PEOPLE IN COUNTRIES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, A QUESTION FOR YOU

search this site: search the web:

Don't just sit there... Vote on something will you!

PEOPLE IN COUNTRIES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, A QUESTION FOR YOU

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

PEOPLE IN COUNTRIES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, A QUESTION FOR YOU

[+] ballot by larrynelmira
created Tue Aug 29, 06
If you were at war and it was apparent you are about to lose and be occupied, would you think at that point you should go nuclear?

Yes
No
Yes, of course that's why we have them
No , of course not, wouldn't be worth the destruction

Ballot #101108 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
103203. Why are poverty stricken countries developing Nuclear weapons?
89598. Why is it okay for the United States to have a large nuclear weapons arsenal, but other countries can't possess or research them?
96315. If Iran did get nuclear weapons, would they give such weapons to terrorists?
89551. Aren't nuclear weapons just the bomb?!
95762. how many nuclear weapons does Israel have?
16472. Which country should not be allowed Nuclear Weapons
77759. What year did Canada get rid of its nuclear weapons?
106817. Would it be OK if India developed nuclear weapons?
111807. is it really such a bad thing if iran has nuclear weapons?
112533. Nuclear weapons: Have they saved us or condemned us?

COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, of course that's why we have them
As long as the other country didnt have any of friends with any..

by fairy_88 on Tue Aug 29, 06 6:53am [+]

If the US were about to be occupied? Tough call. It could bring about the apocalypse, but the US under foreign rule is hardly a desirable outcome.

I'd use them, but against military targets only, large concentrations of troops and the like. Not against their cities. And use as few as possible.

But it's be a horrible decision to have to make. Risk millions of lives or sacrifice the freedom of millions.

by herzog on Tue Aug 29, 06 7:09am [+]

depends who the occupiers were. If Britain had had the A-bomb in 1940 and we'd lost the Battle of Britain I'd have done it in a heatbeat.

by Chomsky on Tue Aug 29, 06 9:27am [+]

an a heartbeat aswell!

by Chomsky on Tue Aug 29, 06 9:27am [+]

Our country is already occupied.

by _Beelzebubba on Tue Aug 29, 06 9:59am [+]

Yeah, I would absolutely go ballistic, I'd lose it altogether, great pic by the way.

Seriously though - I don't think the war would have got to that point without the nukes having been already deployed long ago.

It's purely hypothetical, and the chances are that there will forever be a standoff between civilised nuclear powers as long as they understand that there will be no winners - only losers on both sides - in any nuclear war.

by Ken_from_Dublin on Tue Aug 29, 06 11:01am [+]

Voted : No
I wouldn't. But then, I have this nagging thing called common sense.

by Truthseeker013 on Tue Aug 29, 06 2:56pm [+]

Voted : No , of course not, wouldn't be worth the destruction
Nope... but hey, humans are crazy, who knows what I would do if actually faced with that situation. I sure hope I wouldn't push the big red button.

by himself809 on Tue Aug 29, 06 4:18pm [+]

What a tough question. So many factors. I would hope that my primary value was preserving the life of humanity. Let's hope no one is ever pushed to this choice.

by margaret123 on Tue Aug 29, 06 4:24pm [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |