The Most Insane Yahoo Answers Question

[rebelliousscot]

It'll make ya blood boil.

Would you support the US-led nuclear destruction of Europe?
It could easily be done over night.

1) Take out London first, then bomb all their army bases.
-- This will cripple the entire United Kingdom

2) Take out Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc all in one go.
-- These are powerless countries that can easily be taken out within seconds.

3) Germany
-- Prior to this, all US soldiers would have to be removed from US bases (obviously). We would simply do that by closing them all down within a few months before the attacks.
-- Germany would need to have all major cities attacked, and that would take a few hours, but it would still be easily done.

4) France
-- Paris, Lily, Marseilles, etc can easily be eliminated with standard weaponry. No need to waste nuclear weapons on France. Simply destroy Paris and the other medium sized cities.

5) Italy
-- Take out Rome and Milan with standard weaponry.

The rest of Europe would be no threat and would suffer from the outfall of the other nukes, so we wouldn't need to waste time nuking the smaller useless parts like Belgium.

All of the above could easily be done within one night. Now obviously by morning, the whole world would know ... problem 1: China.

Beijing and Hong Kong would need to be intimidately wiped out after the European assault, as well as the other larger Chinese cities, especially the one's in the interior part of the country. Beijing and Hong Kong could easily be wiped out from the US Pacific Fleet.

Now as for the Middle East -- Israel would be able to easily wipe out Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the various other Mideastern countries at the same time of our European assault. They wouldn't need to use nuclear weapons, standard weaponry.

The issue of South America -- The only problem is Brazil and Venezuela. Two nukes would do it. Canada would be annexed by the United States, and we would then be able to set up permanent military installations in the former Canadian north to protect against Russian attacks.

Can we call this looney an armchair dictactor?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091205050607AA1gKav

[malicious_bloke]

I'm assuming this is from a yank.

Putting aside the general lunacy of the idea for a moment, there are two nations in europe that possess a nuclear arsenal and a limited first strike capability, not to mention Russia's early warning system would notice a bunch of eastbound missiles in short order.

The old idea of M.A.D still applies, OP fails at logistics and strategic planning.

[rebelliousscot]

Dec 5, 2009 8:28:14 GMT -5 malicious_bloke said:

I'm assuming this is from a yank.

Putting aside the general lunacy of the idea for a moment, there are two nations in europe that possess a nuclear arsenal and a limited first strike capability, not to mention Russia's early warning system would notice a bunch of eastbound missiles in short order.

The old idea of M.A.D still applies, OP fails at logistics and strategic planning.

Yeh fact is they ignore Russia. But yeh that's scary thought process. I'm sure it goes against Yahoo terms of use agreement.

[id82]

1. Why would you want to destroy Europe?

2. Do you realize that Nukes give off radiation? Loading Europe with nukes would pretty much make that big chunk of land unliveable for hundreds of years.

3.I'm convinced that some people don't understand the repurcussions of using a nuclear weapon.

[clockworkgirl21]

99% of Y!A is fail.

[rebelliousscot]

Dec 5, 2009 8:59:15 GMT -5 clockworkgirl21 said:

99% of Y!A is fail.

I do actually post there. But I agree is quite bad, I mainly post because I like to debate. Also this is more fail than usual. I think that's obvious.

[canadian mojo]

This plan for world domination brought to you by some dumbass who doesn't seem to realize that the jet stream circles the globe.

They also fail to realize that annexing Canada is the worst idea possible. We'll play nice, become citizens of a new United States of North America, and you'll promptly have 30 million new voters who are all liberal enough to make the Obama administration look like it lies somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

[apedant]

Let's humour this Risk addict for a sec.

Hundreds of miles from London (well out of range of nuclear warhead damage), and right in hell's arse crack is a miserable dump of a base (not an army base so OP has no plan to bomb it) called HMNB Faslane. Out of Faslane sail the deeps of the Bomber squadron, Her Majesty's silent messengers of death, as they like to style themselves. The advantage of a 100% submarine based nuclear capability is that it is perfect for second strike. With one boat constantly at sea, even destroying Faslane leaves enough British nukes at sea to target every major US city. The French meanwhile don't even need 2nd strike, the OP plans to destroy a nuclear power with conventional weapons.

But is there any indication of just why the OP wants to bring horrific destruction on a global scale? After all what does the rest of the world provide to the USA other than commodities, raw materials, trade, cheap labour, cultural variation, sporting competition...

[discoberry]

Dec 5, 2009 9:42:01 GMT -5 canadian mojo said:

This plan for world domination brought to you by some dumbass who doesn't seem to realize that the jet stream circles the globe.

They also fail to realize that annexing Canada is the worst idea possible. We'll play nice, become citizens of a new United States of North America, and you'll promptly have 30 million new voters who are all liberal enough to make the Obama administration look like it lies somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

You have earned a delicious Taco

[quincyjones]

I hope this person reveals it is a joke when she picks a best answer.

[archaeopteryx]

I guess this person does not understand that there are many Americans living in Europe, and many of us Europeans living here in the U.S.

I bet that Blue Heart was home schooled in a small fundie town in the middle of Oklahoma.

[Tiger]

Dec 5, 2009 9:42:01 GMT -5 canadian mojo said:

They also fail to realize that annexing Canada is the worst idea possible. We'll play nice, become citizens of a new United States of North America, and you'll promptly have 30 million new voters who are all liberal enough to make the Obama administration look like it lies somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

That makes it the worst idea possible how?

[ihatelife]

Dec 5, 2009 8:20:21 GMT -5 rebelliousscot said:

It'll make ya blood boil.

Would you support the US-led nuclear destruction of Europe?
It could easily be done over night.

1) Take out London first, then bomb all their army bases.
-- This will cripple the entire United Kingdom

2) Take out Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc all in one go.
-- These are powerless countries that can easily be taken out within seconds.

3) Germany
-- Prior to this, all US soldiers would have to be removed from US bases (obviously). We would simply do that by closing them all down within a few months before the attacks.
-- Germany would need to have all major cities attacked, and that would take a few hours, but it would still be easily done.

4) France
-- Paris, Lily, Marseilles, etc can easily be eliminated with standard weaponry. No need to waste nuclear weapons on France. Simply destroy Paris and the other medium sized cities.

5) Italy
-- Take out Rome and Milan with standard weaponry.

The rest of Europe would be no threat and would suffer from the outfall of the other nukes, so we wouldn't need to waste time nuking the smaller useless parts like Belgium.

All of the above could easily be done within one night. Now obviously by morning, the whole world would know ... problem 1: China.

Beijing and Hong Kong would need to be intimidately wiped out after the European assault, as well as the other larger Chinese cities, especially the one's in the interior part of the country. Beijing and Hong Kong could easily be wiped out from the US Pacific Fleet.

Now as for the Middle East -- Israel would be able to easily wipe out Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the various other Mideastern countries at the same time of our European assault. They wouldn't need to use nuclear weapons, standard weaponry.

The issue of South America -- The only problem is Brazil and Venezuela. Two nukes would do it. Canada would be annexed by the United States, and we would then be able to set up permanent military installations in the former Canadian north to protect against Russian attacks.

Can we call this looney an armchair dictactor?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091205050607AA1gKav

This is the kind of crap that makes me ashamed to be from America at times.

Total psychopath, my country is infested with too many of these sub-human life forms.

[shykid]

Do these people not know that playing Risk and Civilization is nothing like real-life warfare?

(Rhetorical question, that.)

[ironbite]

Obviouslly not.