Author Topic: Ground Zero (Read 3132 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:31:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
If that nuke kills 200000 in new york... how will things be better if you kill another 200000 innocent in that other country? where is the logic? does killing 200000 more give you some pleasure?

a nuke is the only weapon that only works if left unused.

Worked pretty well in WWII.

If a country supporting/harboring terrorists know that they will be vaporized if those terrorist nuke the US then I believe they will withdraw their support. Perhaps even going so far as to squelch the breeding grounds for this hatred. If not, well, we have lots of nukes.

Heater · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:32:14 PM »

Let 'em glow...turn the whole damn country in too a parking lot!

Skuzzy · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:33:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Even if that goverment was a dictatorship like i mentioned in the above post and their people could not remove that dictatorship?

Your assumption that a dictator cannot be removed from power by the people of that government is flawed. People have control over thier own fate.
Dictators throughout history, more often than not, have been removed by thier own people.

Nilsen · « **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:43:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Your assumption that a dictator cannot be removed from power by the people of that government is flawed. People have control over thier own fate.
Dictators throughout history, more often than not, have been removed by thier own people.

Yes, of course he _can_ be removed, but it is not always possible to do so or atleast to do so before a situation arises like the one in this scenario.

Lets say that this dictatorship has enough power to remain in control. You dont need the majority of the population, only people in key positions like it was in iraq with many loyal followers but where the civilian population does not support it, _or fear it_. There can still be 60-70-80% of the general population that is oppressed and only has goverment controlled media to get its info from. Should those 70-80-90 % suffer a nuke attack?

Nilsen · « **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:45:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Worked pretty well in WWII.

If a country supporting/harboring terrorists know that they will be vaporized if those terrorist nuke the US then I believe they will withdraw their support. Perhaps even going so far as to squelch the breeding grounds for this hatred. If not, well, we have lots of nukes.

They? You are still talking about the goverment in control that supports these terrorists.

A goverment that threatens or uses these weapons are very seldom democracies where the population supports the acts of theri goverment.

Nilsen · « **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:50:30 PM »

Lets take another scenario...

A fraction in Russia takes control of the Kremlin in a military attack and fires an ICBM at Washington (or Paris, London).

Should the american goverment retaliate on Moscow with a nuke?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:52:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes, of course he _can_ be removed, but it is not always possible to do so or atleast to do so before a situation arises like the one in this scenario.

Can't or won't? It only takes one bullet to kill a person. The rest of your scenario is moot.

People have a choice. Make it or don't, but do not expect me to bear the brunt of others desires to remain apart from it all. When you make that choice, then you are as guilty as the terrorists.

Reschke · « **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:55:02 PM »

Well we would be seriously unlucky if that ICBM even made it out of the ground in Russia...But you do have a point about one thing just because a faction runs something doesn't mean that you retaliate on the entire city.

The only way to eliminate the terrorist threat is to react accordingly and treat them the same way they would treat you. There is no mercy in this type of war and tactical nukes would be an option.

Reschke · « **Reply #38 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:58:50 PM »

Just for the record I don't believe that you would have to control the Kremlin in order to launch a single ICBM. Possibly just take control of a launch site but hasn't the Russian ICBM land force been eliminated as far as rockets go...I know it hasn't been completed as far as "dearmament" goes but with the maintenance lacking those things deteriorate rapidly if I recall correctly.

Nilsen · « **Reply #39 on:** July 23, 2004, 02:59:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Can't or won't? It only takes one bullet to kill a person. The rest of your scenario is moot.

People have a choice. Make it or don't, but do not expect me to bear the brunt of others desires to remain apart from it all. When you make that choice, then you are as guilty as the terrorists.

So if this situation shuld happen in america then you would disregard your family and your own safty and go "hunting" for the regime that took over knowing that you and your family would be hunted down and killed if you did not succed (or maybe even if you did)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #40 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:00:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Lets take another scenario...

A fraction in Russia takes control of the Kremlin in a military attack and fires an ICBM at Washington (or Paris, London).

Should the american goverment retaliate on Moscow with a nuke?

Maybe only for two out of the three...

If they nuked Paris, we would go to the UN.

Nilsen · « **Reply #41 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:02:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reschke
Just for the record I don't believe that you would have to control the Kremlin in order to launch a single ICBM. Possibly just take control of a launch site but hasn't the Russian ICBM land force been eliminated as far as rockets go...I know it hasn't been completed as far as "dearmament" goes but with the maintenance lacking those things deteriorate rapidly if I recall correctly.

Yes....lets say they took control of a sub and its launch codes somehow. America (in this example) would have to know that someone in Moscow supplied the codes... Would you then launch a nuke attack on Moscow to make sure that no more codes were given out even if you somehow sunk the sub that launched it?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #42 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:08:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
So if this situation shuld happen in america then you would disregard your family and your own safty and go "hunting" for the regime that took over knowing that you and your family would be hunted down and killed if you did not succed (or maybe even if you did)

Without hesitation, especially knowing that the actions of those people could get my family killed. I figure if my family is going to die, then it will be for a good cause.
Tell me you would sit back and let your family die if you knew you had a chance to stop it?

It's okay GScholz. Everyone has an opinion about something this extreme and the opinions will run to extremes.

AKIron · « **Reply #43 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:16:15 PM »

Nilsen, your Russian scenario is a bit different. Their nukes are remnants of the cold war and the USSR is no longer. If this had happened during the cold war then yes, they are responsible as their ideology bred the hatred that led to that attack. However, I might be inclined to listen to what the Russian's of today offered as recompense before firing on all of their cities. In their case it would have to include the complete destruction of their nuclear arsenal.

Many of the middle eastern countries today are much like the USSR in their animosity towards the west and more specifically the US. If that ill will leads to such a monstrous attack then yes, all those sharing that hatred share in the responsibility.

Nilsen · « **Reply #44 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:17:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Tell me you would sit back and let your family die if you knew you had a chance to stop it?

Maybe not...nobody knows this until you are put in that situation for real. maybe i would think that if i didnt do anything against this goverment then they would leave me and my family alone (saving your family is often nr.1 in this situation).

It is not sertain that i would know that the goverment that had taken over my country had been planning to nuke another country or that the enemy (if i lived as a citizen in one of the countries in this scenario that is run by the dictator) had threatended to retaliate with nukes. Remember that goverments with dictators usually control the media.