As President, would you use a nuclear weapon?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by TOG 6, Sep 23, 2016.

?

Do use order the use of a nuclear weapon?

  1. Yes

    20 vote(s)
    71.4%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    28.6%
  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,177
    Likes Received:
    13,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don;t argue the given.
    See post #8 for all the clarification you need.
    Please address the poll.

    We should all immediately thank God you are not President, whose #1 job it is to protect the American people from attack.
     
  2. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    9,301
    Likes Received:
    3,550
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Presuming that we have no viable and reliable anti-missile countermeasure available to us, I would "push the button" and keep pushing it until We'reInsaneistan was a smooth flat glowing radioactive surface..
     
  3. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,272
    Likes Received:
    1,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To prevent an attack on the USA absolutely. In retaliation no.
     
  4. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,807
    Likes Received:
    1,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The winner of wars has historically been the one willing to kill the most innocent enemy civilians. Assuming the Presidency of the U.S. includes assuming the mantle of death-bringer to anyone or group that mortally threatens the U.S.
     
  5. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    28,642
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd imitate our last Republican President's choice, I'd drop the bomb on a completely different city because they'd once dissed my daddy and then make an impassioned plea to get the bomb droppers from the ruins of my own nuked city, which bombers I would then completely ignore for the next several years until I finally declared them unimportant

    Ths is a Silly Poll of the First Kind, in which you basically ask, "You absolutely must do some thing Horrible, Will you?" and then castigate those who have the temerity to actually answer you as moral degenerates
     
  6. slackercruster

    slackercruster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't vote, I'd vote only as a last resort for survival.
     
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,177
    Likes Received:
    13,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense.

    Correct. It's part of the job.

    Now, did you have an answer to the question?
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,177
    Likes Received:
    13,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation: You're embarrassed to answer the question, and so rather than just ignore it, you have a puerile need to belittle it as a means to cover that embarrassment.
    Thank you .
     
  9. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    once again you're leaving out critical information I asked for... but how about this, I'll answer anyhow even though you're still intentionally leaving information out that I requested because you already know you gave us a terrible scenario with limited data because you're not being honest about this discussion, but since you want an answer that bad and still won't give the details I requested... I will launch a nuclear weapon and modify the yield on it, so it will NOT wipe out the estimates you have given... did you know we could modify yield of some of our nuclear weapons? did you realize that? so your projections and estimates are once again the VERY reason why I demanded more details and information to make a qualified judgement that was REALISTIC instead of your continued poorly laid out scenario that is NOT realistic... so there, I magically launched a nuclear weapon, and barely killed a sole, because I used a modified yield nuclear weapon, and because I did, I can modify your unrealistic scenario and say I only killed the people on the base the missile was sitting ready to launch at... (although ONCE AGAIN, you haven't answered why they wouldn't have launched that missile once they detected an incoming missile from me, see how stupid your scenario is, they would launch before mine hit the target from that distance)

    P.S. and ONCE AGAIN, how will destroying this one nuclear missile, prevent them from launching the other 99 missiles once they saw I destroyed that target... what will I now do for the other 99 missiles? so not only is your scenario stupid because they would detect my incoming missile, they would likely launch all their other nuclear missiles and nothing I could do about those... this is why your scenario is just plain stupid, you don't give all the details needed to make a qualified answer... idiot...
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,177
    Likes Received:
    13,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have all the information you need to make an informed decision. Don't pretend otherwise.

    150kt fixed, as per post #8. Not an option.

    So... do you nuke the city, or not?
     
  11. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    11,677
    Likes Received:
    2,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If we nuke We'reinsanistan first, we will have to prove to the rest of the world that the nuclear threat existed. We save our city by stopping it, but what flood gates do we open up by detonating the first nuclear weapon in a populated area since WWII? Are we able to confirm that other nuclear powers who aren't exactly buddy-buddy with us aren't going to detect a nuclear launch, which they will very quickly discern is not a test but the real thing, and pre-emptively launch theirs?

    It would be the right thing to do from the standpoint of saving American lives to launch a first strike, but I'm not very confident that the aftermath would not result in a much larger prolonged loss of American lives. There are no winners in nuclear war.
     
  12. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,552
    Likes Received:
    5,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Noted. I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, but noted!
     
  13. cerberus

    cerberus Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,552
    Likes Received:
    5,366
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No fence-sitting now! [​IMG] :mrgreen:
     
  14. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    10,418
    Likes Received:
    7,781
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No sir! None intended.
     
  15. dequ1

    dequ1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  16. WJV

    WJV Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1

    If a man does not strike first, he will be first struck. - Athenogoras of Syracuse.
     
  17. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    28,642
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd drop it., I thought that answer was clearly enough implied in my contention that the poll had no other answer, and was therefore silly

    What's embarrassing about that?, and that's not a rhetorical question. What flaw in my supposed ethics and/or general thought processes is this being purported to so cleverly illustrate?
     
  18. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your scenario is absurd. How does using a nuclear weapon prevent another from being used? Who launched the attack? Where am I using the nuclear weapon to counter the first one? Where is the first nuke going to be detonated?
     
  19. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your scenario is totally unrealistic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't know if you know this, but we have these things called "ballistic missile submarines".
     
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,684
    Likes Received:
    2,820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn’t, I was just pointing out that I don’t think your scenario is especially realistic. I still addressed the question, and with more consideration than some others too. I can’t give you an honest “Yes or No” answer here and now because I don’t pretend to know what I’d actually do in such an extreme situation.

    I couldn’t become US President (I’m too pale to pass for Hawaiian-born ;) ). I could (in an admittedly amazing turn of events) become UK Prime Minister though, and by your argument should be perfectly content to execute billions of Americans to protect a few British citizens. I’m not sure that if I were put in the position of making such a decision, I could dehumanise you as easily as it seems you could apparently dehumanise me.

    I’d like to think that if you were really in that kind of situation though, the gravity of the decision would at least give you major pause for thought.
     
  21. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the SLBM submarines are being turned into PC love boats.
     
  22. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes yes. They allow non-white non-males on board and that all PC social engineering and will lead to our downfall because only straight white male Christians can possibly fight.
     
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,177
    Likes Received:
    13,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If only you had said that to begin with.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    39,177
    Likes Received:
    13,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As President, and PM, your most important job is to protect your people.
    If you truly understand this, then no "dehumanzation" is necessary to order the strike.

    What do you suppose would happen to you as President (or PM), if, on the day after the 2MT warhead goes off over San Diego (or Glasgow), the story came out that you had the very real an concrete opportunity to stop the attack but chose not to because you did not want to kill I'minsaneistani civilians?
     
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,035
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Straight white male Christians have a long track record being good at fighting and winning on the battlefield.
     

Share This Page