While at this point I’d feel safer if Washington vanished in a blast of nuclear hellfire than I do in its current state, the fact that it comes from another country in this scenario would create a whole new set of problems.
I would be upset at them as much as I’m upset for what the US is doing to those countries.
Because, dropping a nuke is a very exaggerated and an unnecessarily strong approach to send a message. Nuclear warfare is a thing everyone universally fears of happening, except psychopaths like Putin who’d resort to them if things don’t go his way.
They should understand that there are people in this country who didn’t want this regime, didn’t vote this regime and don’t agree with every action the regime takes. Nor does every american endorse and praise the actions the american government, past and present, has inflicted on the globe with racking up casualties through war and other proxy missions.
It’d be reckless, tone-deaf and outright stupid. Dropping a nuke, just one nuke, will bring us over the edge to that nuclear warfare scenario. Because the US WILL respond in kind.
deleted by creator
I dont think anyone wants nuclear exchange
That seems like it would kill millions of people who have virtually zero control over the actions of the country.
I’d be wondering where they got the nuke from.
Lmao, I think in some Civ games, you can gift a nuke to AI-led Civs/City-States, then jusr watch AI-playes nuke each other
OK so the forum is No Stupid Questions, but OP, I want for you to input a query into the search engine of your choice: “Which nations have thermonuclear weapons?”
Listen mate, the capital of Greenland is literally Nuuk. Isn’t it always winter there? As if it were a man-made nuclear winter? The Americans merely built the bomb, but the Greenlanders are the bomb. Don’t open your mouth against the Inuit or they will intuit a nuke into it.
What I came to post.
I would be pissed, because
(1) This move would create millions of civilian casualties in the DC area. Most of whom didn’t even vote for Trump.
(2) Regardless of who gained power afterwards, this would almost certainly create further nuclear exchanges, making massive losses of life on both sides.
This would be an unbelievably dumb move.
When we lived there, I took solace that we’d be vaporized early. I lived in the county where the majority of internet traffic flows. The Land of 1,000 Data Centers™️. I assumed it was on multiple target lists.
Now that I don’t live there, I still take solace that we ended up incidentally moving to another high-priority target area. Vaporization is still on the menu. We won’t be alive long enough to know or care what hit us.
As a Nova Scotian, I’d be pissed at the bomb dropper. I have enough problems in my life without dealing with radioactive fallout.
It’s similiar to 9/11.
If it happened, it would be blowback from what the government has been doing abroad.
It can be both of those things: a cause for valid anger, and consequence of government actions.
And then turn around and make us suffer twice as bad over it, because fucking reasons.
Why would they target DC instead of Mar-a-Lago?
I mean… I live in the US so I don’t wanna die lol. I hope civilians don’t get targeted bexause some dipshit dictator seized control…
But at the same time… as an ethnic Chinese… looking back in history… dropping nukes on Japan did quickly stopped their invasion of my homeland…
so…
like…
To be clear: I’m not condoning the killing of innocent civillians…
But I can see both sides of the argument
The question is tho, is:
- Is the actions of the current US government is equivalent or worse than the damage the Imperial Japan has done in WW2?
- Does nuking the US actually stop it or just make it worse?
Key difference: Imperial Japan did not have nukes or counter-nuke capabilities. They also did not have a population resisting the regime. In contrast, the US is nuclear-capable and the leadership will probably retaliate. So you wont be bringing any peace. Also half of the country doesn’t even support the leadership. So it’s very hard to see such hypothetical strike as the same as nuking Imperial Japan, and that in it of itself was already controversial enough.
TLDR: In modern times, it’s idiotic to start a nuclear war against a country that’s also nuclear-armed.
There is quite a bit of evidence that the notion it was necessary for a Japanese surrender to nuke them was a fabrication. Two population centers, no less.
Also it was supposed to be Tokyo at first, but some general had been there on vacation and liked it apparently.
I’d be scared and panicked, no time for anger.
To be clear, mass killing civilians is always wrong. We learned that from World War II. Not just the US, the entire world. If any country starts mass killing civilians, then nuclear weapons may be an appropriate strategy stop the behavior.
The only military use of nuclear weapons in human history was a mass killing of civilians of insane proportions.
depends on the size of the bomb. Cause I’m pretty sure I’d be in the blast radius for most
