One other thing, on that hunt the boeing link. It shows that plane as going in flat. I believe that all the evidence pointed to the plane crashing into the pentagon with the wings perpendicular to the ground, not parallel. Anyone remember differently?
I love being called "idiot", "stupid", etc. You have no idea who I am. The fact is, you simply firmly disagree with me. Goverat, you say I didn't make an argument for it. Yes I did! Here it is again:
1. It would demonstrate our outrage at being attacked.
2. It would send a message to world that of attacked, we will attack "you" with MUCH greater force.
3. If done right, it would kill hundreds, maybe thousands of terrorists.
4. It would demonstrate our willingness to use it.....all it would take is one bomb.
The negatives: World outrage, possible retailiation with nukes, UN sanctions, fallout, innocents killed, etc.
As I said I would reject the option. What we are doing now is better. But, I was just trying to make an argument.....and I am SURE this discussion was held at the highest levels of government after 9/11....if only briefly.
For those of you who believe "The use of nuclear weapons is NEVER justified".....well, I disagree with that one. If we were attacked with a nuclear weapon, I would say we might have to respond with one. Or, if the US got into a military conflict and was about to lose the war (unlikely I agree), or there was no other way to ensure the existence of the nation, then it might be justified, no?
<strong>For those of you who believe "The use of nuclear weapons is NEVER justified".....well, I disagree with that one. If we were attacked with a nuclear weapon, I would say we might have to respond with one. Or, if the US got into a military conflict and was about to lose the war (unlikely I agree), or there was no other way to ensure the existence of the nation, then it might be justified, no?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can sort'a understand if we use one in responce to having been attacked, becuase we might be able to track the missile to a launch platform. It's still a bit questionable thou becuase of the advent of mobile launch platforms... which means that if someone like Saddam Hussein luanched secretly from a neutral peaceful city... where do you send the "responce nukes"???...
How do you know who the missile belongs to???
todays wars a serreptitious and can be fought at great distances...
I do not refuse the possibilty of responce micro-nukes(If there is such a thing), I do call into question there use... becuase as I mentioned above...
where is the enemy?, what good will it do... for every place you bomb there is another missile waiting to be launched... and then a "dominoe effect" may take place subsequently (a.k.a. - global thermo nuclear destruction)
Once a nuke is launched and detected, counter offensive nukes are launched. This is a no win situation for the world. Any further explanation required?
It just pisses me off, I dont think anyone can comprehend the real power, horror and result of a nuclear weapon wothout first hand experience... a nuke is much more than a big bomb... it just doesnt go boom... it can destroy thousands and thousands of people, it destroys the earth, etc. It doesnt just go away either... its effects last for decades and its wake will continue to destroy life for generations after the act... it is a crime against all living things...
It just pisses me off, I dont think anyone can comprehend the real power, horror and result of a nuclear weapon wothout first hand experience... a nuke is much more than a big bomb... it just doesnt go boom... it can destroy thousands and thousands of people, it destroys the earth, etc. It doesnt just go away either... its effects last for decades and its wake will continue to destroy life for generations after the act... it is a crime against all living things...
I think we may get hit as well. But, even after 9/11 I have faith that our government can stop it. Right now there is no evidence that terrorists have the bomb. But, there is evidence that countries like Iraq and North Korea are getting close, and soon they will acquire the technology to launch them over here. I actually think though, that we may already have a massive missle defense system that no one knows about. I think it is possible that nations have already lauched shit at us and we have taken it out....that kind of thing would never be reported.
goverat, I can't even begin to tell you how successful you have been in acheiving your goal of complete "assdom".
You disagree. Fine My argument isn't stupid. You just DISAGREE. Live with it and move on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
once you step up so boldly as groverat did, then it becomes a difficult thing to all of a sudden say "sorry your not stupid, lets be friends" and step down cuz then not only was he proven wrong, but he also has to deal with other people saying crap like "who's stupid now?" at any rate, groverat is foolish to be an ass, because its not very productive, no matter how you slice it.
once you step up so boldly as groverat did, then it becomes a difficult thing to all of a sudden say "sorry your not stupid, lets be friends" and step down cuz then not only was he proven wrong, but he also has to deal with other people saying crap like "who's stupid now?" at any rate, groverat is foolish to be an ass, because its not very productive, no matter how you slice it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I usually only get into the name calling when provoked. I don't see why people have to call each other's arguments stupid. I often say things like "OMFG!" but rarely will my argument be that the other person's is stupid.
1) Doing it would demonstrate our outrage. I am NOT saying there is no other way to do this. That is obvious.
2) It would certainly show other nations our willingness to use extreme measures to defend the ourselves. Once again, there are other ways to do this. But, probably not to this degree.
3) If dropped in the right area, it would kill thousands of terrorists.
I never advocated nuking every nation Al Qaeda operates in, as goverat seems to think I did. All it would take is one bomb. Just one. I think its a valid argument, if not a popular one. There can be no question that the world fears our nukes. And ONCE AGAIN, anyone that thinks Bush and cronies didn't at least CONSIDER it briefly are just joking.
I still don't see how you can call this stupid. Just because you can present reasons why its not a good idea doesn't mean its stupid.
Yes indeed. Definitely a predictable response on this topic. Once again: I was stating the argument for it (and against it actually).
Someone once said "He who does not understand his opponent's argument does not truly understand his own".
THAT was the point. But, the truly stupid people are the ones who actually refuse to even acknowledge the our government may have had, or quite possibly did have the same argument in September. I guess they were stupid too?
THE POINT IS, there is SOME argument for using the bomb, or there was anyway at one point. I'm not saying it was convincing enough to "make" someone support it. The whole point of the thread was to state a possible argument for using the nuke.
Instead, some of you are so entrenched in your opinions that you decided that anyone that would even suggest a nuke, even for academic discussion purposes, is an idiot or stupid, or both. Moreover, you decided that the person who would even start such a thread must be an idiot.
Yes indeed. Definitely a predictable response on this topic. Once again: I was stating the argument for it (and against it actually).
Someone once said "He who does not understand his opponent's argument does not truly understand his own". [QB]<hr></blockquote>
The way that you wrote your initial post sounded as if you supported this idea on some level... I feel strongly aginst killing civilians, and thus wrote a somewhat angry response.
[quote][QB]
THAT was the point. But, the truly stupid people are the ones who actually refuse to even acknowledge the our government may have had, or quite possibly did have the same argument in September. I guess they were stupid too?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes... it is my opinion that anybody who would support the massive devistation caused by nuclear explosions as an attempt at stopping terrorism is VERY STUPID. no offense, of course
[quote]<strong>
THE POINT IS, there is SOME argument for using the bomb, or there was anyway at one point. I'm not saying it was convincing enough to "make" someone support it. The whole point of the thread was to state a possible argument for using the nuke.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
sorry for the upcoming nazi analogy.... Hitler had many arguments for the genocide and murder that took place in the 40's. Having arguments for something so terrible does not justify the action. Killing civilians is never justifiable, using nuclear weapons achieves this goal and thus is in no way justifialble in this situation. I apologize if I somehow offended you, but the thought of killing many innocents to kill a few terrorists is a horrible idea.
Comments
<strong>
I dont think that nukes are ever justified...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
YES!
1. It would demonstrate our outrage at being attacked.
2. It would send a message to world that of attacked, we will attack "you" with MUCH greater force.
3. If done right, it would kill hundreds, maybe thousands of terrorists.
4. It would demonstrate our willingness to use it.....all it would take is one bomb.
The negatives: World outrage, possible retailiation with nukes, UN sanctions, fallout, innocents killed, etc.
As I said I would reject the option. What we are doing now is better. But, I was just trying to make an argument.....and I am SURE this discussion was held at the highest levels of government after 9/11....if only briefly.
For those of you who believe "The use of nuclear weapons is NEVER justified".....well, I disagree with that one. If we were attacked with a nuclear weapon, I would say we might have to respond with one. Or, if the US got into a military conflict and was about to lose the war (unlikely I agree), or there was no other way to ensure the existence of the nation, then it might be justified, no?
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>For those of you who believe "The use of nuclear weapons is NEVER justified".....well, I disagree with that one. If we were attacked with a nuclear weapon, I would say we might have to respond with one. Or, if the US got into a military conflict and was about to lose the war (unlikely I agree), or there was no other way to ensure the existence of the nation, then it might be justified, no?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can sort'a understand if we use one in responce to having been attacked, becuase we might be able to track the missile to a launch platform. It's still a bit questionable thou becuase of the advent of mobile launch platforms... which means that if someone like Saddam Hussein luanched secretly from a neutral peaceful city... where do you send the "responce nukes"???...
How do you know who the missile belongs to???
todays wars a serreptitious and can be fought at great distances...
I do not refuse the possibilty of responce micro-nukes(If there is such a thing), I do call into question there use... becuase as I mentioned above...
where is the enemy?, what good will it do... for every place you bomb there is another missile waiting to be launched... and then a "dominoe effect" may take place subsequently (a.k.a. - global thermo nuclear destruction)
Also, this guy thinks we will be stricken within a few years with a nuke.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/06/buffett.nuclear.ap/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/06/buffett.nuclear.ap/index.html</a>;
<strong>There would have to be a prior agreement with other superpowers what we were planning... so long as it was a justified defensive reaction.
Also, this guy thinks we will be stricken within a few years with a nuke.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/06/buffett.nuclear.ap/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/06/buffett.nuclear.ap/index.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
I too think it is innevitable...
It just pisses me off, I dont think anyone can comprehend the real power, horror and result of a nuclear weapon wothout first hand experience... a nuke is much more than a big bomb... it just doesnt go boom... it can destroy thousands and thousands of people, it destroys the earth, etc. It doesnt just go away either... its effects last for decades and its wake will continue to destroy life for generations after the act... it is a crime against all living things...
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
<strong>
I too think it is innevitable...
It just pisses me off, I dont think anyone can comprehend the real power, horror and result of a nuclear weapon wothout first hand experience... a nuke is much more than a big bomb... it just doesnt go boom... it can destroy thousands and thousands of people, it destroys the earth, etc. It doesnt just go away either... its effects last for decades and its wake will continue to destroy life for generations after the act... it is a crime against all living things...
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we may get hit as well. But, even after 9/11 I have faith that our government can stop it. Right now there is no evidence that terrorists have the bomb. But, there is evidence that countries like Iraq and North Korea are getting close, and soon they will acquire the technology to launch them over here. I actually think though, that we may already have a massive missle defense system that no one knows about. I think it is possible that nations have already lauched shit at us and we have taken it out....that kind of thing would never be reported.
Lets dissect them.
[quote]1. It would demonstrate our outrage at being attacked.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, because it wasn't clear at all that we were outraged. People the world over were outrage, I don't think that could've been clearer.
Outrage demonstrated without nuclear weapons. This shows a minimal amount of thought on your part; stupid argument.
[quote]2. It would send a message to world that of attacked, we will attack "you" with MUCH greater force.<hr></blockquote>
And we did this without nuclear weapons. We took it to them with fighters and ground forces and lots and lots and lots and lots of conventional bombs.
Much greater force thrown back without the use of nuclear weapons. Think harder, this argument is stupid.
[quote]3. If done right, it would kill hundreds, maybe thousands of terrorists.<hr></blockquote>
Which conventional bombs do/did.
Stupid argument.
[quote]4. It would demonstrate our willingness to use it.....all it would take is one bomb.<hr></blockquote>
Wait, this is a "pro" argument?
And once we show our willingness to use it... what good does that do?
It's called the Jet Stream.
Ever been downwind of a fart?
Same thing. Just worse.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed too. But that's a bad idea.
<strong>I said you didn't make a valid argument. You made an argument, to be sure, but they were... how shall I put it?.... stupid.
Lets dissect them.
Wait, this is a "pro" argument?
And once we show our willingness to use it... what good does that do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
goverat, I can't even begin to tell you how successful you have been in acheiving your goal of complete "assdom".
You disagree. Fine My argument isn't stupid. You just DISAGREE. Live with it and move on.
<strong>
goverat, I can't even begin to tell you how successful you have been in acheiving your goal of complete "assdom".
You disagree. Fine My argument isn't stupid. You just DISAGREE. Live with it and move on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
once you step up so boldly as groverat did, then it becomes a difficult thing to all of a sudden say "sorry your not stupid, lets be friends" and step down cuz then not only was he proven wrong, but he also has to deal with other people saying crap like "who's stupid now?" at any rate, groverat is foolish to be an ass, because its not very productive, no matter how you slice it.
<strong>
once you step up so boldly as groverat did, then it becomes a difficult thing to all of a sudden say "sorry your not stupid, lets be friends" and step down cuz then not only was he proven wrong, but he also has to deal with other people saying crap like "who's stupid now?" at any rate, groverat is foolish to be an ass, because its not very productive, no matter how you slice it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I usually only get into the name calling when provoked. I don't see why people have to call each other's arguments stupid. I often say things like "OMFG!" but rarely will my argument be that the other person's is stupid.
I quote you:
"Go ahead, flame away."
Now you go whining when people do it?
1) Doing it would demonstrate our outrage. I am NOT saying there is no other way to do this. That is obvious.
2) It would certainly show other nations our willingness to use extreme measures to defend the ourselves. Once again, there are other ways to do this. But, probably not to this degree.
3) If dropped in the right area, it would kill thousands of terrorists.
I never advocated nuking every nation Al Qaeda operates in, as goverat seems to think I did. All it would take is one bomb. Just one. I think its a valid argument, if not a popular one. There can be no question that the world fears our nukes. And ONCE AGAIN, anyone that thinks Bush and cronies didn't at least CONSIDER it briefly are just joking.
I still don't see how you can call this stupid. Just because you can present reasons why its not a good idea doesn't mean its stupid.
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
SDW... how could you even consider killing thousands of civilians as proper retalliation? you are making me feel sick.
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: RyanTheGreat ]</p>
<strong>I think I'll vote for this thread as possibly the dumbest thread ever...
SDW... how could you even consider killing thousands of civilians as proper retalliation? you are making me feel sick.
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: RyanTheGreat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes indeed. Definitely a predictable response on this topic. Once again: I was stating the argument for it (and against it actually).
Someone once said "He who does not understand his opponent's argument does not truly understand his own".
THAT was the point. But, the truly stupid people are the ones who actually refuse to even acknowledge the our government may have had, or quite possibly did have the same argument in September. I guess they were stupid too?
THE POINT IS, there is SOME argument for using the bomb, or there was anyway at one point. I'm not saying it was convincing enough to "make" someone support it. The whole point of the thread was to state a possible argument for using the nuke.
Instead, some of you are so entrenched in your opinions that you decided that anyone that would even suggest a nuke, even for academic discussion purposes, is an idiot or stupid, or both. Moreover, you decided that the person who would even start such a thread must be an idiot.
Oh, OK.
<strong>
Yes indeed. Definitely a predictable response on this topic. Once again: I was stating the argument for it (and against it actually).
Someone once said "He who does not understand his opponent's argument does not truly understand his own". [QB]<hr></blockquote>
The way that you wrote your initial post sounded as if you supported this idea on some level... I feel strongly aginst killing civilians, and thus wrote a somewhat angry response.
[quote][QB]
THAT was the point. But, the truly stupid people are the ones who actually refuse to even acknowledge the our government may have had, or quite possibly did have the same argument in September. I guess they were stupid too?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes... it is my opinion that anybody who would support the massive devistation caused by nuclear explosions as an attempt at stopping terrorism is VERY STUPID. no offense, of course
[quote]<strong>
THE POINT IS, there is SOME argument for using the bomb, or there was anyway at one point. I'm not saying it was convincing enough to "make" someone support it. The whole point of the thread was to state a possible argument for using the nuke.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
sorry for the upcoming nazi analogy.... Hitler had many arguments for the genocide and murder that took place in the 40's. Having arguments for something so terrible does not justify the action. Killing civilians is never justifiable, using nuclear weapons achieves this goal and thus is in no way justifialble in this situation. I apologize if I somehow offended you, but the thought of killing many innocents to kill a few terrorists is a horrible idea.
hasta la vista baby