Poll of the Day > When would you support using nuclear weapons if losing a war?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Say Russia attacked America conventionally, and was winning. Or China captured Hawaii and refused to concede it, defeating the USA conventionally. Or say Europe invaded the USA with a goal of taking over Washington.
Whatever the scenario, if no one uses nukes FIRST on the USA, would you support USA using nukes for defence, knowing the worldwide long lasting effect?
Is it ok to lose without having the entire world destroyed?

Is there a line? So USA obviously conceded Afghanistan and Vietnam, but what if they lost to Canada? Canada are not a dictatorship and USA could fight and revolutionise against some sort of hypothetical New Canada government in the future, but if everywhere is entirely nuked, is there even a world to take back?

Or should nuclear weapons only be used and saved for when someone else threatens them with nukes first?

wars of conquest are kinda an outdated concept, there's not really anything to gain from just seizing land since the true power is in the hands of business owners... you don't really gain anything from nuking Jeff Bezos, either.

Culling populations are good but I rather not have radiation all over the place. It is already hotter than it needs to be and I don't know what a nuclear winter is like.

Lokarin posted...

wars of conquest are kinda an outdated concept, there's not really anything to gain from just seizing land since the true power is in the hands of business owners... you don't really gain anything from nuking Jeff Bezos, either.

What is Russia doing in the Ukraine?

hockey7318 posted...

What is Russia doing in the Ukraine?

Proving they don't know how economics works

hockey7318 posted...

What is Russia doing in the Ukraine?

Planting sunflower fields

IqarP15 posted...

Culling populations are good but I rather not have radiation all over the place. It is already hotter than it needs to be and I don't know what a nuclear winter is like.

Crazy thing but "modern" nukes don't actually produce a lot of long last radiation. Ground blasts are still messy but air blasts aren't too bad long term. And that's why Hiroshima is thriving.

But using Nukes is dumb. It's an old form of warfare where you wanted to kill as many civilians as possible. There's good reason no one even bothers with them anymore.
Tactical nukes could have a purpose, but Russia changed that. Now with drone surveillance we don't really allow large groups of troops to come together. So nothing worth nuking. What are they supposed to nuke? The 20 guys holding a trench against meatwave attacks?

If I was in charge tbh the moment my feelings get hurt it's nuclear holocaust

Pretty sure we got bombs that are almost as devastating as a nuke in the short term. Nukes suck because long term affect.

So I can't think of a good reason

I'm against all nuclear weapons, so, no I wouldn't.

Never. People have won wars without them

In Stephen King's "The Stand", there's a part early on when the US government realizes that the virus is released and can no longer be contained, and that it's going to kill 99% of the population. It's pointed out that there's still time to quarantine the US and potentially save the rest of the world, but the US as an entity and a concept is pretty much doomed.

At which point they deliberately put infected people onto planes to fly them to various places around the globe, with the mindset that if the US is doomed, we should take everyone else with us to guarantee no one else can profit from our loss (especially not the damned Ruskies).

ItIsSoOver posted...

I mean, the idea of engaging in "conventional warfare" in the mainland US is completely laughable to the point that pretty much every nation in the world has ruled it out as a possibility.

Regardless, I've played enough defcon to have a healthy fear of launching that first nuke.

The global nuclear supply should basically be held and maintained exclusively for the slim possibility we would be able to use it in the face of an extraterrestrial threat. Using it on people guarantees we are completely fucked, and any half decent leader should not even be considering it as a possibility.

There is a reason we haven't really seen them used after the first time for anything more than posturing.

I do feel the threat they pose is what has kept wars from coming anywhere close to WW2 levels again. So there's that I guess

Nobody is willing to duck around and find out which countries are willing.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7c5c857c.jpg

I do not support nuclear weapons. It harms too many innocent lives and countries, which is not right. Besides, if we use nuclear weapons we lose, too, because it would be the end of the world.

Sega9599 posted...

Say Russia attacked America conventionally, and was winning.

Yes, the world run by Russia would be a horrible place and it would be worth the deaths caused to prevent that.

Or China captured Hawaii and refused to concede it, defeating the USA conventionally.

That would suck but Hawaii hates the mainland anyway for the most part anyway. Maybe they would fix their awful tourist economy.

Or say Europe invaded the USA with a goal of taking over Washington.

That really depends on who's more Fascist in this hypothetical who I would support.

Whatever the scenario, if no one uses nukes FIRST on the USA, would you support USA using nukes for defence, knowing the worldwide long lasting effect?
Is it ok to lose without having the entire world destroyed?

Eh.

Is there a line? So USA obviously conceded Afghanistan and Vietnam, but what if they lost to Canada? Canada are not a dictatorship and USA could fight and revolutionise against some sort of hypothetical New Canada government in the future, but if everywhere is entirely nuked, is there even a world to take back?

One nuke would kill 5 people in Canada is the main issue.

Or should nuclear weapons only be used and saved for when someone else threatens them with nukes first?

Idk, clearly America is the only country crazy enough to nuke anyone.

Every country in the world should give up their nukes (except America ofc because we're number one)