It's for a summer bio project- what if the cuban missile crisis wasn't resolved?
the wording of the project is "the IRBM has been launched".
and I'm not doing NYC because of the UN.
and isn't everything militarily significant in omaha bomb proof?
If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
-
dogstar4god
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:44 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: SC
- Contact:
If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Last edited by dogstar4god on Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go try to take over the world"
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Only one missile? Omaha, Nebraska...take out as much of the US's missile capability as possible (with only one missile).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
I would try to take out as many violin playing South Carolina residing Christians that I could.
-
neanderpaul14
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:52 pm
- Location: "Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy if possible." - Thomas J. Jackson
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Long Island NY. Just because those accents really bother me. Or NYC so we could rid the world of the Yankees.
High score: 2724/#163 on scoreboard/COLONEL
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Biloxi, Mississippi, because it just needs a good nuking. Hurricane Katrina didn't finish the job well enough.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Houston or Cape Canaveral.
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Hologram wrote:Biloxi, Mississippi, because it just needs a good nuking. Hurricane Katrina didn't finish the job well enough.
Hurricane Katrina destroyed my home and every single thing I owned. Yes, I am serious. Thanks.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Drop that bomb anywhere in the bible belt......see how many are saved 
Im a TOFU miSfit
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
comic boy wrote:Drop that bomb anywhere in the bible belt......see how many are saved
How about you carry it in?
-
hecter
- Posts: 14632
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
- Contact:
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Woodruff wrote:Hologram wrote:Biloxi, Mississippi, because it just needs a good nuking. Hurricane Katrina didn't finish the job well enough.
Hurricane Katrina destroyed my home and every single thing I owned. Yes, I am serious. Thanks.
I lol'd.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
-
the.killing.44
- Posts: 4724
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: now tell me what got two gums and knows how to spit rhymes
- Contact:
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
neanderpaul14 wrote:Long Island NY. Just because those accents really bother me. Or NYC so we could rid the world of the Yankees.
…who are in Chicago
-
captainwalrus
- Posts: 1018
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:19 pm
- Location: Finnmark
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Just to F**k with people I would nuke Ottowa, If I could reach, Mexico city if I couldn't reach. Everyone would be expecting me to launch it at the US, I would catch them all off gaurd
~ CaptainWalrus
-
Minister Masket
- Posts: 4882
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:24 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: On The Brink
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Woodruff wrote:Only one missile? Omaha, Nebraska...take out as much of the US's missile capability as possible (with only one missile).
Do they include nukes?
Because multiple nukes exploding in the same place would surely make blockbuster viewing.
Victrix Fortuna Sapientia
-
dogstar4god
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:44 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: SC
- Contact:
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
ok this isn't going as well as I'd hoped. It's for an IB Biology project
maybe reading the assignment will help.
"you are to submit a journal detailing the following scenario:
The Cuban Missile Cisis has not been resolved and has escalated to the point that the IRBM has been launched. what is the impact on the USA as well as the rest of the world?
...
Entries must be dated to reflect the time period."
We're in 1962.
Katrina hadn't happened.
maybe reading the assignment will help.
"you are to submit a journal detailing the following scenario:
The Cuban Missile Cisis has not been resolved and has escalated to the point that the IRBM has been launched. what is the impact on the USA as well as the rest of the world?
...
Entries must be dated to reflect the time period."
We're in 1962.
Katrina hadn't happened.
"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go try to take over the world"
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
dogstar4god wrote:ok this isn't going as well as I'd hoped. It's for an IB Biology project
maybe reading the assignment will help.
"you are to submit a journal detailing the following scenario:
The Cuban Missile Cisis has not been resolved and has escalated to the point that the IRBM has been launched. what is the impact on the USA as well as the rest of the world?
...
Entries must be dated to reflect the time period."
We're in 1962.
Katrina hadn't happened.
That's what FEMA wants you to believe, you sheeple.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Also, why Fort Knox? That's one of the least strategic places to bomb.
"OH NOES! WES BLEW UP YUZ GOLDZ N TANKZ!"
"OH NOES! WES BLEW UP YUZ GOLDZ N TANKZ!"
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
-
spurgistan
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:30 am
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Hologram wrote:Also, why Fort Knox? That's one of the least strategic places to bomb.
"OH NOES! WES BLEW UP YUZ GOLDZ N TANKZ!"
Somebody hasn't been watching enough Bond movies...
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
-
dogstar4god
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:44 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: SC
- Contact:
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Also, why Fort Knox? That's one of the least strategic places to bomb
ok, where would be a strategic place to bomb?
"Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go try to take over the world"
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
It's been said before: the highest concentration of nuclear warheads, the midwest.
However, if it were up to me, I would probably try to take out communication and leadership before focusing on the enemies retaliatory power, so I would go for Washington, and that's probably where Kruschev would've wanted to go for. Now, obviously, this would be followed up by other missile strikes. There would probably be nuclear subs all along the east coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, the Bering Sea, and southern California. You'd want to take out all militarily significant targets, which means multiple nukes. Say goodbye to the Eastern Seabord, San Diego, LA, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and the pristine beauty of Alaska.
Of course, simultaneously you'd want to take care of our allies, lest your risk destruction by them, so medium-range ballistic missiles sent for the shipyards of Liverpool, London, and wherever else the Brits keep their shit, Paris, and West Germany. The Allied half of Berlin would be easily overrun by Soviet forces, who would have no doubt been massing an army to do the job.
Immediately following you'd want to scramble your fighters, paying close attention to your own capitol and military reserves as the B-2s and B-52s are likely on their way the minute we start tracking airborne missiles.
The rest is just mop up of NATO forces around the rest of the globe, provided of course that you survive the retaliation from our own subs based off your own shores firing missiles at St. Petersburg and Moscow.
See children? This is why we don't play with nuclear warheads.
By the way, there'd be no endplay. If the Soviets struck first there'd be no escape for America. We'd f*ck up their shit in return, and since we had more nukes and subs than they did, they'd be completely destroyed, but we would too anyway.
The only possible survivors would be the Africans and South Americans, given they could survive the nuclear winter and radiation sickness.
However, if it were up to me, I would probably try to take out communication and leadership before focusing on the enemies retaliatory power, so I would go for Washington, and that's probably where Kruschev would've wanted to go for. Now, obviously, this would be followed up by other missile strikes. There would probably be nuclear subs all along the east coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, the Bering Sea, and southern California. You'd want to take out all militarily significant targets, which means multiple nukes. Say goodbye to the Eastern Seabord, San Diego, LA, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and the pristine beauty of Alaska.
Of course, simultaneously you'd want to take care of our allies, lest your risk destruction by them, so medium-range ballistic missiles sent for the shipyards of Liverpool, London, and wherever else the Brits keep their shit, Paris, and West Germany. The Allied half of Berlin would be easily overrun by Soviet forces, who would have no doubt been massing an army to do the job.
Immediately following you'd want to scramble your fighters, paying close attention to your own capitol and military reserves as the B-2s and B-52s are likely on their way the minute we start tracking airborne missiles.
The rest is just mop up of NATO forces around the rest of the globe, provided of course that you survive the retaliation from our own subs based off your own shores firing missiles at St. Petersburg and Moscow.
See children? This is why we don't play with nuclear warheads.
By the way, there'd be no endplay. If the Soviets struck first there'd be no escape for America. We'd f*ck up their shit in return, and since we had more nukes and subs than they did, they'd be completely destroyed, but we would too anyway.
The only possible survivors would be the Africans and South Americans, given they could survive the nuclear winter and radiation sickness.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Target:
- Manhattan (NYC) - densest population and financial center
- Washington DC - seat of government
- other high density areas - Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, Kansas City, St.Louis etc.
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Why would you go for the population centers? They have absolutely no strategic value?
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
-
PLAYER57832
- Posts: 3085
- Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:17 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
The Petagon is too well protected.
I would bomb a big dam near a metropolitan center (have to check a map -- maybe Bonneville ?). Either to release the flood or to kill a major water supply.
My second choice would be Chicago. Trump has moved there, so doesn't that make it the center of the universe
(at least in his own mind!)
My third choice would be LA harbor or SF harbor. Each is a major distribution point, etc.
However, as was already said, your scenerio is rather false. If he had done it, we would have gotten all the bombs... and we would have responded. A few people would have survived in the country, but the place would not be very livable
I would bomb a big dam near a metropolitan center (have to check a map -- maybe Bonneville ?). Either to release the flood or to kill a major water supply.
My second choice would be Chicago. Trump has moved there, so doesn't that make it the center of the universe
(at least in his own mind!)My third choice would be LA harbor or SF harbor. Each is a major distribution point, etc.
However, as was already said, your scenerio is rather false. If he had done it, we would have gotten all the bombs... and we would have responded. A few people would have survived in the country, but the place would not be very livable
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
Hologram wrote:Why would you go for the population centers? They have absolutely no strategic value?
We're talking nuclear holocaust... widespread geographic negation.
Beyond population centers I wouldn't ignore military complexes.
-
PLAYER57832
- Posts: 3085
- Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:17 am
- Gender: Female
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: If you were Khrushchev, where would you send the missile?
oVo wrote:Hologram wrote:Why would you go for the population centers? They have absolutely no strategic value?
We're talking nuclear holocaust... widespread geographic negation.
Beyond population centers I wouldn't ignore military complexes.
Population centers also tend to be centers for commerce, communication, etc. Knock them out and you knock out the effectiveness of the military.
One note -- our military was less vunerable in many ways in 1961 than now. Now everything is tied in over the internet and regular phone lines.