It's not necessarily absurd when you're trying to OBJECTIVELY map out as many details to such scenarios as possible.

You may think its absurd to you, but that doesn't make it absurd as a whole.

Or is that the start of the idea

That's Jeebus and I were trying to tell you that hypothetical based on current political pressures

not debts

They have the most nukes. Likely candidates to shoot them. They're not exactly on good terms.

Oh just political pressures?

Yeah

and what Jeebus just said

We're not saying they deffo will

But looking at things quantitavely

Not thinking you are

we're playing this scenario out

and factoring as many things REALISTICALLY as possible

even if it leads to scary, uncomfortable, and crazy places

well, SEEMINGLY crazy places

The political parties involved would have to be pro nuclear engagement right?

Yeah its a super crazy place

Not necessarily. If 1 of them is that's enough.

Is it?

Times change.

I think thats where you lose me

Alliances can force one's hand

Its 1 hypothetical to get to a nuclear bombardment

And its a second hypothetical where every country gets them and their volcanoes nuked

Not what was said

The stacking of hypotheticals is where I get lost

Volcanoes can make for good targets

Not just you, the conversation in general

It doesn't necessarily mean they will be

as for every country. No, NATO countries, most likely. Think back to the cold war.

What ever killed the dinosaurs, needs to happen again.

?

GG @Wes The Savage, you just advanced to level 7!

Think so Thwarted?

@THWARTED look up 2029 meteor

don't get our hopes up

I already know about this one

It ain't near big enough to do that if it hits, and the composition would also have to be highly metalic and dense

I don't think it is even going to hit

I think it is probably going to miss in the first place

Have a few hovering nukes in a few stations that can be wirelessly signaled to thrust over to near the area where it passes would ANIHHILATE it