NationStates Jolt Archive

Hypothetically speaking..(ooc)

18-11-2003, 00:35
lets say you came across a small country. People were declaring war on It because of what it's rulers face was like. lets say you decided to stand up for the poor little country. lets say someone fired ICBMs at your troops. What would YOU do??????
18-11-2003, 00:54
given the fact that they were using icbms against troops. i would probalbly activate my ignore shields. but that may not really be a solution.

using icbms against troops are hardly worth the cost. troops can easily spread beyond the blast radius of all but the largest nuclear warheads. you can't effectivly use icbms as a tactical weapon. they are much more effective against strategic targets.


1. ask about warhead yeilds. anything over 1 megatonne, could be grounds for an ignore

2. ask about targeting. "at your troops" does not count.

3. take the hit, approx 70% surviving, 10% living dead, then march on the sob. respond with the troops dug holes and found ditches to hide in when the launch warning came in. you get a few hours warning, given the nature of the technology.

4. nuclear return strike. target his military bases and industrial centres. if he can't supply the war it is over in two weeks. but if he is using icbms on deployed troops, supply lines are probably not being played out.

if possible post up the text of the icbm launch.
18-11-2003, 01:26
they aren't at my troops. it's a hypothetical post. they ICBMs which prompted this were not nukes. however, the govt in question assumed they were (It's an ICBM, why would they launch an ICBM at us, we're being nuked. etc.) thank you for the return strike. several countries condemned this as a response.
18-11-2003, 17:07
which, loosely begs the question of what were they loaded with. a yeild of less then 50 kt is a waste of an icbm. unless it is a biological warhead, and even then that is iffy. for a discussion on non-nuclear icbms.

given the warheads weren't nuclear, a return strike of nuclear weapon may not be proportional. but it is _really_ hard to tell the difference between the two when the missle comes out of the silo. so under standard military protocols, the targeted nation is well within rights to respond to icbm launches with their own nuclear weapons. (one of the problems with the mad military doctrine.)

as for the complaining countries. well, a one for one launch would probably keep many of them quiet. unless they knew ahead of time that these were non-nuclear icbms.