Should we change our stance on nuclear weapons
Looks like we dont have a poll option here, so itll just have to be a normal qestion:
Should the US gov't rethink its stance on nuclear weapons, changing them from a last resort to perhaps a deterrent or even a tool of war?
My stance: Hell no. This is a weapon that needs NOT to be used unless under the MOST extreme conditions.
Also, lets try to let everyone get a vote in before we start arguing.
Should the US gov't rethink its stance on nuclear weapons, changing them from a last resort to perhaps a deterrent or even a tool of war?
My stance: Hell no. This is a weapon that needs NOT to be used unless under the MOST extreme conditions.
Also, lets try to let everyone get a vote in before we start arguing.
Comments
On one hand, if something like 9/11 happened again, and a rogue country was found to be behind the attack, then perhaps a limited small nuclear strike should be used to send a clear message to the rogues that it will not be tolerated.
But there are so many downfalls of this route, not least that many,many innocent people will lose their lives, and the survivors will be living in a radioactive hell for hundreds of years, which simply is just not justified for them and their childrens children.
Jeez...
I here my friends and co-workers say "lets nuke'em!", yet they have no idea of what massive level of destruction and wake of perpetual death and illness such a weapon causes...
Any use "IMO" of weapons of mass destruction are crimes against humanity...
IMO if one of them goes off they all go off... every one in the world will get a itchy trigger finger "if they dont already have one"... then human error will take care of the rest...
I couldnt believe when I heard about our (USA) position on using nukes... I can only hope its just for show...
------------------------------------
© FERRO 2001-2002
<strong>Should the US gov't rethink its stance on nuclear weapons, changing them from a last resort to perhaps a deterrent or even a tool of war? </strong><hr></blockquote>Do we even know what our stance on nukes is right now?
And even if it were necessary for the U.S. to consider using nuclear weapons, is George Bush morally fit to have that power? This guy is a recovered alcoholic and cocaine addict and he's gotten in trouble for D.W.I. and getting into fights. He isn't capable of speaking on topics by himself without a premade speech. It's easy for an American to accept this since he isn't going to be damaging us. It's a disgrace he got into office because of a lifetime of nepotism and for him to have self-authorization to use nuclear weapons is frightening.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
<strong>Let's say that Iraq has a bunker in a remote area that has nukes in it. It can only be bombed by a new bunker buster nuke. We get information that Hussain is going to load several planes. What do we do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am sure that the penthagon is able to found an another solution.
Now imagine that the information was false (just some kg of plutonium), and it was intox create by Saddam, to force US let use an atomic bomb against him. Do you see the diplomatical implications of this ?
<strong>
I am sure that the penthagon is able to found an another solution.
Now imagine that the information was false (just some kg of plutonium), and it was intox create by Saddam, to force US let use an atomic bomb against him. Do you see the diplomatical implications of this ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's my hypothetical. I get to set the rules. The info is spot on. The planes will be loaded with nukes headed to, let's say, Israel. The nuke bunker buster is the only bomb you'll be sure to blow the Iragi bunker deep under ground. What do you do?
Thant anyone could support a nuclear first strike is pretty much beyond me.
<strong>Should we change our stance on nuclear weapons[?]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If anyone currently standing on a nuclear weapon is thinking about adjusting their stance, could they please be very, very careful?
<strong>Wipe out all the planes and runways. Seems pretty obvious to me Scott.
Thant anyone could support a nuclear first strike is pretty much beyond me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The nuclear threat would still be there. That seems obvious to me. Duh.
<strong>Wipe out all the planes and runways. Seems pretty obvious to me Scott.
Thant anyone could support a nuclear first strike is pretty much beyond me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They also have underdround bunkers for planes too you know. Runways can be patched over night. If you only need to take off you don't need a very good runway.
TAKE COVER!!!!
It's your type of hypothetical question that got us into the nuclear mess of the Cold War.
If people continue to think in this way, millions (if not billions) of people are bound to die.
<strong>Scott, No information in this world is a sure thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a hypothetical.
[quote]Originally posted by Pikachu Invasion:
<strong>It's your type of hypothetical question that got us into the nuclear mess of the Cold War.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you please back that up with some evidance. How exactly have my "type of hypothetical question got us into the nuclear mess of the Cold War." Are you suggesting that the the USSR was only hypothetically building nukes and only hypothetically putting nukes in Cuba and only hypothetically expanding its influence. Get real.
Maybe Hussain is/was hypotheically building nukes?
[quote]Originally posted by Pikachu Invasion:
<strong>If people continue to think in this way, millions (if not billions) of people are bound to die.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If people continuee to think your way we'll all end up being held ransom by the Hussains of the world. Oh and 10 million more Jews will be dead.
TIME TO GET REAL PEOPLE.
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
It's my hypothetical. I get to set the rules. The info is spot on. The planes will be loaded with nukes headed to, let's say, Israel. The nuke bunker buster is the only bomb you'll be sure to blow the Iragi bunker deep under ground. What do you do? <hr></blockquote>
You can see that you stated that in your hypothetical situation there was nothing in doubt. This is not how life works, but war strategy is a little more like your hypothetical than it should be.
Military Buildup in the cold war was entirely based on hypotheticals.
The Russians were researching psychic powers throughout the cold war because hypothetically, if ESP existed, the U.S. might be using it and then there would be an ESP gap. This wasn't a very dangerous outcome from a hypothetical, it just wasted money and contributed to the eventual total financial ruin of a superpower.
A much more dangerous hypothetical situation is anyone launching nuclear weapons. The fallout would spread. I assume you don't know anyone who's died of radiation poisoning. I don't either, but I've got friends who do. A friend of mine from Serbia (look it up on a map) knew someone who got bone cancer because he had a scraped knee from a bike accident when Chernoble melted down. Chernoble is in the Ukrane, kind of far away from Serbia. But when radiation is released into the atmosphere (or drinking water, or topsoil) it has a way of spreading and finding its way into a whole lot of innocent and distant bystanders.
The hypothetical of the Cold War was "If the other side has the capability to make nuclear weapons, and we have the capability to make our own weapons, what's the best way of keeping the upper hand?" We had two answers, first Build more nuclear weapons, and second waste lots and lots of money on a missile defense grid. Of course we only pondered the second when that dumba$$ Reagan came into power.
Also remember that Bin Laden was originally trained and funded by The U.S. to fight Russia. an Hussain was funded because he was an enemy of Iran.
[quote] Originally posted by Scott H.
If people continuee to think your way we'll all end up being held ransom by the Hussains of the world. Oh and 10 million more Jews will be dead. <hr></blockquote>
My way of thinking, which is that nuclear weapons are not a worthwhile deterent, does not preclude actions like the NATO intervention in Kosovo, which subsequently forced a genocidal dictator from power. My way of thinking doesn't promote the idea of developing nuclear weapons to prove that you're a member of the first world and shouldn't be reconed with like India and Pakistan have done. My way of thinking simply suggests that when nuclear weapons are used everyone gets f---ed.
Your way of thinking is short sighted, because you don't think about the consequences of the actions that you would take.
pi
GOOD point. Right now Im assuming its one of last resort only methods (as it has been since the cold war) however who knows for sure.
Let's say that Iraq has a bunker in a remote area that has nukes in it. It can only be bombed by a new bunker buster nuke. We get information that Hussain is going to load several planes. What do we do?
Immediatly send in a squad of elite special operatives to take them out ala Metal Gear Solid
So, but seriously, that is the type of procedure that spec-ops are for. Delta Force any one? If they know the place then it shouldnt be that much of a problem. Its REALLY hard to keep the US army out.
Further you send in peace keepers.
Are you suggesting that the the USSR was only hypothetically building nukes and only hypothetically putting nukes in Cuba and only hypothetically expanding its influence. Get real.
No, hes sugesting that this is the same as in the cold war when it was "I bet the Ruskies already have X bombs! We got to build that many!" or "What if the Reds build this!? Just in case we better build a bigger one" or "They could choose to nuke us, so we must be prepared to nuke them!"
<strong>Looks like we dont have a poll option here, so itll just have to be a normal qestion:
Should the US gov't rethink its stance on nuclear weapons, changing them from a last resort to perhaps a deterrent or even a tool of war?
My stance: Hell no. This is a weapon that needs NOT to be used unless under the MOST extreme conditions.
Also, lets try to let everyone get a vote in before we start arguing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well since we have had them so long now (along with many other countries) it's a little late for just removing them. Let's understand how all this came to be. We started to develop this technology mostly in part to Germany working on the atomic bomb during the war. We started to work on this technology here in the states when our supposed military intelligence got wind of this from our european coalition spies. When Germany was finally defeated we kept on working with atomic technology and developed the bomb that ultimately was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war with Japan. Since then we developed the nuke we know today and it has been deployed as a first strike offensive on our ballistic submarines since 1958. The George Washington was a fast attack sub that was converted to deploy the Polaris missle as a roving defense weapon during the cold war with Russia. We have all (worldwide) become reliant on this "big stick" to hopefully prevent the use of these weapons of mass destruction. But we failed, in my opinion to take into account, the possibility of some radical faction getting hold of one for evil self supporting purpose. I for one hope that no one person in this world is fool enough to ever detonate one as this will lead ultimately to the global destruction of mankind.
[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
<strong>
It's my hypothetical. I get to set the rules. The info is spot on. The planes will be loaded with nukes headed to, let's say, Israel. The nuke bunker buster is the only bomb you'll be sure to blow the Iragi bunker deep under ground. What do you do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
First of all i'll sent an ultimatum to Saddam, remove your nuclear weapons.
If there is no positive answers, sent planes on iracq, destroy the base airplanes, and the airport ( a plane without airport is useless) control the whole aerian aera of Iracq. If there no other positive answer to the request destroy more target, until Sadam Surrender.
USA has destroy the serbian army who was much more professional than the army of Saddam.
Futhermore, you certainly know that Israel has the atomic bomb, even if they don't claim it officialy. If Saddam want to commit suicide he just have to send his airplanes ( i doubt they can reach isreal indeed).
Sending directly a nuke under a bunker is a very bad answer, the diplomatical implications of this will be terrible. For me you only use them , if nothing else is possible for the safety of your country of your allie (Israel in your example). Using nuke is a taboo since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, perhaps a fool (but not totaly crazy) like Saddam can try to use it, but a democratic state like USA should not unless if it is the last and only solution ( very different from the easiest).