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

U.S. Retains The Option Of A Nuclear Response

Status
Not open for further replies.
siriuss said:
War just hurts the people. Nuclear war (whether real or conjecture) is simple insanity, dreamt up by generals in comfortable bunkers.
Click to expand...

In short, this sentiment just sums it up.
Please register my vote against both the use of nuclear weapons and the expression 'puhleez'.

I see no reason for us to 'grow up' to grasp arguments that are, at base, so simple:

- Oil is thick black goo (albeit very useful goo).
- Iraqis walk about essentially feeling & thinking as we so and as such are somewhat more 'valuable' than black goo.
- Black goo is worth more in dollars than Iraqi people but this doesn't mean it is more valuable.
- Just because one group of Arabs spanked a building and killed many innocent people, spanking a different group of arabs will NOT stop it happening again.

Last point:
people like al Quaieda are scum, unfortunately they are 100% human but repugnant scum nonetheless.
people who farm goats in and around Iraq are no more likely to be scum than you or I, yet they would be incinerated in the holocaust or die slow lingering deaths in the fallout if the U.S. launched nukes on their country - because their (unchosen) leader is an arse.

Whatever action the U.S. wants to take can be argued for and against on its own merits However, Nuclear Warfare should be ruled out 100% in advance (Shadow's nonsense about tactical considerations notwithstanding).


It doesn't sound too good for the goat farmer or his goats...
 
Re: synthwerk

:laughing: yeah..Its just this simple ..they (the bad guys) attack us and kill mass amounts of people with a dirty bomb or chemical, or virus..whatever ...if we really know whos responsibly..WE MELT THEM.
 
synthwerk said:
weird how this is considered fortean.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose it's a Fortean subjet because the counter argument wielders, in the brake van of the world events runaway train, hauling on the brake, certainly seem to be in the minority at the moment. Outside of this MB, in the real world, anyway. :(

Ruffready said:
yeah..Its just this simple ..they (the bad guys) attack us and kill mass amounts of people with a dirty bomb or chemical, or virus..whatever ...if we really know whos responsibly.. WE MELT THEM.[/B]
Click to expand...
There's the point. "...if we really know whos responsible.. ".
:(
 
4imix said:
Phew thats ok then. :wtf:
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting it's OK (for a start, I'm going to be in India in January!), I'm just saying we can't do anything about it, but at least it shouldn't drag in the outside world.
 
Just a very quick one on this whole "are we going to use nukes in Iraq" question.

Over 10 years ago we pumped 100's of tonnes of Depleted Uranium shells into Iraqi men and machinery. Quite handily, and ignoring all Geneva / UN conventions, we then didn't bother to clean up any of it (quite reasonably some might say, with our mate Saddam setting fire to most of the oil wells in the region giving us better things to do).

This DU ordnance is pretty nasty stuff, leading to cancer and or genetic disorders and diseases - fact i'm afraid.

So let's all be honest here - we've already subjected lots of Iraqi's to radioactive material, a few low yield "tactical" nukes shouldn't create too many more problems:confused:
 
eljubbo said:
Just a very quick one on this whole "are we going to use nukes in Iraq" question.

......................

So let's all be honest here - we've already subjected lots of Iraqi's to radioactive material, a few low yield "tactical" nukes shouldn't create too many more problems:confused:
Click to expand...
Drop them in a desert territory battlefield situation - mibby.

Drop them on Baghdad - Hells Bells!

:eek!!!!:
 
The whole things about media attention, public interest dies so the Iraq threat subside so yet again we are forced onto the knife edge with a threat of nuclear war. its all a plot to make us buy more cheese or something.
 
wacth this and wonder wether nukes are needed... i warn u its upsetting and its Afganistan from a c130 gunship ..the emall white dots are running people and you will see how easy it is to kill....

http://home.attbi.com/~zotter/ac130_gunshipmed.wmv

not quite as upsetting as the clip i saw on the BBC of gun ships hunting individuals like deer.... u could see the very human movement of the "hot" targets and them ducking down behind walls etc only to be cut down from behind....
 
Great film !! sidecar

good to see my tax dollars hard at work!! I almost felt sorry for that one guy that ran about a mile away..but they ask for it.
 
Interesting film. What a good thing you couldn't make out if any of the "targets" were civilian. Interesting to that for such a well equipped group there appeared to be no return fire from the terrorists.

Nukes. I know that the Pentagon hawks want to develop "bunker busting" nukes (ground penetrating about 5kt yield) which even they admit are likely to scatter radioneucleotides far and wide. The same group of extreme thinkers are also the ones who want to test Tactical Nukes.

I wonder if they have thought that the excess cancer deaths will last into the time of the new administration they put in. To be truthful there are likely to be cancers generated even in the US by such a distant device.

To quote the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as being a valid reason for the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons strikes me as being perhaps the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
 
Re: Great film !! sidecar

ruffready said:
good to see my tax dollars hard at work!! I almost felt sorry for that one guy that ran about a mile away..but they ask for it.
Click to expand...

cetanly some "tax Dollars" spent there... but think of re sound tracking it all how would u feel then...Thats the church dont engage the church... that Chevy starting up North west that?..yes Boom...the guy on the road ...boom... how about the gas station? boom....
 
Re: Re: Great film !! sidecar

Suppose Gore were president. What would he do differently in the war on terror? :eek!!!!:
 
let me look in my crystal ball...

... he would , "ask his advisors"..they would tell him the same thing Bush's advisors are saying ...same 'ol same 'ol..:rolleyes:
 
What If...

glurm said:
Suppose Gore were president. What would he do differently in the war on terror? :eek!!!!:
Click to expand...
I'm guessing, less 'War' more 'Fighting Criminal Acts of Terror.' Less declaring 'War,' more 'Policing Actions' and hunting down the criminals/killers/murderers. Spin more tightly controlled.

(It worked for the Brits for 30 years in N. Ireland!)

He'd almost definitely have gone thru the UN too. Maybe, more subtle, less 'Gung Ho!' Grayer, attempting to keep the international temperature down?

And, just maybe, with the extra experience as Vice. Prez. he'd have been more sensitive to the intelligence reports right at the start.
 
siriuss said:
At least Gore would have stayed in the Kyoto agreement.
Click to expand...
One of the thigs that endeared me to Bush was his rejection of Kyoto!!! I am new to this board, under my name it says "grey", what does that mean? Am I under probation?:D
 
Re: What If...

AndroMan said:
I'm guessing, less 'War' more 'Fighting Criminal Acts of Terror.' Less declaring 'War,' more 'Policing Actions' and hunting down the criminals/killers/murderers. Spin more tightly controlled.

(It worked for the Brits for 30 years in N. Ireland!)

He'd almost definitely have gone thru the UN too. Maybe, more subtle, less 'Gung Ho!' Grayer, attempting to keep the international temperature down?

And, just maybe, with the extra experience as Vice. Prez. he'd have been more sensitive to the intelligence reports right at the start.
Click to expand...
The war on terror is proceeding apace on many levels,special ops in Afghanistan big deployments in Iraq and diplomacy. As far as Gore being more sensitive to intellegence the previous administration had warnings as far back as '98 that terrorists might use planes as missiles. Bin Laden was offered up on a platter by Sudan to Clinton twice during the 90s and he turned down the offer.:eek:
 
I don't know about anyone else on this site but I simply can't sleep at night for worrying about that evil Saddam and his huge arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. My quality of life has been terrible ever since he came to power... I can't concentrate at work, my relationships are suffering, even expensive wines and food just don't taste the same.

I thought the nightmare was over when we butchered his army and took out most of his skuds during the Gulf war but no ! He still remained in power and my daily anxiety continued unabated. It's been hell knowing that at any moment a jack-booted squad of mustachioed Iraqis could come marching down my street.

So, come on Bush and Blair. Bomb the bastard. It's the only sane way to ensure World peace.
 
I hope Bush doesn't read it or we're all done for. We'll be playing Nuke-tennis with the entire Eastern hemisphere by teatime tomorrow...
 
I will do my best to avoid the use of PUHLEEZ...but no promises... ;)

I know that Bush and USA bashing are old and much honored sports on these boards - as is the subsequent angry denial that this is what is going on, once that accusation is made! - but I do believe the original point of this post was that Bush refused to preclude the possibility of using nukes if the USA or its allies were hit with chem/bio/nukes. I touched on this in my earlier posts, but I think that distinction must be clearly drawn. The question before us on this thread, it seems to me, is simply this... does it make sense to make an announcement swearing off nukes, at this time?

That is COMPLETELY different from the issue of whether nukes SHOULD be used. I realize this latter issue is much juicier for the "Bush is a warmonger" , "Fight the Military Industrial machine" crowd.

One earlier poster dismissed my discussion of this as silly... which is a nice dodge, really. I repeat.... it makes sense at this point to preclude NOTHING, whatever ones intent. If a single Iraqi commander thinks twice about using chem weapons because of the nuke threat possibility...all the better. If none does...so be it. If you want to make the case that the threat of potenital nuclear retaliation makes it MORE likely Western forces would be hit first, then I guess you have a case. But absent that, I have yet to see anyone on here explain why it is necessary, or desirable, to limit options IN PUBLIC at this point...

Shadow
 
The speech was a thinly veiled threat. There was no need to say anything at all in that vein. All it did was anger his allies and strengthen his enemies' hatred of him and his nation. The man's an idiot.
I'm not against the industrial-military machine; I was part of it and shall be again.
 
I'm not going hold back since I know that you're going to misinterpret what I'm saying anyway

Shadow what you, George W. Bush and his 'advisors' singularly fail to understand is that Any use of a nuclear weapon on any target, especially a civilian one, even in retaliation, will retroactivly justify any act of terror against the US (up to and including 9/11) in the eyes of a significant portion of the world.

A nuclear attack on a civilian target, by the US, will make 9/11 look like a minor traffic accident. Arab lives may not be as financially valuable to the US ecconemy as western lives; but a life is a life and war is not a zero-sum, however much the media tries to paint it.

Chemical weapons deterioate relitively quickly, Biological weapons can be quaranteend (sp?) against and then a cure found. Nuclear weapons are even more indescrimiate; they kill and they keep on killing for generations.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still killing to this day and are killing slowly. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate terror weapon, a genocidal one; no nation can use them and still claim their cause to be rightous. That is why, since Nagasaki, no such weapons have been used; that is why all stops have, until now, been pulled to keep us from using them (The Cuban Missle Crisis, anyone?). I'm sure if the true horrors of nuclear weapons had been realised then Nagasaki would never have been bombed, perhaps even Hiroshima...
 
I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with you, Niles, about the use of nuclear weapons.

But we have them. Several countries have them. Mere possession means implies potential use. That's called a deterrent. Seems to me the reason Isreal escaped calamity during the Gulf War is that they overtly told Iraq that, should WMD be used, they'd be nuked in return.

Moreover, many people already think 9/11 or future terrorist attacks are justified. So, what should Bush have said? "We're destroying all of our nuclear arsenal now to curry favor?" or "We are prepared to countenance any biological, chemical or nuclear attack on our military or civilian population?" It doesn't make sense. Disproportionate response was at least tacitly understood during the cold war. That's one way Europe was protected from invasion.

My government "considering" a nuclear first-strike policy was much more terrifying and reckless than some speech about essentially keeping all response options open. The cat is out of the bag, and cannot be put back. It does no good to lament the invention of nuclear weapons. Certainly, better for the Americans to have had them first rather than Germany or Russia. Or perhaps I'm being parochial.

Japan tried to renounce firearms, but had to manufacture them again in the 1850s when the world came knocking.
 
We bomb them because they are more violent than us.
 
ghost dog said:
and how do you back that one up?
Click to expand...

Its a terrible irony but it seems to be the logic the US are following. :(
 
ghost dog said:
Are people here really willing another Hiroshima?
Click to expand...

Who here is wanting that? I've never read anything like that.

And who exactly are "we" bombing, pi23?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top