Home | Search | FAQ
Page
1
2
Displaying 26-42 of 42 messages in this thread. |
| Posted By | Discussion Topic: Should we use Nuclear weapons in our fight against terrorism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| o&aswallow | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:43 PM |    | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01  | I can appreciate the uneasiness of the younger generation, but please educate yourself. It will help ease some of your fears. There is no "them" if we use nukes. The only way the US will use nukes if weapons of mass destruction are used against US citizens, US allies or US troops. Powder with anthrax stuck in an envelope are NOT weapons of mass destruction. The only direct enemy that presents a threat that does have weapons of mass destruction abilities is Saddam. Think for a minute. If the terrorists had these weapons, would they not have used them as a first strike instead of crashing planes into buildings? Wouldn't Americans be more fearful of a silent killer that was dropping thousands of Americans the nation over? They don't have the ability to do it. Is anyone wondering why since 9/11 there hasn't been a terrorst strike anywhere in the world? Worldwide, there was a terrorst strike on average every three days. Do you think their network is so torn apart at the moment that for now they are worthless? And all along we keep freaking about low grade sent in the mail anthrax? Stop freaking people.  Puff The Magic Dragon Raised it's Fearsome Head, It Had One Simple Mission To Make al-Qaida Dead! Oh and kissy-pie huggy-poo The Froy thing. American Patriot, Pennsylvania resident, but original NYC listener. | ||||
| njstrawberry | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:46 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Feb. 01 | I hope it doesn't take them detonating a suitcase nuke here on our soil for you all to change your minds. It would be like the security measures on September 12th... too little too late.  | ||||
| Spork | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 9:51 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Jun. 01 | There is certainly a "genie out of the bottle" problem coming into play, which is what a lot of you are worrying about. But remember to try and think of this a little more in terms of what the weapons actually do. These aren't neutron bombs or big fusion bastards, they are simply LOW-YIELD "tactical" nukes that are being suggested by ONE congressman. All it means is that you've got a physically small device that can pack quite a whallop. It would be perfect if you needed to, say, wipe out a series of underground tunnels, caves, and bunkers. But I guess we don't have to worry about those, right? At some point here I am sure that the rules will change, just like everyone's opinion about the missile defense system will change about 2 minutes after North Korea aims an ICBM at Washington, DC. I think we should consider ALL options to keep our troops safe and to achieve our mission. It looks like the taliban is folding like a cheap tent, and if we can get in there, turn enough troops, dissolve the Taliban and get that slimy fuck Bin Laden without tactical nuclear weapons then we are all winners. But if we have to use them I say use them. As Straw says, don't worry about India and Pakistan, they are worried about blowing each other up over Kashmir (why do these countries go to war over such shitty regions?) and they don't have any sort of long range on their weaponry. Hopefully we can save our nukes for Phase II: "Finish what Daddy Started" when we go into Baghdad...  Thank you to all the brave volunteers who brought us all together as a country, and thank you to those of you brave soldiers who will fight and have fought for our country. We are a free people because of your efforts. | ||||
| The Painter 1/2 a bottle of Jack Daniels... it's a cure-all | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 10:24 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 00 | quote:That's not true. There have been a few against Israel.  | ||||
| disgustip8ed | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 11:47 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Mar. 01 | Everyone has this picture in there head of a big mushroom clound going off in there neighborhood. Nuclear weapons, as Painter said, can be used from artillery and tanks. They aren't the same as depleted usranium warheads (the same thing that is in the shells of AH-64 Apaches and A-10's), it is a small tactical weapon that is used to knock down an infantry division or something of that size in battle. However, as was stated earlier, this is not the same as a cnventional war. We all know this, it has been shoved down our throats by now. Nukes are bad. Bottom line, they are the absolute last resort. They should not be used. Bin Laden, was said to have tried to purchase uranium and plutonium for the production of nuclear bombs several years ago. How far do you think that he has gotten? If we start this type of action, it will be followed with an equal reaction. I have the utmost faith in the special forces and their ability to find this kind of stuff and hunt it out and to kill it. But it is far to great of a risk to just use nukes to end this, when we aren't stopping at just the Al'Quida (sp). There are others out there that might have the technology and the backing to use such weapons. Nukes are good against an army that one can asses and plan against in the traditional sense. This is not that time. Do you really want to use a nuke on a few caves. . . these caves that feed the hunger of hatred towards the US and would call for an equal retaliation? I am not speaking of peace or settling to others that don't like what we are doing, just think, logically, of the implications of what you are asking. Do we use nuclear weapons? No.  'Wear your crutch like a crown of negativity. Calculate what we will not tolerate. Desperate to control, all and everything. Unable to forgive, Scarlet letterman.' MJK | ||||
| Spork | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 11:54 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Jun. 01 | We shouldn't use nuclear weapons because then bin Laden will use them against us? Can't follow that logic, I'm afraid. By that logic, we must have hijacked four Saudi Air jets and rammed them into three buildings and crashed a fourth. This is ASYMMETRICAL warfare. Responses aren't equal going each way. These fothermuckers bitch when 8 civilians die from a secondary explosion of an ammo depot - well we lost over 5,000 to them. If bin Laden has a suitcase bomb, he'll use it - he doesn't give a shit what we do, and he is NOT rational, so you can't be playing rational actor and game theory with him. These traditional ways of dealing with international relations just don't apply here. Thank you to all the brave volunteers who brought us all together as a country, and thank you to those of you brave soldiers who will fight and have fought for our country. We are a free people because of your efforts. | ||||
| Fireguy | posted on 10-20-2001 @ 10:28 AM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Jul. 01 | Nukes would be a bad thing no matter how small, yes this would give every one of them camel fuckers thier wish to meet the big allah in the sky, but nukes would also contaminate the area of the newest hedonist resort that is going to be built once this is over. A big thanks to Psycho Bitch for the help with the sig pic, the name doenst really fit the personality. | ||||
| disgustip8ed | posted on 10-20-2001 @ 2:49 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Mar. 01 | quote: The point that I was trying to get at was if the US decides to use any nuclear device, it would almost certainly be the catalyst for other terrorist organizations to make building and detonating a nuclear weapon a top of the list priority. Not many do now, because its too expensive. Other countries may be so inclined to support the building of such weapons, albeit covertly. Pakistan would almost certainly dissallow us to use their air space as would other nations in the area. Just because we have the force to say 'get out of the way or get run over' doesn't mean that we use it that way. Yeah, its stupid, but that's politics. I understand that if Bin Laden has a nuke, he would have used. And no, we didn't drive planes into their buildings. In there eyes, we did something worse by having our troops in their holiest of lands. To them, us staying there is as bad killing 5000 people. It's insanely stupid, but that is the way it is. 'Wear your crutch like a crown of negativity. Calculate what we will not tolerate. Desperate to control, all and everything. Unable to forgive, Scarlet letterman.' MJK | ||||
| prototype | posted on 10-20-2001 @ 7:55 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Aug. 01 | YES YES YES and HELL YEAH USA Bin Laden is a dead man Free Northern Ireland | ||||
| njstrawberry | posted on 10-20-2001 @ 8:43 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Feb. 01 | quote: No, actually they are pissed at no end with us because after we assisted them in their "war" against Russia we ran from our end of the bargain which was to help them re-build their "holy land". In other words, we used them to acquire intelligence, which in turn assisted in the cold war coming to an end and Russia breaking down and then pretty much thumbed our noses to them and said clean this shit hole up yourselves. Then again look what we did to Sadam. We allowed him to purchase 88 strains of Anthrax from a Government facility located in Virginia in 1998 under the agreement that we would financially assist his country on the production of antibiotics for the disease. After desert storm the agreement went up in flames and he now has 88 strains of the virus. Consequently, 2 of the strains recently used here in the US are a perfect match to 2 of the 88 we sold him. It just goes to show you that you can't shit where you eat, even if you're the good 'ol USA and even if you have enough money to buy diplomacy for a little while. ;) | ||||
| Frenchy | posted on 10-20-2001 @ 9:38 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Oct. 01 | This is such a no brainer...OF COURSE WE SHOULD NOT USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!! whoever thinks we should, should get their head outta their fucking ass. If we did use it, it would be the end of the world. as some of you've said before, we are not the only people with nuclear weapons..it's just dangerous | ||||
| o&aswallow | posted on 10-20-2001 @ 11:26 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | Frenchy, for the record the countries with nukes are, US, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Great Britan, Australia, Isreal, France and possibly Iraq. Isreal cannot Launch theirs without the US verifying launch codes with them. So while we are all pulling our heads out of the sand, which country will be launching against us if we use tactical nukes in self defense? Puff The Magic Dragon Raised it's Fearsome Head, It Had One Simple Mission To Make al-Qaida Dead! Oh and kissy-pie huggy-poo The Froy thing. American Patriot, Pennsylvania resident, but original NYC listener. | ||||
| The Painter 1/2 a bottle of Jack Daniels... it's a cure-all | posted on 10-21-2001 @ 12:02 AM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 00 | Australia doesn't have Nukes. coutries that have nukes | ||||
| Scrappleking | posted on 10-21-2001 @ 4:10 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Aug. 01 | quote: I was referring to Saudi Arabia there, not Afghanistan. Muslim extremists have a problem with the US having troops near Mecca and Medina for some reason. "Somebody took my phone number and called Afghanistan. Afghanistan! I've never talked to anyone in Afghanistan, I don't know nobody in Afghanistan, and even if did know anyone, I wouldn't talk to that Afghan ass for three hours! I won't talk to my daddy for three hours." | ||||
| Frenchy | posted on 10-21-2001 @ 6:16 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Oct. 01 | o&asallow, don't be dense, there are nations out there that hate the us as much as the taliban. lauching a nuclear weapon would just give them the green light to do the same to us...we do not know exactly who has nuclear weapons. there is no way to know..we can suspect that some may have them, but we can't be sure. and those we don't suspect might have them as well..u never know with this fucked up world. | ||||
| skitchr4u G.O.O.F.B.A.H.G.S. Xtreme Skiing Assualt Force | posted on 10-22-2001 @ 10:32 AM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Dec. 00 | swallow, normally i agree with what you ahve to say...but to think russia is a total ally of ours is just being stupid. Putin hates the US for what we did to his beloved KGB...remember, he is a fucking asshole who assended to power over there, and is only being nice to us to get things for russia. he is not on our side, and to think so is just ridiculous. russia has nuclear power, and i think if the price was right, he would sell it to someone, just to make a few $$ to help himself and his country... AIM: SkiT4you | ||||
| dirtydingusmagee | posted on 10-22-2001 @ 12:15 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Jan. 01 | It's pretty simple: Don't use them unless we are attacked with weapons of mass destruction(and this includes ,say,100 lbs of anthrax sprayed upwind of a city). If we don't answer such an attack with nukes(USA says it will never use biologicals),this will be a sign of weakness to these animals and will elicit more such strikes from them. A few low to medium-yield nukes with clean outer casings(not the real nasty ones that spray uranium-235 all over the place)dropped on suspected terrorist sites all over(and immediate diplomatic warnings that the fusions will come out if the terrorism doesn't stop)might be the way to go,and get the message across that we aren't playing around anymore. I think many people would be surprised how many Arab nations would "suddenly" find where the terrorist cells and their financial backers are,if this scenario played out.Saudi Arabia-"We were very surprised to find the Bin Ladin family had financial ties to..."type stuff. | ||||
| Page
1
2
Displaying 26-42 of 42 messages in this thread. |