Home | Search | FAQ
Page
1
2
 Displaying 1-25 of 42 messages in this thread. |
| Posted By | Discussion Topic: Should we use Nuclear weapons in our fight against terrorism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TeenWeek what's a status? | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 2:49 PM |    | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00  | Yes, it is a newsthread (my first one this week), but this is an important newsthread. It is about using small, tactical nuclear weapons against Al Queda instead of using ground force where there would be many casualties. I definitely feel that the Taliban is taking this war to the next level if they are found to be responsible we should take it to the next level. quote:  | ||||
| av8er OA.com's taint with wings. | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 2:57 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | Sounds good to me. I'm all for wiping the middle east off the map. Av8er Radio [ AIM ] [ ICQ ] [ E-Mail ] "Ahahahhahaha...How sweet...Fresh meat!" - Robert Englund "Could you bend me over the console & say that?" - Jim Norton | ||||
| The Sleeper Being a Minor is a Threat to my Social Life PoseUr i ahve 2 threads at teh top, i feel like maynard | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:00 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | av8er, do you ever read past the thread title?quote: What does that have to do with blowing the Middle East off the map? And, yes, I think these weapons are definetly a feasible option.  | ||||
| FeelMyFunBags | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:01 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | BAD BAD BAD idea. The United States is no longer the only country with nuclear weapons technology and this could make an already ugly situation uglier. In return for the use of their land the United States had to agree to let Pakistan own/build nuclear weapons...and to be honest, when you think of Pakistan strong ally does not come to mind. Once you bring nuclear weapons into the mix, we leave ourselves open for a "small" nucelar attack as well. There has to be other ways to prevent casualties...figure them out and use them.  "I know every one of you, I know the sea of torment, doubt, despair and unbelief." -Walt Whitman USA | ||||
| Arthur Dent | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:02 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Nov. 00 | Official U.S. policy has beed that chemical and biological weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. Any attack on the U.S. by another country using a weapon of mass destruction can be answered by a weapon of mass destruction. The only weapon of mass destruction the U.S. has are nuclear weapons. However, this is not an attack by a country. It's an attack by terrorists. Do we really have the right to poison the land of another country for a million years in order to punish a group of terrorist and the dictatorial theocracy that is NOT supported by the people? | ||||
| RonRon5477 | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:03 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Apr. 01 | I think nuclear weapons would be an overkill. Don't use a cannon to kill a mosquito. -Confusious Shane Falco in The Replacement on the last play of the game: "I wish I could say something classy and inspirational, but that just wouldn't be our style. Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." Want to use the O&A EZPass lane? here's how (only for NY listeners, sorry to everyone else): The URL is: "http://ronron5477.homestead.com/files/OA"+previous phone screener before Stinky+previous phone screener's girlfriend's name+".html" AIM: RonRon5477 | ||||
| o&aswallow | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:07 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | Use of tactical nukes would be justified if chemical or biological weapons are used. These anthrax cases are not bio weapons. I am pretty much convinced this is domestic. Stay tunned for some group like the KKK or some Pro-Isreal group to be responsible for this. Trying to cause hatered or to escalate the war against Arabs. This antrax bullshit is not al-Qaiada. 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 Sleeper Being a Minor is a Threat to my Social Life PoseUr i ahve 2 threads at teh top, i feel like maynard | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:14 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | quote: Right, but we are only saying that this should be considered if we are 100% sure that they are linked to the Al-qaiada. If we shoot off nukes based on assumptions, that would not be the best idea. We definetly have to think before we act, and I think we have done a good job of tactically planning every move without succumbing to mass hysteria especially with the latest Anthrax scare. | ||||
| Numb Nutts | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:24 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Aug. 01 | quote: Confusious was born in the year 551 AD. So tell me how the hell he knew about cannons?  , | ||||
| o&aswallow | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:35 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | Sleeper, the only way we retaliate nucular is if we are attacked with a bio-weapon, fired at a weapons grade level. This poorly implemented mail method is not a weapon of mass destruction. It has no state sponsorship. A n airborne or explosive distribution is different. That can be traced back to a state sponsorship. This anthrax scare needs to stop being reported on so much. More people will contract and die from the flu this month than those that will contract and die from anthrax. 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. | ||||
| FoundryMusicDragon | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:38 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: May. 01 | My History teacher told us about when we were going to use nukes before. Someone said that anyone who used them was M.A.D. (I forgot the name of the person who said it.) Mutually Assured Distruction. If we use them, someone else will use them on us. Just use normal bombs, we don't need nukes. Thanks for the pic Jo. Graduate of the Mr. Brownstone Academy of Dance, you've been warned. | ||||
| av8er OA.com's taint with wings. | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:42 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | quote: Are you implying that I never read before I post? How dare you! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your anus. Of course I do, perhaps I could have worded it better. I'm all for any and all kind of bombing over there I'm also in favor of blowing the middle east off the map... Av8er Radio [ AIM ] [ ICQ ] [ E-Mail ] "Ahahahhahaha...How sweet...Fresh meat!" - Robert Englund "Could you bend me over the console & say that?" - Jim Norton | ||||
| The Painter 1/2 a bottle of Jack Daniels... it's a cure-all | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:47 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 00 | M.A.D. was a policy between the USSR and the USA. It kept us from blowing the world up. The nukes people are talking about here are small, very small. Not even close to what was used in WWII. They can be fired from a tank, or even by a infantryman. The Anthrax being used now may be low grade, but it is biological, and it's being used as a weapon, hence biological weapon. The meathod of delivery is irrelevant. | ||||
| The Sleeper Being a Minor is a Threat to my Social Life PoseUr i ahve 2 threads at teh top, i feel like maynard | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 3:57 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | quote: First off, neither you nor I know how far this anthrax "outbreak" will spread. Sure, its most likely just used as a scare tactic by either the terrorists or some domestic assholes. But how can we be sure. All I know is a couple of months ago, there was absolutely NO threat of anthrax and now I am scared to open a package of any kind. Secondly, the flu is an inevitability, Anthrax (again with the assumption that it is being spread by terrorists) can be stopped. We should have no Anthrax scare to begin with. It is an ATTACK, not a common illness. Maybe you are right that nukes, as small as they may be, may not be the best idea. But it should be an option. And honestly, I cannot think of any better ideas at the moment. Just ignoring the Anthrax scare and not doing anything about it is not right either. This message was edited by The Sleeper on 10-19-01 @ 4:05 PM | ||||
| IrishAlkey Chucky Official OA.com Homo CUNT ROCKETTE Look who's laughing now, fuckers!!! Is It In Yet? JYD-4-LIFE [Sarcasm]Subzero316 fan since day one!!1!![/Sarcasm] "my mod powers are on temporary hiatus" This status is sponsored by: P®oJë©T M@¥hέm | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 4:20 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Veteran Registered: Aug. 01 | O.k., if you want to kill a newborn, you could use a toothpick. You wouldn't need to whip out a gun and shoot the infant when a toothpick is cheaper. Therefore, why use nukes on these ass fucks when you don't have too? Unless, you would like that in return. | ||||
| skitchr4u G.O.O.F.B.A.H.G.S. Xtreme Skiing Assualt Force | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 4:21 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Dec. 00 | funbags is right, if we use nukes, they use nukes. in the past, only a few countries had nukes in their arsenal. now, pakistan and india as well as our friend sadam have access to them, plus russia and a few other countries. I really think the soviets would frown upon us using them, as well as pakistan and india being very upset by the mere idea of it. there are other ways for us to go in there, we should use them. AIM: SkiT4you | ||||
| Scrappleking | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 4:44 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Aug. 01 | quote: I would tend to agree here. I think we need AT LEAST another two months until we see exactly whats going to happen with the Anthrax mailings. Nukes are a bad, bad, idea. We are going to have to worry about alot more than the Taliban if we use them. The use of bomber jets and maybe some small ground force troops will be more than enough. "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." | ||||
| RonRon5477 | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 4:46 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Apr. 01 | On this note: try this Shane Falco in The Replacement on the last play of the game: "I wish I could say something classy and inspirational, but that just wouldn't be our style. Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." Want to use the O&A EZPass lane? here's how (only for NY listeners, sorry to everyone else): The URL is: "http://ronron5477.homestead.com/files/OA"+previous phone screener before Stinky+previous phone screener's girlfriend's name+".html" AIM: RonRon5477 | ||||
| njstrawberry | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 4:54 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Feb. 01 | First off they don't have nukes. Pakistan and India do and at the moment we're shoving Uncle Sam's wallet so far up their ass that they wouldn't dare use it against us. If Pakistan and India were to use them against us they wouldn't get it passed Israel since their weapons are not transcontinental. As far as the suitcase nuclear weapons, they are going to use them against us, if they even have the 20 missing Russian ones, whether we bomb them or not. With China and Russia in our back pocket, at the moment, I say blow the towel heads off the camels and finally turn that desert into what it should have been in the first place - an inlet for the Arabian Sea. ;)  | ||||
| FoundryMusicDragon | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:05 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: May. 01 | Thank you for clearing that up Painter. It is very much appreciated. Thanks for the pic Jo. Graduate of the Mr. Brownstone Academy of Dance, you've been warned. | ||||
| meatballnip | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:11 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Nov. 00 | Painter, I could be mistaken but the tank-launched shells you are talking about are depleted uranium, not nuclear devices. Current U.S. policy is: Chemical Weapons - only if used against us Biological - never Nuclear - also in retaliation  God bless all who are going to war for this great nation. | ||||
| adolescentmasturbator | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:16 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | No nuclear would just put us in a bad position. Nevermind the fact that it would start up an arms race quite possibly. color="#FF121A">Resident Board Socialist Email me href="mailto:[email protected]">here or IM me at stickysituation2 | ||||
| njstrawberry | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:21 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Feb. 01 | quote: That explains our production of Anthrax in Detroit for the past 10 years. quote: There are treaties for that. This message was edited by njstrawberry on 10-19-01 @ 5:23 PM | ||||
| The Painter 1/2 a bottle of Jack Daniels... it's a cure-all | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:22 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 00 | Depleted uranium shells are used to melt amored vehicles. They literally melt the metal down. Different weapon. Tactical nukes (mini nukes) are made for battle field conditions. Edit: I don't think nukes are needed here. It's a bad idea, that would piss off our allies. Nukes are a last resort weapon This message was edited by The Painter on 10-19-01 @ 5:38 PM | ||||
| adolescentmasturbator | posted on 10-19-2001 @ 5:39 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | quote: Like countries follow treaties anymore. SDI does break the ABM treaty but then you can't turn around and say that other countries will honor nuclear ban treaties. color="#FF121A">Resident Board Socialist Email me href="mailto:[email protected]">here or IM me at stickysituation2 | ||||
| Page
1
2
Displaying 1-25 of 42 messages in this thread. |