I'm excited and surprised at the number of people who said "no".
Is it due to pure pressure? A lack of imagination?
Is there really any difference? Is peer pressure the stifling of creative imagination and constructive imagination, consequences be damned? We could talk about the very real consequences suffered in the wake of nuclear detonations all day, but all we can really rely on is our imagination as long as we're dicking around, bathing ourselves in the incandescence of our computer screens instead of the glow of an atom bomb. So who has the best control of their imagination? Or, rather, who has the best control over their misgivings about shredding away what they already know from the idea we discuss here?
I think nuclear war, in some respects, is exciting for the same reason a widespread power outage is exciting: you gotta break out the candles and spend some quality time with each other.
Who doesn't like quality time? And, for those of you who may comment about the ethical nature of my involuntary surge of emotion that is my excitement (lol), would you say that improving the quality of life in response to the threat of lethal nuclear rads is an ethical course of action - perhaps, an action equally susceptible to the impetus of peer pressure?
At this point I'm rambling, but what can really be taken away from this? I think there were some who thoughtfully responded to the poll option, and others who didn't. Those who would disagree with me are probably moralizers.