Would you push the button knowing the consequences?

Of course I would, just to shut the "ohhhhhh Jeremy Corbyn" crew up.

At times like these, on a Friday night with the dark rolling in, not a fuel station open for miles, the police more feared than criminals and the leader of the opposition claiming it's not right to say only women have a cervix...is it worth chancing not pressing the button?
 
1664kronenbourg said:
shoot myself but I'd leave a note asking for what's left of human civilisation to forgive and not blame me but to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the politicians first.
Click to expand...
Stick that note in the hole that keeps the **** you use for brains.

We are being told that by pressing a button to boil a cup of tea we are killing the polar bears, making sea levels rise and possibly ending civilisation as we know it and destroying the world.

When you are in charge of nuclear weapons you don't think in those categories. It is either fire first with a (notreally)rational plan to end up with more toys left when dust settles. Or fire to retaliate to nail the ******** who fired first. Neither scenario needs you and your note.
 
yes

because if we've managed to bring the world from the [relative] peace we enjoy now to one where nuclear war is considered a serious option by the leader of a nation then we deserve everything we get.
 
To hold in my hand a capsule that contains such power, to know that life and death on such a scale was my choice. To know that the tiny pressure of my thumb, enough to break the glass, would end everything. Yes, I would do it! That power would set me up above the gods!
 
1664kronenbourg said:
Just picture the scene, You're Joe Biden's, Xi Jinping's, Vladimir Putin's top general and you've been given the order to luanch a nuclear attack, knowing full well that you'll be possibly ending civilisation and destroying the world. Would you push the button?
Me, I'd tell them, may you and the other politicians rot in the hell you've created. I'd push the button then shoot myself but I'd leave a note asking for what's left of human civilisation to forgive and not blame me but to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the politicians first.
Click to expand...
Not a chance.

robfosters said:
What’s the point of a nuclear deterrent if you are not prepared to use it?
Click to expand...
The point of a deterrent is a deterrent. They wouldn't know that you're not prepared to use it, I suspect if you told people you wouldn't then you'd no longer have that job.
 
It seems many people are willing to see their friends, family and country obliterated without any retaliation whatsoever.

I can’t get my head round that.
 
robfosters said:
It seems many people are willing to see their friends, family and country obliterated without any retaliation whatsoever.

I can’t get my head round that.
Click to expand...
I got the impression the question was a first strike rather than retaliation. If it was in retaliation then it would already be too late, it solves nothing and it's unlikely that the millions of people you chose to obliterate collectively decided to destroy your country.
 
Obviously, it would depend on how many bottlecaps I had in my stash.

Seriously...I don't know. It's such an alien situation to me that I can't know how I would act in it.

Although if I was the top general of the USA, the PRC and the Russian Federation simultaneously, I'd be the de facto most powerful person on the planet and in a position to countermand any order from anyone. Those countries would have to be in a de facto union in order to have the same person in complete command of their militaries, so if any of them ordered an attack on another part of that union I'd declare them a traitor and have them arrested. Problem solved.

1664kronenbourg said:
Just picture the scene, You're Joe Biden's, Xi Jinping's, Vladimir Putin's top general and you've been given the order to luanch a nuclear attack, knowing full well that you'll be possibly ending civilisation and destroying the world. Would you push the button?
Me, I'd tell them, may you and the other politicians rot in the hell you've created. I'd push the button then shoot myself but I'd leave a note asking for what's left of human civilisation to forgive and not blame me but to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the politicians first.
Click to expand...

If I was a survivor who found that note, I'd curse you for a coward and blame you even more than the politicians who issued the order. They may have been acting in good conscience, doing what they thought was right and accepting responsibility for their actions. You were doing something you thought was wrong, blaming other people for your actions and escaping your responsibilities.
 
VincentHanna said:
"Stanislav Petrov was in charge of a Soviet nuclear early warning center when there was a report of five American nuclear missiles heading towards the soviet union. Rather than retaliate, Stanislav followed his gut feeling and went against protocol, convincing the armed forces that it was a false alarm. His decision saved the world from a potential devastating nuclear holocaust."
Click to expand...

Was going to mention this as I was sure I recalled a historical moment where someone should have pressed the button to launch a nuke but decided against it.
 
DeliciousStorage said:
I got the impression the question was a first strike rather than retaliation. If it was in retaliation then it would already be too late, it solves nothing and it's unlikely that the millions of people you chose to obliterate collectively decided to destroy your country.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
But the USA'd be coming out with the usual 'it's to protect democracy' and 'the free world'. Er, Hello, Biden, Houses of Senate and Congress but you won't have much of a country and free world left when you've finished cowering in your bunkers.
 
VincentHanna said:
So the thinking here is....I might as well doom millions more innocent people to death somewhere else around the globe?
Click to expand...

While an interesting philosophical point - many of those nuclear weapons would be used again things like power stations, docks, airfields, military bases, bunkers, missile silos (if the target has a strategic response), air defences, and so on as well as high density population centres. With the more common use of warheads in the 100s of kiloton rather than megaton there is going to be a lot of people who survive, if you don't press the button then the aggressor will retain their full military and command capabilities while your country is on its knees - millions more of your countrymen will likely face death or persecution to subsequent strategic or conventional strikes/invasion and other action if you don't press the button.

Additionally for a country like say the US if one other country like Russia launches a first strike do you send a few nukes towards the likes of China to try and prevent them taking advantage of the situation or do you avoid that in-case it isn't incapacitating enough it draws retaliation.
 
Pretty sure nukes today are of a smaller yield due to the increased accuracy of the missiles delivery systems, that, and we now detonate them way above ground to increase the pressure wave blast that results in far less radiation fallout as a result compared to the early weapons and thinking.

Not sure they are actually used to obliterate just a city, more targeted at important strategic targets, although that's lot still and a fair few are in cities but I'm sure they are not just used to flatten a city with the aim of wiping it out completely, although obviously if you have lots of these targets within the city area it will be doomed as a result, ie steel factories.

However I'd only apply this logic of attack to the west and Russia...China/NK etc are a different kettle of fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom