Conquer Club

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?

Only one missile? Omaha, Nebraska...take out as much of the US's missile capability as possible (with only one missile).

Nyc

I would try to take out as many violin playing South Carolina residing Christians that I could.

Long Island NY. Just because those accents really bother me. Or NYC so we could rid the world of the Yankees.

Biloxi, Mississippi, because it just needs a good nuking. Hurricane Katrina didn't finish the job well enough.

Houston or Cape Canaveral.

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.

Drop that bomb anywhere in the bible belt......see how many are saved

comic boy wrote:Drop that bomb anywhere in the bible belt......see how many are saved

How about you carry it in?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Also, why Fort Knox? That's one of the least strategic places to bomb.

"OH NOES! WES BLEW UP YUZ GOLDZ N TANKZ!"

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...

Also, why Fort Knox? That's one of the least strategic places to bomb

ok, where would be a strategic place to bomb?

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.

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.

Why would you go for the population centers? They have absolutely no strategic value?

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

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.

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.