Flinging the nukes: When is it acceptable?

**Rain Man** · 01-07-2006, 12:27 PM

The accompanying poll will have several scenarios. Please check all instances where it would be acceptable to fling a big nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile at someone.

Here are the ground rules:

1. In each scenario, assume that your use of the nuke would save the number of American lives shown.

2. In every case, assume that the recipient of the nuke is a government that is hostile to the U.S. and there is no ambiguity of morality on the conflict. (In other words, they're truly bad guys. There's no question in the minds of 99 percent of Americans. They're killing babies and molesting children and forcing nuns to wear Raiders jerseys and banning televised football and and requiring steaks to be cooked well done until there's no flavor left at all and requiring women to wear shapeless, padded, oversized clothing and implementing 80-hour work weeks and banning beer and replacing Dilbert with Marmaduke in all of their local papers and changing all airings of WKRP in Cincinnati reruns so that they end with the Black Plague striking Cincinnati.)

3. In the case of any scenarios involving soldiers' deaths, assume that the hostile country has declared war on us, and it wasn't our fault.

4. In the case of any scenarios that solely involve civilian deaths, assume that the country has not officially declared war on us, but has stated that they plan our demise and have ads in local papers recruiting terrorists.

5. Assume that our nuke would land in the middle of the country's capital city, killing the nation's leadership along with 1,000,000 of their citizens.

6. Assume that there would be reactions from other countries about our use of the nuke, and you can decide what those would be.

View Poll Results: I would fling a nuke to save ... (Check all that apply.)
1,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	6	25.00%
1,000 U.S. civilians on foreign soil (think worldwide attacks on embassies, ships, and tourists)	5	20.83%
1,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist attack)	4	16.67%
10,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	5	20.83%
10,000 U.S. civilians on foreign soil (think worldwide attacks embassies, ships, and tourists)	6	25.00%
10,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist attack)	8	33.33%
100,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	7	29.17%
100,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist nuclear or bioterror attack)	7	29.17%
1,000,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	7	29.17%
1,000,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist nuclear or bioterror attack)	7	29.17%
10,000,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	7	29.17%
10,000,000 U.S. soldiers and civilians on American soil (think another country invading U.S. soil)	6	25.00%
10,000,000 U.S. soldiers and civilians on American soil (think another country invading U.S. soil), BUT the nuke must be dropped on an American city that is already under their control, killing 1,000,000 Americans	4	16.67%
None of the above. These don't provide adequate justification for letting the nuclear genie out of the atomic bottle in this day and age.	5	20.83%
I think we should use nukes occasionally and randomly just to remind the rest of the world who’s boss.	12	50.00%
What's a nuke?	2	8.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

01-07-2006, 12:27 PM	Topic Starter
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $2828491 VARSITY	Flinging the nukes: When is it acceptable? The accompanying poll will have several scenarios. Please check all instances where it would be acceptable to fling a big nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile at someone. Here are the ground rules: 1. In each scenario, assume that your use of the nuke would save the number of American lives shown. 2. In every case, assume that the recipient of the nuke is a government that is hostile to the U.S. and there is no ambiguity of morality on the conflict. (In other words, they're truly bad guys. There's no question in the minds of 99 percent of Americans. They're killing babies and molesting children and forcing nuns to wear Raiders jerseys and banning televised football and and requiring steaks to be cooked well done until there's no flavor left at all and requiring women to wear shapeless, padded, oversized clothing and implementing 80-hour work weeks and banning beer and replacing Dilbert with Marmaduke in all of their local papers and changing all airings of WKRP in Cincinnati reruns so that they end with the Black Plague striking Cincinnati.) 3. In the case of any scenarios involving soldiers' deaths, assume that the hostile country has declared war on us, and it wasn't our fault. 4. In the case of any scenarios that solely involve civilian deaths, assume that the country has not officially declared war on us, but has stated that they plan our demise and have ads in local papers recruiting terrorists. 5. Assume that our nuke would land in the middle of the country's capital city, killing the nation's leadership along with 1,000,000 of their citizens. 6. Assume that there would be reactions from other countries about our use of the nuke, and you can decide what those would be.
Posts: 141,828