You, as President, Responds How?

[metis]

Morality isn't the subject. It's survival. Survival of my country, my family, my life.

If an enemy attacks us with a nuke, they didn't care for morality.

The civilian innocents don't deserves to die. Not at all. But they will kill you just as quickly if you threatened their way of life, family, country

But how we may respond definitely should involve our morality, imo. Are we to lay aside what we believe for purposes of expediency or politics? And why should we contribute to the madness with the killing of millions or billions of innocents?

To me, I'd rather die doing what I think is moral than live by sacrificing my beliefs. I'm very far from being a hero to anyone, but there's a saying that goes "A hero dies once; a coward dies many times".

Also, just a reminder that nuking the Soviet Union (Russia) would not save us because we would be devastated by thousands of nuke raining on us, and there's no real defense against them.

 

[metis]

So, what would you do? Let your country fall and people slaughtered and subjectes to oppression?

There simply would not be hardly any subjects, and maybe none at all, with all the nukes that would be involved. Secondly, why would the Soviets come here anyhow after a full blown attack on us? There would be little left, plus the radioactivity level alone would probably kill whomever tried.

 

[metis]

I wonder if it's possible to counter-nuke? To nuke a nuke? Take down a nuke in air with another nuke?

At this point, no. Yes, we do have interceptor missiles, but there are two major problems with one of them being that nukes nowadays are MIRVed (multiple-independent re-entry vehicles) with decoys and jamming, and the other being that radiation would highly pollute our atmosphere.

 

[Koldo]

Also, just a reminder that nuking the Soviet Union (Russia) would not save us because we would be devastated by thousands of nuke raining on us, and there's no real defense against them.

When I first read your OP, I thought that you meant those nukes were going to target strategic places on the USA. But apparently, what you meant is that the USA will be completely obliterated from the nuking.

On that case, if I had no doubt that the nukes came from Russia, I would nuke them back strategically to wipe out their government from the face of Earth. If that was not possible, due to the lack of knowledge, then I would launch a full attack on most of Russia.

Letting Russia remain unchecked would mean that they would subjugate every country under the threat of a new nuclear attack, or even launch new nuclear attacks at other countries.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh. I guess we will not be rid of nuclear weapons for quite some time still.

 

[Assad91]

But how we may respond definitely should involve our morality, imo. Are we to lay aside what we believe for purposes of expediency or politics? And why should we contribute to the madness with the killing of millions or billions of innocents?

To me, I'd rather die doing what I think is moral than live by sacrificing my beliefs. I'm very far from being a hero to anyone, but there's a saying that goes "A hero dies once; a coward dies many times".

Also, just a reminder that nuking the Soviet Union (Russia) would not save us because we would be devastated by thousands of nuke raining on us, and there's no real defense against them.

It's cowardly to fight?
If you're problem is the possibility of killing innocents of a country that has done such an attack, well what point in fighting huh? Innocents die in war all the time. Id even say the soldiers are innocent as well since they didn't decide to kill, their commanders above did.

With your logic being able to feel morally superior is better then saving your family. That is cowardly, to allow your family die

 

[LuisDantas]

It's cowardly to fight?

Yes, it often is.

This scenario proposed offers a very good example of circunstances that make it so.

If you're problem is the possibility of killing innocents of a country that has done such an attack, well what point in fighting huh? Innocents die in war all the time. Id even say the soldiers are innocent as well since they didn't decide to kill, their commanders above did.

In that case, war is by definition a criminal activity, and commanders must be judged and probably killed outright automatically after declaring it.

With your logic being able to feel morally superior is better then saving your family. That is cowardly, to allow your family die

You would have to offer evidence that it is in some way better for someone to take the immoral route for your conclusion to stand, though.

I don't think you can. Which is why I won't consider your choice.

 

[bobhikes]

You would have to offer evidence that it is in some way better for someone to take the immoral route for your conclusion to stand, though.

I don't think you can. Which is why I won't consider your choice.

If you stand by your morals evolution will eventually eliminate your way of thought. It is survival of the fittest not the moralest.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you stand by your morals evolution will eventually eliminate your way of thought. It is survival of the fittest not the moralest.

It is not survival at all, actually.

Or maybe it is the survival of the fittest, those being the beings that can not or will not actually build and employ nuclear weapons. Maybe it is the cockroaches' turn at bat.

 

[bobhikes]

It is not survival at all, actually.

Or maybe it is the survival of the fittest, those being the beings that can not or will not actually build and employ nuclear weapons. Maybe it is the cockroaches' turn at bat.

I wonder what moral's they'll have.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wonder what moral's they'll have.

If the current batch is any indication, they will only go out of their way to kill each other when there is actual need. If even then.

 

[metis]

It's cowardly to fight?
If you're problem is the possibility of killing innocents of a country that has done such an attack, well what point in fighting huh? Innocents die in war all the time. Id even say the soldiers are innocent as well since they didn't decide to kill, their commanders above did.

With your logic being able to feel morally superior is better then saving your family. That is cowardly, to allow your family die

But you see my family would die anyway no matter whether I responded or not under a full nuclear attack. This would be the outcome of thousands of strategic nuclear weapons being launched against us, so "cowardly" simply cannot logically come into play here. The only thing that can come into play is the issue of "revenge".

It's been said by experts that under a full nuclear attack, the only real question would be how high will the rubble bounce? If you have doubts about this, maybe do some Googling on the subject because it seems you're unaware of just how many and how powerful these weapons really are.



Added: For example, Google "nuclear winter".

 

[metis]

It is not survival at all, actually.

Or maybe it is the survival of the fittest, those being the beings that can not or will not actually build and employ nuclear weapons. Maybe it is the cockroaches' turn at bat.

LOL! Yes, I wish I could remember who first said that decades ago? Do you by chance know?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But you see my family would die anyway no matter whether I responded or not under a full nuclear attack.

If you're President, you wouldn't die in a nuclear attack. They have bunkers for that reason. Modern politicians are well removed from any sort of carnage or the realities of warfare.

 

[metis]

If you're President, you wouldn't die in a nuclear attack. They have bunkers for that reason. Modern politicians are well removed from any sort of carnage or the realities of warfare.

Oh, I would be dead. First of all, under a full nuclear attack, I'd be standing on top of the White House trying to catch the first nuke entering Washington. Secondly, Russia has roughly over 8000 nuclear weapons with roughly 1800 being strategic (the big boys).

For an "interesting" exercise, take out a map of the U.S. and count how many strategic targets you can come up with, hitting certain areas, such as D.C. with maybe 2-3 just to make certain nothing is left bigger than a cockroach. I did it, and after about 200, I gave up.

Even though there are underground shelters, it's questionable what might survive there. Remember, even though we and the Russians have "clean" nukes, nevertheless the amount of radioactivity thrown off would be immense with anything being even close to a direct hit.

Back around 1980, the Russians tested a 50 megaton nuke, and Newsweek posted a map with the radius of what that one single bomb could do. If dropped on Detroit, people as far away as the Mackinac Bridge that were in the open could be killed or seriously wounded by radiation. That's roughly 300 miles or a five-hour drive away from Detroit on the expressway.

 

[LuisDantas]

And then there is the matter of dealing with the famine, social unrest and disease.

Is "The Day After" that old a movie nowadays? I must make a point of actually watching it sometime.

 

[metis]

And then there is the matter of dealing with the famine, social unrest and disease.

Is "The Day After" that old a movie nowadays? I must make a point of actually watching it sometime.

That opening scene whereas the crowd is watching a sporting event outside and then you see these nuclear missiles taking off in the background sent chills up and down my spine. It's like "Oh ******-- we're toast".

BTW, my niece lives in Minot, N.D., which supposedly has the largest number of ground based nukes here in the States nearby.

 

[LuisDantas]

LOL! Yes, I wish I could remember who first said that decades ago? Do you by chance know?

I only know that it was a common illustration of the consequences of nuclear war in the 1960s.

 

[metis]

I only know that it was a common illustration of the consequences of nuclear war in the 1960s.

Yes, and there was a British production entitled "Threads", I believe, that was just as shocking plus considered being even more accurate according to those expert on such a depressing subject.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have neither the desire nor constitution to be responsible for making such decisions.