global thermonuclear war

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by SS-18 ICBM, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. greenpeace

    greenpeace Peacelord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    1 AU from a star called the Sun
    you can do it, come on!:goodjob:
     
  2. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,824
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    I can't think of a single one that wouldn't.
     
  3. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    Most likely, yes. The United States recieves most of its the petroleum, natural gas, and Uranium from Canada. Furthermore, an attack on the United States would activate the NATO Alliance, bringing Canada into the war. Canada is also an important partner in NORAD, which alone would require at least some sort of strikes.
     
  4. SS-18 ICBM

    SS-18 ICBM Oscillator

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    15,267
    Location:
    Here and there
    What about civilian targets?
     
  5. Goldfish4209

    Goldfish4209 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Well, since most/all of the nuclear powers are in the northern hemisphere, going south isn't a bad idea. Areas of military importance would be hit first by icbms or just ballistic missles. Then areas of economic importance would be blown up. Oil fields, transportation arteries, major cities/metropolises would go. At this point, Most/all military installations, Japan, American northwest, European big cities, and saudi arabia wouldn't be the best places to be.

    To survive, the idea places to be would be:

    1. Austrailia
    2. tuvalu
    3. Africa
    4. Peru
    5. Where there is nothing.

    Assuming that the world doesn't go into complete chaos, there might acutally be a good chance of survival. Once the available arsenal of nukes is gone, no country would have the resources or organization to make more.

    If you live on some tiny island with natives, it's a pretty good idea to be one of them. Make babies. They make babies. Eventually, modern life will be reinvented. Nukes are invented. They are launched. Repeat.

    In a nutshell, humans will go on.
     
  6. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    Toronto might be a target, later, for the simple fact that it is Canada's largest city. Some other cities would also be at risk, but I think that the risk is lower than most people think. I can almost garauntee you that Canada's major cities would be safe for at least a day or so after the first strike.
     
  7. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    You have nothing to back this claim up, it's 100% speculation.

    Toronto has nothing of military value, and population does not make it a target, unless you're an Islamo-facist bent on killing lots of Canadians. Vancouver is a far more likely target, or Quebec, both of them housing Canada's repective Navies. Outside of the Carrier-bearing naval powers, Canada has the strongest Navy.
     
  8. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    You have nothing to back the claim that I have nothing to back my claim. Your claim is 100% speculation. Interestingly enough, I am 100% right that your claim is 100% speculation.

    Dude, when you've read as many books as I have, read as many actual government reports, and (on and on and on), then you can talk to me about speculation. Like I said, it is not a certainty that the cities would not be targeted, but any serious research into nuclear war theory and the war plans and scenerios of our own government and that of the former Soviet Union will give you a pretty good idea of how it would have and may still go down.

    Toronto is the economic heart of Canada. Destroying it would, alone, end the Canadian economy.
     
  9. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    Fair enough.

    Which is basically what I said before, that the only reason to target Toronto would be for the intended purpose of killing civilians, since there is no military value to the city. You aren't going to nuke a city for economic impact, if that was the case, we wouldn't have hit Hiroshima in '45, we'd have gone for Kyoto or Osaka, the real powerhouses. We hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of their military significance: regional headquarters, the biggest naval base in the Home Islands, and one hell of a munitions factory.
     
  10. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star

    Which is why I said that if Toronto were to be targeted, it would not be right away; cause it has no immediate significance to the military situation.
     
  11. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    Perhaps only in desperation, once the other side has lost its ability to think straight, or to care about human lives.
     
  12. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,824
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    Well then, I guess we'll just have to trigger such a war and find out!
     
  13. greenpeace

    greenpeace Peacelord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    1 AU from a star called the Sun
    Can you imagine the president giving a speeach about why we should start a thermonuclear war in order to proove Cheezy the Wiz right? Heck, even then hardcore military people might reconsider going to war.
     
  14. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,824
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    Oh we'd make up a good reason.

    You're into human rights, right?

    Well this is a war for human rights! You better join us, or you're against human rights!
     
  15. greenpeace

    greenpeace Peacelord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    1 AU from a star called the Sun
    Your right, having whole cities being leveled to the ground and people dieing slow painful deaths from radioactive poisoning is so pro-human rights. Geez, what was I thinking? Thanks for the reasoning, I can be so unreasonable sometimes:).
     
  16. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,824
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    It worked in Iraq, it'll work now!
     
  17. greenpeace

    greenpeace Peacelord

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    1 AU from a star called the Sun
    *heavy sigh* woah I feel kinda depressed and I'm not even listening to emo (or ever have listened to it). How could propaganda be so damn effective.
     
  18. Panda

    Panda Metal head

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Turku, Finland
    Survive nuclear war? Well, there's always a chance, but not a large one.

    Besides, anybody planning to survive should watch Threads, the possibly most accurate description of the consequences of nuclear war, and re-think if they really want to survive.
     

Share This Page