• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Should US, Britain and allies resort to using nuclear weapon

Should the US and allies use nuclear weapons in any upcoming conflict?

  • Whatever it takes to topple Saddam

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Threaten, and retaliate if nukes used against allies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Threaten, and retaliate if any WMD used against allies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Threaten, but never use.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Conventional threats are enough.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Are you mad? Forget nukes altogether.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
As the debate in this thread:
US warns of the use of nuclear weapons

has shown a range of strong opinions, from both sides of the Atlantic, I would be interested to see what the general opinion is on these boards to the possibilities put forward by this article and other recent news (i.e. that US and Britain look to be taking the war to Iraq, with or without UN consent).

IMHO the use of nuclear weapons by a responsible super-power would be a precursor to an uncontrollable escalation in any conflict, and would put everyone (the whole global community) at risk.


Also, take a deep breath before posting any possibly insulting posts, this is not an encitement to flame!:)
 
I'm sorry but could this be put in the News section or something? I come into chat to avoid all the seriousness involved with something like this.

Not saying it's not a valid poll, it is. Just don't think it's appropriate for the chat forum
 
Hoon says UK could attack Iraq without Security Council approval

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2254188,00.html

Wednesday December 18, 2002 11:07 AM


Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon says Britain and the US could take military action against Iraq without the agreement of the UN Security Council.

British officials have confirmed a taskforce is being assembled in case Saddam Hussein defies UN calls to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

However, Mr Hoon insists the preparations do not mean military action is imminent or inevitable.

But he adds Parliament would not necessarily be given a substantive vote on military strikes if they become necessary.

"What we are doing is preparing for the event of military action being necessary," he said.

"But I want to emphasise that no decision has been taken to launch military action."

If members of the Security Council judged that military action was necessary, the Defence Secretary said it was important that its members, including the UK, were in a position to take military action.

"It is for the Security Council to look at the report of the weapons inspectors," Mr Hoon told the BBC.

"The UN Security Council resolution 1441 requires that there should be a further discussion amongst members o the Security Council, but all that does depend clearly on the findings of the weapons inspectors and the judgment that members of the Security Council make as a result of those findings."

Mr Hoon added: "We do not require the specific agreement of the Security Council. It has been clearly set out in Security Council resolution 1441 that there would be a further discussion of the situation in Iraq before any military action was launched.
Click to expand...

Looks likely we're going in whatever.

I don't see why we need to threaten the use of Nukes. everybody knows we have them, besides, i think a threat of conventional warfare is enough.
 
Adrian Veidt said:
I'm sorry but could this be put in the News section or something? I come into chat to avoid all the seriousness involved with something like this.

Not saying it's not a valid poll, it is. Just don't think it's appropriate for the chat forum
Click to expand...

Bring back the chatroom i say!
 
Adrian Veidt said:
I'm sorry but could this be put in the News section or something? I come into chat to avoid all the seriousness involved with something like this.

Not saying it's not a valid poll, it is. Just don't think it's appropriate for the chat forum
Click to expand...
Agreed: I'll move it.
 
Threats of the use of nuclear weapons have become a bit ritualistic; Putin talked about using them in Chechnya, Bush in Afghanistan, and historically their use has been proposed in Vietnam, Korea, etc. With Iraq, I think it's just another means of keeping up the pressure. The conventional forces available are so overwhelming and Iraq is in such a bad state that, apart from any other considerations, they simply aren't required.
 
We don't need to use nuclear weapons, so we shouldn't. Lanching in retaliation would be pointless, given that anyone in a position to use NBC weapons (that's their proper name, folks) against the West probably wouldn't actually be a nation state. Who would we fire at? The airport staff who let them into the country?
 
Well looks like the majority of the people want nukes off of the table completely. Maybe the world isn't such a mad place after all.
:)
Well not much is going to happen til after xmas, so we shall have to wait and see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top