) your talking maybe 2-3Million dead, that leaves about 60Million Brits wanting their country is to be saved, you can't just surrender.

That said, the whole world knows about Britain's nuclear subs, you'd have to be suicidal to attack us, the only way we'd get nuked is by terrorists and then there's not really anyone to nuke in retalliation is there?

Finger on the nuclear button.

Who is online

Affiliates