First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
How Do You Want The World To End?
toxxin 
43361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / In my own little...
Offline
Posted 5/30/12 , edited 5/30/12
how about this? An eco-apocalypse like massive flooding or tornadoes/ hurricanes leading to a shortage of resources that starts world war 3 during which aliens invade and spread a zombie virus to the native population (ie us) to combat these aliens we band together and put all our resources into creating a sentient race of giant fighting robots to destroy the zombies but since zombies were once human the robots can't tell the difference and use their orders to eradicate zombies to eradicate all human life all leading to the final humans on earth fighting for survival against giant fighting robots with the help of aliens that want our resources but before the last person dies the entire solar system disintegrates (aliens and robots included) because the sun supernova'd. Sound like fun to anyone else?
8025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / Naked in a pine tree
Offline
Posted 5/30/12
With a bang
68879 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 5/30/12
I'm down for a good old fashioned zombie apocalypse. And based on this incident down in Miami, looks like it's going to happen....
30495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New Hampshire
Offline
Posted 5/30/12

Coffeebot wrote:


Maxmattsmith wrote:


Coffeebot

WW3 is a war, wars end because they require resources and lives to keep going (WW2 didn't end the world, so what makes you think WW3 would?)



WW2 didn't end the world because the war ended soon after the usa dropped the atomic bombs. Now there are a ton of countries with nukes which is way more devastating then a atomic bomb. If each country with a nuke was to use one in war there would be no way for anything to live on this planet. We almost had a nuclear Armageddon do to computer errors serval times the thought of the repercussions is the only thing that stopped the order of a retaliation from ever being ordered.


I assume that you know that war of that scale is done by countries, the problem with that is... it's (war) done for a reason and a weapon with radioactive fallout is going to screw up all reasons that are realistic (mineral, human, infrastructure, financial even ideological), the reason for this is because nuclear weapons can be dropped in an area but it's much harder to predict the fallout, which means that nuclear weapons are a good show of force (so long as they aren't used) but they are a useless weapon because they can (easily) harm your own side/allies.


infantry soldiers are just numbers when it comes to war the ones who matter are the ones with a decent rank. Soldiers don't question orders they follow them. Just because a nuke is used doesn't mean it's going to be where the battle is. A nuke is a good show of power and it would most likely be attached to a missile or dropped from a plane and used in major cites to decrease moral. If they did that they wouldn't even need to send troops to those areas the radiation would do the job for them. The soldiers would most likely be fighting other soldiers not taking cities. But if a country with a nuke thinks they will be nuked during a war they won't hesitate to retaliate and take the other out with them. during peace they will put thought into a assumed nuke attack we had several cases in the past where a computer error almost caused this to happen but do to it the fact that we were not at war more thought went into the decision to retaliate. If ww3 were to happen countries would use anything in their possession to win. During WW2 the All the allies were competing in a show of power it was a good chance to show their weapon superiority and their armed forces strength. don't get me wrong they still worked together as allies. If ww3 were to happen countries would most likely use nukes as a first move to decrease the solider out put radiation can not only cause death but it also affects the birthing process using a nuke as a first move in a highly populated cities will cause extremely low moral and the cause a huge decrease in people who would be able to fight in the war.
7534 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Studying at home.
Offline
Posted 5/30/12
Quiet incineration.
Posted 5/30/12
supernova looks badass
Posted 5/30/12

MokaForTheWin wrote:

supernova looks badass


so is anal sex
Posted 5/30/12
in my boobs
Posted 5/30/12

underlock wrote:


MokaForTheWin wrote:

supernova looks badass


so is anal sex


you're right, it is bad for the ass, but so are trees
Posted 5/30/12
AHAHAHAHAHA FUCKK YOU WORLD!
14951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Offline
Posted 5/30/12
I don't want to sit around and wait for the world to fucking end in like a week while being tortured by the faint hope that I would one of the few survivors, and then get wiped out in the end by a stray bullet or a zombie that comes out from under my feet so Supernova quick and painless, thank you very much.
19797 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/30/12
Alien Invasion or Zombie Apocalypse!
Alien Invasion you'll get vaporized!
and
Zombie Apocalypse you'll get eaten to death!
But a lot of people are prepared for a Zombie Apocalypse due to Video Games!
:D
6465 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/30/12
In the words of George Carlin, " The world is going to wipe us off like a bad cold."
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/31/12 , edited 5/31/12
The world should just suddenly be erased from existence. That'd be hard to imagine.

Explosions and whatnot will destroy the world, but pieces will be left. Complete, sudden disappearance from existence itself....I think that'd be ideal. The world turns from real to imaginary.
71569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Other
Offline
Posted 5/31/12 , edited 5/31/12

Maxmattsmith wrote:

infantry soldiers are just numbers when it comes to war the ones who matter are the ones with a decent rank. Soldiers don't question orders they follow them. Just because a nuke is used doesn't mean it's going to be where the battle is. A nuke is a good show of power and it would most likely be attached to a missile or dropped from a plane and used in major cites to decrease moral. If they did that they wouldn't even need to send troops to those areas the radiation would do the job for them. The soldiers would most likely be fighting other soldiers not taking cities. But if a country with a nuke thinks they will be nuked during a war they won't hesitate to retaliate and take the other out with them. during peace they will put thought into a assumed nuke attack we had several cases in the past where a computer error almost caused this to happen but do to it the fact that we were not at war more thought went into the decision to retaliate. If ww3 were to happen countries would use anything in their possession to win. During WW2 the All the allies were competing in a show of power it was a good chance to show their weapon superiority and their armed forces strength. don't get me wrong they still worked together as allies. If ww3 were to happen countries would most likely use nukes as a first move to decrease the solider out put radiation can not only cause death but it also affects the birthing process using a nuke as a first move in a highly populated cities will cause extremely low moral and the cause a huge decrease in people who would be able to fight in the war.


Hmm, I gather that I didn't quite make myself clear, what I was trying to say is that there is no advantage to using a nuke because it will destroy everything that a war would be fought over, as most wars are fought over land, power, wealth or ideology. The problem is the fact that using a nuke, either as retaliation or a preemptive strike, WILL (as you stated) cause other countries to retaliate with their own nukes, the end result is the entire world being fucked because of radiation and that benefits no one.

Basically, nukes shouldn't be used by any countries that have at least someone who is capable of thinking a couple of weeks into the future, either way, WW3 is more likely to see a large volume of thermobaric explosives deployed, as they will cause demoralization and destruction without causing the land to be useless and no chance of radioactive debris landing in your own country.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.