It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What would you want your government to do if your country was nuked?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:51 AM
Well Done post! First off my Government would have to survive to do anything. Then after the following, contact NATO Countries for their involvement and make the plan for retaliation(s).

Secondly, evacuation of affected areas and Medical help.

Thirdly, Communications, Security in affected and outlying areas.

Fourthly, Water, Food and Shelter.

Lastly, Monitor, Modify or Change the above as necessary..


posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:28 AM
This would also be a decision based on who used the nuke. What if it is Russia. Do you people really think a full scale war with nukes is warranted?

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Frosty
This would also be a decision based on who used the nuke. What if it is Russia. Do you people really think a full scale war with nukes is warranted?

if it was Russia, then they lost their minds. we threaten to use MAD and they ignored it. in anicase too bad for the rest of humanity.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:43 AM
Well respond in kind...

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:01 PM
I'd want, in fact I'd demand, that my government they did absolutely everything humanly possible to ensure that was the third and absolutely the last ever nuclear weapon used on Earth.

Call me naive if you like, but is any [normal] country on earth really going to set this off ? ok - there are a couple of rogue states that might have a go, but with an almost negligible nuke capability, you're going to have to be pretty much insane to take on any of the other nuclear states. I'd say that if you go so far as to launch a nuke you are going to end up facing pretty much the entire world. Regional conflicts may flare, but I'd place a fair bit of trust in China to rein in NK before it gets too heavy, and as far as some commentators are concerned, Iran may be as much as 10 years off building a nuke anyway.

If it's a radical group (as opposed to a state) I dare say the 'coalition of the willing' would also include almost any country you could mention, maybe even suddenly including the one which is 'allowing' the group to operate within it.
One could see how the normal rules of engagement could get a little mixed up during the evidence gathering stage, so if torture, illegal phone taps and assassination just kinda happens, well you know how it is ... if it gets the job done, then perhaps the means justify the end (although perhaps don't be too surprised if the end point to that isn't quite where you'd expect it to be).

If you need to bring down a state, don't use nukes, use sanctions, dialogue and decapitation.

I read something on here a while ago in connection with radical groups along the lines of negotiate with those that you can talk to, and bring them into the [broad] political process, and just kill the rest.

Unlike some people I really don't get very excited at all about the prospect of glassing off large bits of the world - I like it here, sure it's messed up, but at least there's still a chance. Still, I'm sure these people will end up alongside me to soil themselves as the realisation of the magnitude of the horror sinks in ...

I know I've posted here before about this, but the HIDANKYO web site has accounts from survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs - read those stories and then tell me honestly you'd welcome that.

Oops, rambled on a bit ...

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:37 PM
No way would I want my country, which is armed with nuclear weapons mounted on Trident II D5 missiles, to obliterate the belligerent with an counter-strike. I would want every mother **** involved in the strike to be hunted down and either killed or put on trial for war crimes/genocide as a lesson to any other idiot who thinks the use of nuclear weapons are a good idea. I would also hope that such an event would lead the total criminalisation of WMDs under a global treaty enforced by all nations.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:42 PM
in theory

I would want my government to reach out to the hearts and minds of our enemies, and reach an understanding of how we can all live in peace.

I would want my govt to work with all nations to clean-up the nuclear aftermath of the attack, and put and end forever to the nuclear threat by dismantling all nuclear weapons and technologies

in reality

i would want an eye for an eye, revenge, retaliation, and to make the world know that messing with the US is a death sentence

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:32 PM
Nulcear Weapon from from any developed nation that most likely wouldnt be just a single. But, if I were president.....

1: Massive red cross asistance all over the nation.
2: Massive Blood donar stations. Maybe worldwide.
3: Procure and fortify militaray strongholds around the world.
4: Military mobilization to that country for an invasion. Once the direction and the origin of the nuclear origin have been ascertained, the Capital of that country would be annihilated nuclear style.
5: UN and NATO emergency sanctions.
6: Public and private transportation of civilians to low risk areas.

Nuclear Weapon from a terrorist organization. We have to do all of the internal support items that we can but attacking the terrorist group would be pretty much as it is now.

Once the world witnesses a catastrophy of this scale, nuclear weapons worldwide will most likely be abolished. In the event that is isnt, then globaly as a race of man, we need to send a message that this is not a threat that any man or woman or child should have to live under.

On a more positive note, things do live during Atomic blasts. Keep in mind the weapons today dwarf the Nagasaki and Hiroshima weapons.

Heres a couple of links regarding Hirsohima and Nagasaki..A reminder to the present, you cant turn back the clock on a society that hasnt learned....

People that lived....

Items in the blast...

Another account..

WARNING: MIGHT BE DISTURIBING: Effects with notes of victims

Heres a blast radius effect Applet that gives you an idea of how devestating the reality of a nuclears blast is. Keep in mind, Hiroshima was 13 Kt. Kiloton not, megaton like they are now. Plug in youir city, and the delivery method and see how bad it can really be.

For your own safety in the event of a nuclear attack:

Lets pray this never happens again.


[edit on 3-8-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 3-8-2005 by HIFIGUY]

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:22 PM
I feel the british way to sort this out would be first and for most look after its own, make sure every last corner of the counrty has more than it needs to deal with ANY blast related issues.

2, Give the media unlimited access and no censorship and let them broadcast world wide to let every country know the death and devastation caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon, and get them on side and agree that the who ever was involved needs to be found regardless of belief's or religion and that ALL countries will be expected to help in the finding of them.

3, Once the country is in some sort of order, set about going after the animlas responsible using what ever means required, and either killed through non co-operation or tried and convicted of war crimes/genocide, show their home countries that we wont drop to their level by using nukes and they will be caught and face a trial as would any other criminal.

4, get all nukes banned full stop, no if, buts, or maybe's, a world wide commitment to rid the world of the threat of this happening again. as already said, make a statement claiming that we will tollerate this only once, and that every last member of every last organisation involved or is anti UK, will be hunted down for the rest of eternity or until their all dead. if any countries are proved to be harbouring these nutters and refuse to turn them over, then they will be invaded, put under british control and become part of the united kingdom, just like the good old days

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by HIFIGUY

Heres a blast radius effect Applet that gives you an idea of how devestating the reality of a nuclears blast is. Keep in mind, Hiroshima was 13 Kt. Kiloton not, megaton like they are now.

Well not exactly, there might be a few Megaton ones around but most are in the 100kT to 250kT range, the ones in which we are discussing are 15kT tops, maybe just maybe on a farce they can get 25kT. Thats a big stretch though.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:49 PM
If a nuke device went off. Iran would be gone, and they know it. They would be the first to receive retaliation since they are direct sponsors of terror groups.

We can't nuke the Sauds, since the majority of the world's oil is there.

If you look at the map below, you can see that Tehran falls into a paticularly safe nuke zone for surrounding countries. We do not need to use a radium bomb. We can use a nuke without fallout.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by vincere7]

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 08:56 PM
Noitice Tehran on the map:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:39 PM
If it's a country, destroy the country. If it's a religion, destroy the religion. Just as in war with a country innocents will die, so to in a war with a religion would innocents of that faith die.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:37 PM
Good posts people. thank you so much for responding to my thread. there is really a very diverse set of opinons on here. All of them however, well thought out so much respect to everyone that has posted so far.

I for one...if someone nuked the USA where i live, would want my government to take care of the people first. make sure that we were secure. set up medical facilites and supplies for those of us who were left. i would also like them to seal up our borders so nobody unidentified can come in.

if it were terrorists that attacked us im not quite sure how i would want my goverment to respond. i was sort of thinking along the lines of:
Not issuing any statement at all. the usa says nothing. the government acts like it is no big deal. all the while they are secretly gathering intell on the attackers. and then we attack them. we make them scared for awhile by not knowing what the USA thinks or what the USA is going to do. when we do find them. i think that they should either 1. be made to be slave labors for there crimes knowing that all of their hard work for the rest of their lives his helping the country that they bombed. 2. issue a statment that says we know who they are and we are coming for them, and then go after them and gun them down.

if it were a country, i would want the leader held responsible and all of the people in his cabinet to be held accountable since obviously the leader had to issue the order. i would want my government to remove them from power and make them do slave labor just like in the concentration camps. however many people died in the attack would be the number of years that had to be a slave to my country. as much as i would want them to just be killed, i would certainly rather die than be someones slave, so i think this would be worse.

I dont know, my own question is making me think lol.

Keep the ideas coming guys

Cheers to great ideas,

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:50 PM
That depends a lot on who did the nuking, where they got their weapons, what our capability after the attack was, etc etc etc.

In most cases, to make a long story short, I'd be pretty inhumane about it all. I'd expect retaliation to destroy the nuclear program of any nations involved in the attack, then I'd want them invaded and colonized so that their resources could be taken as reparations for our affected citizens.

If it was a terrorist attack, smuggled in, I would obviously lock down our borders at all but a few places, bar all immigration, and thoroughly inspect all incoming cargo.

Basically I'd want to anihilate or militarily castrate whoever was behind the attack, as I would view a small attack not as an isolated incident, but as an escalation and a sign of things to come if we did not take the gloves off and disable them.

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:00 AM
In the cold war deterance worked perfectly. Both the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. knew that if one country lauched missles it would mean both countries would ultimately be destroyed. If a terrorist sets a nuke off in New York, scientists can examine rocks at ground zero and get radiation traces. At that point they can determine where the Uranium was mined and what country had made the nuke to begin with.

The President NEEDS to announce that if such an event happened the U.S.A. could find out where the nuke came from and that country would be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY ANNIHILATED by nuclear weapons. This would put an immediate stop to the POSSIBILITY of Pakistan or North Korea from selling nukes to terrorists.

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:30 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The only possible answer is full-scale thermonuclear retalitation.

At whom??.. We're talking terrorism right??
And mind you.. There are only a couple of places where these nukes can be acquired from.. Pakistan and NK..
Also by analyzing the fallout material one can determine where the uranium was mined from..

Also I as a non-american/non-muslim am quite fascinated by the crossection of responses from various thought groups in the US and the west..
Some of those responses were very touching.. really..

Like one which went "make sure that this was the last nuke ever used"...

Also those Iran responses..
If the US gets nuked and tries to use its "iraq-style PPT" to prove that Iran was the cause.. then it will be a double whammy for the US..
First test the residual fallout material to determine WHERE the plutonium/uranium was mined..
"Sum of all Fears" wasn't a bad moive you know..

Islamic terrorism has its damn roots in american foreign policy..
Right from Kashmir to Chechnya to afghanistan to Palestine to Iraq..

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Daedalus3]

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by northwolf
If it's a terrorist organisation i'd suggest using all means nessesary (as alien said) to hunt them down. Spec-ops, police, intel orgs, of course closing down borders. Special emphasis should be on internation co-operation that should be easy to achieve after a nuclear attack. If some country refuses co-operation it should be forced to co-operate, either by sactions or by military action. And in this kind of a man hunt there's no need to be gentle, trials can be held postmortem...

I think you would have lots of collateral damage (you would then become the terrorist), perhaps civilwar because nobody likes a paranoid policestate (not for a long duration at least), and then also normal war if you'd force another nation to co-operate, a war on two fronts has never been won.
I guess it would be best to do everything to make sure you've caught the right guys (because if you catch many innocent people, torture and kill them, it will only fuel the terrorists, more people would join them because of hatred against you), and not like what America has done, example Guantanamo Bay.

It's hard to say what would be the right thing to do, but I'd start with helping the victims. Military actions hardly offer any good solutions, more people just get killed. However maybe a good big war with nukes, biological and chemical weapons and all the other nasty stuff would make humanity realise that war is a dead end. After that war, all the nations of the world would agree on a sort of "all on one" policy, that if a nation declares war on another nation in the future, all the other nations in the whole world would blow the nation that declared war, into oblivion, then I guess we wouldn't have that many wars anymore, now would we?

[edit on 5/8/2005 by SwearBear]

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:43 AM
Maybe thats what the war loving world needs. A bloody, nuclear, Biochecmical war that shocks some sense into people how stupid these devices are.

That no man should have that kind of control over anything here on earth or anywhere in the universe for that matter.

Does man need to see history repeated again with a different type of weapon? I sure hope not.

But maybe as you say, the world needs a shock. I dont want to see it. Ive read about war and Ive seen the carnage from the nuclear...courtesy of the internet, and I want nothing to do with it. While war and military force is needed at times because there are cultures in the world who just dont seem to get it any other way, I would still rather for diplomacy first.

Look at how difficult negotiating can be. Even with Israel and palestine. ITs hard for me to fathom the internal struggles that Israel is going through right now. Can we not learn anything from their struggle in terms of war and senseless death? And here we are talking about nuking Iran?
This is crazy.

Weapons of mass destruction, even for the good guys, is a waste of good minds and money. Especially nuclear. Biochemcial should not be made or stored at all period.


posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:09 AM
The President, as the Commander in Chief, heads the military chain of command within the Department of Defense. The Commander in Chief is kept abreast of all matters affecting the ability of the Department of Defense to defend the United States and its allies. The offices of the Secretary of Defense; the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and their supporting establishments (the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force); and various unified and specified commands make up the DOD. The Department of Defense is the largest government agency in the United States. It spends a major portion of the national budget and employs nearly 4 million people (military and civilian). The DOD carries out the military policies of the United States. Its functions, simply stated, are to maintain and employ armed forces to accomplish the following:

1) Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.

2) Protect the United States, its possessions, and areas vital to its interests.

3) Advance the policies and interests of the United States

4) Safeguard the internal security of the United States

It is the fourth function that is important here! The President and the DOD are mandated by law to protect the internal security of the United States.
Which simply means that if there is a nuclear strike on US soil, then all steps militarily possible must be taken to assure that, 'IT CAN NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN', period. Let there be no confusion as to what that means!
This is what the terrorist and those that support the terrorist do not understand. It is not a 'Nuclear Option' it is a mandate!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in