What would happen if we dropped the bomb.
I think there is a valid argument for us dropping the bomb after 9/11. Go ahead, flame away. I'm not saying we should have done it, bit there is a strong argument for it.
If we had dropped the bomb, say in early October, and say, on a city like Kabul, thousands of innocents would die. There would be nuclear fallout, world outrage, and UN condemnation.
But, there is no question that it would demonstrate to the world that we will use our ultimate weapon if provoked. We would send a message that if you attack us, we will retaliate with 100x times the force you attacked us with. You kill 3,000 Americans, we kill 300,000 of your people. You take out a federal building or economic center, we take out a city.
This would be a horrific thing to be sure. But I think some would argue that the very existence of our nation is at stake. Either we demonstrate our massive outrage and abilities or we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting a prolonged war that may not be winable. Either we protect our way of life or we don't. Either they kill us or we kill them. No ground war, no budget deficts, just a big ****ing nuke down their throats.
Call it simplistic, call it stupid, call it horrible. I think there is an argument here. We have to get serious about protecting OUR lives in THIS nation, and not through the removal of civil liberties.
</puts on flame suit>
Of course, this is just an argument. I think in the end, I would reject this option. But not by much.
If we had dropped the bomb, say in early October, and say, on a city like Kabul, thousands of innocents would die. There would be nuclear fallout, world outrage, and UN condemnation.
But, there is no question that it would demonstrate to the world that we will use our ultimate weapon if provoked. We would send a message that if you attack us, we will retaliate with 100x times the force you attacked us with. You kill 3,000 Americans, we kill 300,000 of your people. You take out a federal building or economic center, we take out a city.
This would be a horrific thing to be sure. But I think some would argue that the very existence of our nation is at stake. Either we demonstrate our massive outrage and abilities or we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting a prolonged war that may not be winable. Either we protect our way of life or we don't. Either they kill us or we kill them. No ground war, no budget deficts, just a big ****ing nuke down their throats.
Call it simplistic, call it stupid, call it horrible. I think there is an argument here. We have to get serious about protecting OUR lives in THIS nation, and not through the removal of civil liberties.
</puts on flame suit>
Of course, this is just an argument. I think in the end, I would reject this option. But not by much.
Comments
Second, murdering 300,000 people would not help us at all. All that would do is to galvanize those who wish us ill. If there were 1000 terrorists, there would now be 100,000. Additionally, this would push the nations who were undecided about which side of this conflist they were on over the edge. We would have new enemies.
Third, detonating this sort of weapon could be seen as an excuse for terrorists to use this sort of weapon against us. Need I remind you how close Afghanistan is to the former Soviet Union? Need I remind you how lax the security of soviet made nuclear weapons is?
Fourth, nuclear explosions cause havoc to the environment and affect more than just the nation targeted. Even if you still think that nuking Afghanistan is a good idea, you couldn't possibly think that exposing the citizens of China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and depening of the winds, Kazakhstan, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kuwait, India, and possibly more nataions to radioactive fallout is a good thing, could you?
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>
If it is revealed that the Afghan people are wllingly financially supporting the terrorist groups, (like we do our Army), I say it's war on them. No nukes though.
If we use a nuke, then one of the Middle Eastern Bastard countries will buy one and ship it to Washington.
<strong>I see no need to kill innocent Afghans. They may hate us, but we are not at war.
If it is revealed that the Afghan people are wllingly financially supporting the terrorist groups, (like we do our Army), I say it's war on them. No nukes though.
If we use a nuke, then one of the Middle Eastern Bastard countries will buy one and ship it to Washington.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Totally agree with you.
<strong>You're an idiot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without any justifications?
The first sentence alone is all the proof I need.
I think there is a valid argument for us dropping the bomb after 9/11."
<strong>I don't think it needs to be justified, just read SDW's first post. He's an idiot, that fact stands alone.
The first sentence alone is all the proof I need.
I think there is a valid argument for us dropping the bomb after 9/11."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe I read in National Review, if I am not wrong, couple of days after 9-11 a call for ethnic cleansing against all that is middle eastern in the US. That was written by a female columnist. That is not so far from this situation. There are lots of people who think that retaliation should on a very large scale. From what I read in another thread started by SDW also, that he watch's "everyone favorate's show" which the the Oraielly. O'Rielly have expressed more than once the extermination of all that is Muslim if necessary (more than 1 billion individuals in population).
This show has lots of audience, and many might have been convinced with what is presented by the host of the show. Shouldn't we at least bother answer back?
Why just Afghanistan? If you wanted to "get Al Qaeda", then I imagine you would be in favor of nuking Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines and 57 other countries in which Al Qaeda operatives are based....
If America adopts those kind of (asinine) tactics then we will be terrorized more. It sounds like you really want that to happen. I assume you must have shares in Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
<strong>I'm going to require a little proof that O'Reilly (sp?) or the National Review called for the extermination of all Muslims. Sounds like a load of crap to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As far as the O'Reilly, that I personally heared while watching the show back in Oct. I am not sure if you could find those transcripts on his site.
As for the National Review, the columnists name is Ann Coulter (really good looking lady
Another site which goes through her columns has the following:
"There is no principled basis for opposition to using Arab appearance as a factor in airport screening procedures. . . This is not a psychological about an ethnic group - it is an all points bulletin: Warning! The next terrorist to board a commerical flight will be an Arab or Muslim male" ("If the Profile Fits" 10 January 2002)
"Congress coudl pass a law requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave. . .Congress could certainly pass a law requiring all aliens to get approval from the INS before bording an airplane in the United States" ("Where is Janet Reno when we need her" 20 Septebmer 2001)
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim. . . There will be two fail-safes: (1) Muslim immigrants who agree to spy on the millions of Americans unaffected by the deportation order can stay; and (2) any Muslim immigrant who gets a U.S. Senator to waive his deportation - by name - gets to stay" ("Future Widows of America: Write Your Congressman" 27 September 2001)
Those are her quotes from her articles. Click on the Archive link at the top of the link I provided above and you could check it yourself.
<strong>
We would send a message that if you attack us, we will retaliate with 100x times the force you attacked us with. You kill 3,000 Americans, we kill 300,000 of your people. You take out a federal building or economic center, we take out a city.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Someone's been watching Swordfish.
J :cool:
<strong>
Call it simplistic, call it stupid, call it horrible. I think there is an argument here.
Of course, this is just an argument. I think in the end, I would reject this option. But not by much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I call this simplistic and stupid : because
if (cheap science fiction for brain washed anti US people) US dropped the bomb in kabul :
- all the world will be disapointed by these mass murder
- bin laden will be very happy : i think that bin laden was disapointed by the way US conduct the war in afghanistan. Bin laden was hoping that US will act as cow-boy and that in reaction all the arabs countries will go in jihad against US.
- all the ennemy of US will be very happy
I call it horrible : does i have to explain why ?
SDW 2001 : i am sorry but it's not the best post you ever made : it is the worse.
<strong>The only justification for using nuclear weapons is if we were attacked with them. We should never preemptively strike with nukes , only if we are first attacked with nuclear or biological weapons (warheads).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you on this one
second: some americans are stupid (not all, but SDW2001 for sure) always this "we are a free land !" singing. we don't need that.
Kind of toned down your accusations a bit, have you?
Don't be stupid, it's irritating. If you simply must be stupid don't talk to people who aren't. Stay in your circle of idiots with this blather.
--------------
I am a patriot and I love my nation. I don't care if people look down on me for loving my nation. But nuclear attacks on civilian populations because of a terrorist attack... absolute lunacy.
[ 05-05-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
I dont think that nukes are ever justified...
it's a horrible blunt weapon and given the dynamics of the faceless attack...
where is the battle front? where is the enemy?
How many thousands of innocent people have to die to get the few bad guys?...
we would be no better than our enemy...
IMO...
<strong>You're an idiot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shut up groverat.
Anyways, a nuclear bomb is not the ideal weapon for deflating a very spread-out society. Unless you planned to carpet-nuke Afghanistan, I don't think a nuclear assualt would have too much affect.
<strong>What exactly is the connection between racial profiling and genocide?
Kind of toned down your accusations a bit, have you?
Don't be stupid, it's irritating. If you simply must be stupid don't talk to people who aren't. Stay in your circle of idiots with this blather.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
did you say that to me ?
Context clues, people.