I dont think anyone wants nuclear exchange
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
That seems like it would kill millions of people who have virtually zero control over the actions of the country.
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?”
What I came to post.
As a Nova Scotian, I’d be pissed at the bomb dropper. I have enough problems in my life without dealing with radioactive fallout.
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.
Well, this is definitely the right place to ask this question.
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.
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.
Nice try, fed
Why would they target DC instead of Mar-a-Lago?
depends on the size of the bomb. Cause I’m pretty sure I’d be in the blast radius for most
