If there was a nuclear attack

Luseac · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:05

dirtydog said:
Yes you can die happy knowing that our missiles are going to murder a few million innocent Russian or Chinese civilians, hurrah. While the people who actually launched the bombs at us are safe in their bunkers a few miles underground.

Indeed, but what the hell. They didn't think about the millions of innocent British civilians.

Serj · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:06

movingtables said:
on a serious note where is all this middle east tension going.
i reckon there is a 70% chance of world war 3 between now and 2012.

You're not selling tin foil hats by any chance?

I'll take 4

dirtydog · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:07

lucasade1 said:
Indeed, but what the hell. They didn't think about the millions of innocent British civilians.

Two wrongs don't make a right and I would not support retaliatory strikes - what is the point. If we ever have to use our nukes then they have failed in their purpose which is as a deterrent to stop us being nuked.

Stellios · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:10

Serj said:
I'll take 4

3 for the meat and veg and one for your head i imagine?

HEADRAT · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:11

/Remember to duck and Cover

HEADRAT

lucifersam · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:12

dirtydog said:
Two wrongs don't make a right and I would not support retaliatory strikes - what is the point. If we ever have to use our nukes then they have failed in their purpose which is as a deterrent to stop us being nuked.

a retaliatory strike would hopefully prevent any further initial strikes, anyway our nukes would be used in support of conventioanl action and not targeted against overly populated areas

Serj · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:12

Stellios said:
3 for the meat and veg and one for your head i imagine?

I was actually thinking 1 for me and the rest for my family but i prefer your idea

YoungBlood · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:15

dirtydog said:
Two wrongs don't make a right and I would not support retaliatory strikes - what is the point. If we ever have to use our nukes then they have failed in their purpose which is as a deterrent to stop us being nuked.

Amen

Vanilla · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:17

I would fully support retaliatory strikes.

Nukes themselves don't deter the use of nukes, it's the mutually assured destruction that does - the fact that the other side WILL use them to strike back, not that they have them.

if that makes sense

pinkacidbootson · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:19

From orbit?

Etaqua · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:20

Johanson said:
From orbit?

I was waiting for that.

Luseac · 23 Jun 2006 at 21:35

dirtydog said:
Two wrongs don't make a right and I would not support retaliatory strikes - what is the point. If we ever have to use our nukes then they have failed in their purpose which is as a deterrent to stop us being nuked.

What's the point of having a deterrance if when attacked we don't use it?

If a state was stupid enough to attack us even though we have nukes then they should pay.

Zacko · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:02

Johanson said:
From orbit?

Was actually going to say nuke the nukes from orbit

But anyway, I used to have a few nightmares as a kid about the mushroom cloud and then horrible mutant people

fatmas · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:18

I don't want to die.

Getting the "four minute Warning" would be the worst part.
What would you do with your Last four minutes?
Personally I would Just try and get as far away from wherever as possible....

inferno · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:19

lucasade1 said:
What's the point of having a deterrance if when attacked we don't use it?

If a state was stupid enough to attack us even though we have nukes then they should pay.

Too right.

obliterate the country that attacked us!

Robdav · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:24

seeing that i live within 10 miles of aldershot (military), sandhurst (military), and farnborough (airbase/airport), and within 30 miles of london it would be fair to say that I wouldn't survive very long. It's times like this that a remote cabin in canada sounds very inviting.

Part of me would want to survive, intact hopefully, and be uneffected by the radiation/heat/blast etc so I could see what happens. The rest of me would want to go instantly, vapourised in the initial strike and not have to worry about scratching a living in a cold, dark, nightmare future.

VeNT · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:29

I'd want to be an active player in the nuclear holocost!

movingtables · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:32

what if you guys had 12 months to prepare and you had £1million to build and design your own survival house/bunker.

mine would be built 200ft down incased in 20 layers of thick steal and enough oxygen and water/food to last me 20 years if thats possible.
also 100 thousand dvd's and huge cinema screen and an xbox360 with all the available games at the time.
a private gym and a library of 50,000 books.

then somehow have a design built into the bunker that allows you to come out of it after your 20 years stay and see whats going on. :eek:

fatmas · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:37

£1,000,000 would not build that.... :-(

If like 20 of you did it then thats ok. Bring some girls and repopulate...
Seriously though apperently you need 37 people to repopulate a town or something.
Something to do with the combinations of couples...

yhack · 23 Jun 2006 at 22:47

ElRazur said:

Please god no! AHHHH!

I would survive if I was able to walk and stuff