How Would You React If A Nuclear War Was About To Start???

Hope for instant and painless death of me and mines in the initial blast.

Fuck I look like barely surviving and watching my family suffer for the rest of our lives? I’ve watched enough post-apocalyptic movies to know I’d rather go out up front than deal with that bullshit.
 
If it happens….it happens.

In all truth I’d rather just die than be one of the millions of survivors who will have to deal with radiation, starvation etc…

Their suffering would be far worse
 
If you don't have the money to build a bunker and load it up with supplies or connections to someone who does have that, there is much you can do that's going to save you besides maybe moving away from cities that are likely to be prime targets (e.g., DC, NYC, LA, etc...).
 
This seems like a when question, putin ain't got it all, the world seems to hate us anyway. We'd get hit and them other countries gonna be like🗣 get that nigga Rex ! But it'll be a wrap for me probably. I'm upstate but too close to the city. But I would like to get 1 last fuck you govt this is your fault off🤣🤣
 
Make love to my lady, roll one up and smoke out, eat a steak and lobster dinner then sit on my porch listening to Biggie and wait for the face melt
IMG_2810.gif
 
  • Goat
Reactions: GNS
Explain?

Edit: I'm late to trumps disturbing tweets...

What you think is gonna happen if somebody nukes the US's ONLY legitimate ally country in that region? You think that's not gonna get a military response from the US? Israel isn't a Nato country, but they're a close NATO ally.the US is the biggest financial contributor to NATO. You think once Iran has already nuked Israel, and they know for a fact that the US ain't gonna be cool with that, that they're gonna hesitate to use nuclear weapons again against us (even if it's not the mainland)? I could name 3-5 other reasons.

This is what makes Geopolitics so interesting. Once you dig deep into it, you realize that the only thing that keeps this entire shit from falling apart and keeps us all from killing each other is the super complicated web of allies and treaties and organizations that can only lead to one conclusion:

There is no longer any such thing as an isolated war between two powerful countries, with powerful allies and opposite ideological philosophies.
 
What you think is gonna happen if somebody nukes the US's ONLY legitimate ally country in that region? You think that's not gonna get a military response from the US? Israel isn't a Nato country, but they're a close NATO ally.the US is the biggest financial contributor to NATO. You think once Iran has already nuked Israel, and they know for a fact that the US ain't gonna be cool with that, that they're gonna hesitate to use nuclear weapons again against us (even if it's not the mainland)? I could name 3-5 other reasons.

This is what makes Geopolitics so interesting. Once you dig deep into it, you realize that the only thing that keeps this entire shit from falling apart and keeps us all from killing each other is the super complicated web of allies and treaties and organizations that can only lead to one conclusion:

There is no longer any such thing as an isolated war between two powerful countries, with powerful allies and opposite ideological philosophies.

One of the most frequently misrepresented federal statutes—often falsely used to justify unconstitutional presidential war powers—is the War Powers Resolution (or Act) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550).

If only more people would read it.

Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution, it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60-90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours.

Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action.

The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans.

It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account.

The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval.

The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.
 
Back
Top