As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

So global distaster strikes, America gets fucked, what happens?

TransporterTransporter Registered User regular
edited October 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Anyways, I was reading a manga, Highschool of the Dead.

Blah blah blah shit happens blah blah

Anyways, one thing actually caught my eye.

Basically, it brought out the scenario of the United States complete and utter annihilation. All executive branches were in the proccess of being destroyed. Pretty much the endgame of the Romero movies playing out. This was happening all over the world mind, you, but much MUCH worse in North America.

Their final order, however, was to launch Nuclear attacks on both North Korea and China.

At first, when I saw this, I was all "olol Japan thinks American's are crazy olol".

However, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

If America suddenly collapsed, and the U.N. weren't in a position to stop them, what's stopping NK or China from just ruining the entire worlds shit? In that case, I can very well see an order being put out for NK and China to be wiped from the face of the earth, since, they are the two most agressive world powers with the most devoloped nuclear arsenals.

They could just point their nukes anywhere, and say, "Hey, we rule the world now, got a problem?".

And, well, that's not the half of it. you still have the middle eastern regions, Iran and the like, to deal with.

So anyways, get to it.

Transporter on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    RookRook Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    You've still got a lot of countries with Nuclear Weapons (Russia, UK) so there's still MAD to prevent that from happening.

    Honestly if the USA got wiped out, I'd think the main problem would be the obvious global recession from such a large chunk of consumption being wiped out, rather than any military destabilisation.

    Rook on
  • Options
    SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Wow... how eurocentric and ignorant of you.

    The UN doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. It strongly discourages it with the use of sanctions, which half the countries ignore anyway. I love how when society collapses, only NK, China, and the Middle East are capable of causing world wide distruction due to... I suppose your perception that they are all insane?

    Maybe you should be more worried about the number of unaccounted for or poorly guarded nukes floating around in the former U.S.S.R...

    Edit: Also, when the hell did North Korea get nukes?

    And China is the most aggressive country now? I mean, I suppose Taiwan thinks so... but what other acts of aggression has China made? Seriously, where do you get your understanding of International Relations?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It is not in China's interest to threaten and alienate its trading partners.

    Azio on
  • Options
    DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    China stays inside its own borders more than your damn country does.


    *This statement is only true if you agree with the chinese conception of PRC's borders.

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • Options
    LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sentry wrote: »

    Maybe you should be more worried about the number of unaccounted for or poorly guarded nukes floating around in the former U.S.S.R...

    I've been told all nukes were accounted for and that is just an urban myth. Any evidence?

    Oh and to the op both Britain and France still have enough nuclear weaponry that MAD would stay in effect. Infact they both have a greater armament then China. By greater, I mean combined they have more then ten times as many active weapons as China.

    Leitner on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    China, regarding the rest of the world, isn't retarded. It's certainly not crazy.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    TransporterTransporter Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Wow... how eurocentric and ignorant of you.

    The UN doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. It strongly discourages it with the use of sanctions, which half the countries ignore anyway. I love how when society collapses, only NK, China, and the Middle East are capable of causing world wide distruction due to... I suppose your perception that they are all insane?

    Maybe you should be more worried about the number of unaccounted for or poorly guarded nukes floating around in the former U.S.S.R...

    I didn't make myself clear.

    This isn't my stance on the siituation. I was going to save that for later. The stance the book took, was that the US, in a halfassed effort, nuked this shit out of China and NK.

    Personally, in a worldwide disaster scenario, I think that China and NK wouldn't do anything of the sort, if it had sufficient military force.

    Well, I mean, NK would obviously run the fuck over South Korea. That's a given, but that's about it.

    China would probably take a humanitarian effort, and help stabilize Asia, and maybe, MAYBE sneak a good chunk of military force into whatever area they decide to aid.

    Russia would be a problem, since an organized military force can add a significant chunk to their nuclear arsenal if Russia was also hampered by the disaster. But still, it's fucking Russia, and it would take a big move to actually secure it, so of course that would draw attention.

    Transporter on
  • Options
    SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Leitner wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »

    Maybe you should be more worried about the number of unaccounted for or poorly guarded nukes floating around in the former U.S.S.R...

    I've been told all nukes were accounted for and that is just an urban myth. Any evidence?

    Oh and to the op both Britain and France still have enough nuclear weaponry that MAD would stay in effect. Infact they both have a greater armament then China. By greater, I mean combined they have more then ten times as many active weapons as China.

    As far as "unaccounted for" that is open to a great deal of speculation.... as for poorly guarded?
    Due to poor job quality issues, employees at the Russian nuclear sites are becoming increasingly incompetent. According to the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, the US General Accounting Office reported in 2001 that guards at these facilities leave gates open and unattended, they leave equipment inoperable, and they don’t check for identification before personnel enter into highly secured areas storing nuclear material. For example, in 2005, a resident of the closed nuclear city of Lesnoy (a major nuclear weapon assembly and disassembly facility) entered the facility wearing fatigues and a fake identification badge with the name and photograph of the leader of the Chechen terrorist, Salmon Raduev. 6 He was able to enter three guarded checkpoints and into the weapons facility. The guards obviously were not paying any attention to this individual carrying identification with the name and photograph of an enemy of the state.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I doubt highly that were the U.S. going under, we'd just nuke China and NK. NK just doesn't make any sense at all; it's a poor country run by a tinpot dictator who isn't going to invade anything anytime soon. China makes a little bit more sense on "we're taking them down with us" grounds I suppose, but that still seems sort of silly, unless we thought they were the ones who attacked us.

    It really depends on the scenario that downs the U.S. Natural disaster? Military conflict? Economic collapse/revolution? Aliens?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    thundercakethundercake Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If the devastation was happening all over the world, why would the US bother nuking anyone?

    thundercake on
  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    If the devastation was happening all over the world, why would the US bother nuking anyone?
    Nothing good on TV?

    Dynagrip on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max". To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again...

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    In that case, I can very well see an order being put out for NK and China to be wiped from the face of the earth, since, they are the two most agressive world powers with the most devoloped nuclear arsenals

    If you exclude America.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    You've still got a lot of countries with Nuclear Weapons (Russia, UK) so there's still MAD to prevent that from happening.

    Honestly if the USA got wiped out, I'd think the main problem would be the obvious global recession from such a large chunk of consumption and production being wiped out, rather than any military destabilisation.
    fixed. The USA is also the world's largest exporter.

    I imagine if a incredibly deadly plague situation that could not be contained actually happened, the US is a lot more likely to nuke itself in a last ditch attempt to contain it, than to waste their nukes on some random country.

    IShallRiseAgain on
    Alador239.png
  • Options
    RaernRaern Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    In that case, I can very well see an order being put out for NK and China to be wiped from the face of the earth, since, they are the two most agressive world powers with the most devoloped nuclear arsenals

    If you exclude America.

    So you're proposing that if the US was dying, it should nuke itself just to be on the safe side?

    Raern on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Raern wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    In that case, I can very well see an order being put out for NK and China to be wiped from the face of the earth, since, they are the two most agressive world powers with the most devoloped nuclear arsenals

    If you exclude America.

    So you're proposing that if the US was dying, it should nuke itself just to be on the safe side?

    Um, if you read the original post you'll notice that's exactly what they did in the story that inspired the thread...

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Raern wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    In that case, I can very well see an order being put out for NK and China to be wiped from the face of the earth, since, they are the two most agressive world powers with the most devoloped nuclear arsenals

    If you exclude America.

    So you're proposing that if the US was dying, it should nuke itself just to be on the safe side?

    No, I'm proposing that the US is the most aggressive world power with the most developed nuclear arsenal.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    And when the hell did North Korea get a "developed nuclear arsenal"?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    GorgeeenGorgeeen __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    This thread just doesn't make sense.


    China aggressive? North Korea nuclearly active? America collapsing?


    This shit only happens in Manga. In such a scenario I imagine America would send out a rag tag group of Gundams to go around the world defeating the last evils. These are the Last Americans.

    Gorgeeen on
    No god damnit! The sheriff is a nig*Church Bells*r!!
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Pensies are "just kinda ugly" any way you slice it.

    Or don't slice it.
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    No no no we'd sacrifice the SDF-1 in order to save our Grand Canyon base but then the plan would go horribly wrong...

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    No no no we'd sacrifice the SDF-1 in order to save our Grand Canyon base but then the plan would go horribly wrong...

    That's okay, Minmei will sing and then everything will work out in the end.
    When the humans and the zentraedi unite to stangle Minmei.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    There are enough expats to rebuild if neccessary. Also I'm pretty that at any given time there are enough politicians overseas to help reform a newer government. I'll bet conspiracy theorists could tell you about all these contingency plans and such.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I won't guess at the immediate political/economic consequences of such a thing (that would depend to a huge extent on the specific cause of the disaster), but I'm sure that within a few decades things would be back up and running again. Even if every current American is killed, there'll be more. Some Mexicans will move North, some Canadians will move South, some Europeans will move West, and some Asians will move East. It'll be just like old times, but probably with fewer Europeans this time around.

    CycloneRanger on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But next time we'll do it right

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    JohannenJohannen Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Nuclear war won't happen.

    Nobody is retarded enough to think there wont be a return strike.

    Johannen on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Johannen wrote: »
    Nuclear war won't happen.

    Nobody is retarded enough to think there wont be a return strike.

    History is filled with people who've ignored remote possibilities and eventually had to pay the price.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Unless you're nuking North Korea, which doesn't have any weapons to return strike with.

    The scenario just sounds plain silly to me. The whole world is going to zombie hell, what's the point of, 'We'd better take as many other countries with us as we can!"

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • Options
    JohannenJohannen Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    Nuclear war won't happen.

    Nobody is retarded enough to think there wont be a return strike.

    History is filled with people who've ignored remote possibilities and eventually had to pay the price.

    Yeah, but none has been as big as ignoring the fact that a whole country could be whiped out.

    Johannen on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    NK is holding Seoul hostage via artillery.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Plus they've got the tunnels and no one has a good counter to the human wave attack. "Zerg rush kekeke" and all that.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    NK is holding Seoul hostage via artillery.
    Voting SK to develop force fields first.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah, the only really credible threat as far as nuclear weapons is the 'suitcase nuke terrorist' scenario. And we'd probably spend long enough figuring out where the thing actually came from that a return nuclear strike would probably be off the table.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If the devastation was happening all over the world, why would the US bother nuking anyone?
    Some people want to go out with a bang.

    Apparently the writer felt the US government would much rather go out with a nuclear holocaust.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Really though, if it came down to it, once anything 'big' happens, big enough to topple the American government, I'd figure the world is fucked. If the US goes, I'm sure some of what we have here and overseas would retaliate somewhere in kneejerk fashion. People can cry MAD doctrine all they want, but once one rational actor turns, all that goes out the window. That would lead to a power vacuum involving the US and whomever we have tageted, and after that, the countries in the periphery left standing would have to consolidate whatever's left as quickly as possible, maybe leading to a world war that would probably make WW1+2 look like skirmishes.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    Really though, if it came down to it, once anything 'big' happens, big enough to topple the American government, I'd figure the world is fucked. If the US goes, I'm sure some of what we have here and overseas would retaliate somewhere in kneejerk fashion. People can cry MAD doctrine all they want, but once one rational actor turns, all that goes out the window. That would lead to a power vacuum involving the US and whomever we have tageted, and after that, the countries in the periphery left standing would have to consolidate whatever's left as quickly as possible, maybe leading to a world war that would probably make WW1+2 look like skirmishes.

    Nah, I really doubt the west or china would be quite that stupid. I mean there would be a definate shift in the balance of world power and economically things would take a turn for the worst but anyone who did something particularly stupid would quickly find themselves crushed.

    Leitner on
  • Options
    BernardBernoulliBernardBernoulli Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Johannen wrote: »
    Nuclear war won't happen.

    Nobody is retarded enough to think there wont be a return strike.

    Except all those incidents when one side had information saying the other side had struck (or was striking) first. There's also the logic "tensions are high and we really think they might nuke us first, so we'll nuke first and target all their nukes, reducing the threat significantly."

    Also, your logic is working on the basis that everyone's totally sane and completely reasonable all the time, which obviously isn't the case.

    And the OP's basic premise is pretty ridiculous and backed up by nonsense ideas and bizarre US media propaganda campaigns - China *isn't* aggressive, there's nothing to suggest it would declare itself ruler of the planet in the case of the US collapsing (because it wouldn't manage it anyway) and it doesn't have a nuclear force as large as many other nations, or as well developed. Really, if it came down to a nuclear war between the UK and/or France vs. China, the former two both have range and numbers to beat China hands down from what I understand (I'm not even sure China has ICBMs). That's without mentioning India's or Russia's nukes, Russia having similar numbers to the US

    And N. Korea? It's not some great evil, all-powerful nation - it could mess up S. Korea (conquering and holding I'm not sure about), but it's not like it could threaten as far away as Japan, let alone the planet.

    Saying all that, if the world were falling apart and the US was collapsing, I'm sure there are plenty in the Bush regime who'd start throwing nukes around

    BernardBernoulli on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The premise of this thread is ridiculous. Why would America decide to randomly nuke someone if things were going down the tubes, and not as a result of direct hostile action? There'd have to be a real madman, like clinically insane in charge, a terminator situation, or a gigantic series of errors for something like that to happen.

    Anyways, about China. We have a love/hate relationship with them. They sell us all sorts of cheap stuff, but we don't like their repression nor their rampant spying and so forth. But they are no where near as much hostility between us and them as there was with the USSR.

    And China's strategic nuclear arsenal is set up a bit differently than America's, particularly in terms of size. They mostly believe that the annihilation of at least one major city is so unacceptable such that it is sufficient for MAD deterrence. Supposedly they have been expanding it a bit lately, but their missiles are both fewer and less potent than the US. The estimates I see have them clocking in at the 300 range for warheads, as opposed to the thousands or tens of thousands held by both Russia and the US.

    Savant on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    China stays inside its own borders more than your damn country does.


    *This statement is only true if you agree with the chinese conception of PRC's borders.

    China's still not fucking over Taiwan the way the US has fucked Panama/Honduras/Nicaragua/Guatemala/Chile/Congo/Philippines/etc

    Sam on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sam wrote: »
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    China stays inside its own borders more than your damn country does.


    *This statement is only true if you agree with the chinese conception of PRC's borders.

    China's still not fucking over Taiwan the way the US has fucked Panama/Honduras/Nicaragua/Guatemala/Chile/Congo/Philippines/etc

    That's because they know that they would piss off the west extra fierce if they did. We've propped up the nationalists before (Taiwan's controlling group that puts it at odds with China proper), but we have far less connection to the other targets of Chinese influence, such as the Tibetans.

    Savant on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    actually it's more because they want to integrate Taiwan into China, but not at the cost of adverse effects on both economies.

    Sam on
Sign In or Register to comment.