Author Topic: Ground Zero (Read 2822 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #60 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:51:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
May have even more options after. I agree with GScholz that the primary goal of swift hard retaliation is to prevent further attacks. However, an even harder retaliation may not only deprive this enemy of his will to attack but also his ability.

Maybe we should take a survey now to see how many in the middle east would applaud a nuclear terrorist attack against the US. Think they'd tell us?

Do you think the __fundamentalist__ would be frightened into submission when a nuke hits their "lands" or do you think they would only grow in numbers?

Nilsen · « **Reply #61 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:56:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Nilsen, I think what AKIron is saying is that their number would not grow because they would all be ashes, including their base of recruitment, i.e. everybody.

But muslim fundamentalists if we are talking about them are not only from one country or place

Nilsen · « **Reply #62 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:59:22 PM »

aha.. would need to retaliate with alot of nuke warheads then....

AKIron · « **Reply #63 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:02:43 PM »

Hehe, no, not really all of them. 10 times 100K is only a megaton. After we level, I dunno, say Tehran, we get an atitude check. Unsatisfactory or unconvincing we level a few more. Sooner or later they will cry uncle. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating a preemptive strike. Once pandora's box has been opened though, it won't be closed to placate any Euro sensibilities.

Nilsen · « **Reply #64 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:04:21 PM »

what will then feed the american economy and who will trade with them when/if they find the fuel? Remember what happened to the economy after the """"minor""" (please, im talking in comparison to this stituation) attacks on 9/11?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #65 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:05:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
aha.. would need to retaliate with alot of nuke warheads then....

There are now roughly 9600 nuclear weapons of 10 major types in the U.S. arsenal

Nilsen · « **Reply #66 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:06:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There are now roughly 9600 nuclear weapons of 10 major types in the U.S. arsenal

That is what one can call "overkill"

Nilsen · « **Reply #67 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:09:35 PM »

thats also 9600 chanses of an accident.....and thats only in the US arsenal.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #68 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:10:51 PM »

At the peak in 1965, the USA had over 30,000.

AKIron · « **Reply #69 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:26:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Yup, and you'd better start using them ... you don't want all that expensive hardware to spoil in some warehouse now do you?

I was ready to use half of 'em on the middle east, and if one went errant and hit Norway you guys would understand, right? But no one ever listens to me anyhow.

Nilsen · « **Reply #70 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:29:39 PM »

Im aware that alot of people dont agree with me when it comes to using nukes but that does not really bother me. Im suprised tho that this thread has stayed civil. Im used to beeing flamed for my views but i suspect that having skuzzy taking part in the discussion even if he disagrees with me has prevented alot of the usual stuff.

i was actually suprisend (in a good) way that he took part in the debate even if he is doesnt agree. Ive known that all the HTC crew members have had strong feelings about the subjects on this board but have restrained themselves. _Personally_ i think its better when they express themselves then not in things that it woudl otherwise be normal for them to debate but i see that they have many considerations to take before they do (business wise)

~~skuzzy!~~

Nilsen · « **Reply #71 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:32:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I was ready to use half of 'em on the middle east, and if one went errant and hit Norway you guys would understand, right? But no one ever listens to me anyhow.

i have a bot tracking you Iron so dont worry...your voice is heard

cars · « **Reply #72 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:56:18 PM »

Man, serious responsibility there, I'd be real sorry I'd been elected if I had to make that decision. The first thing I'd do as president would be to come to the AH BBS for advice.

After reading and re-reading the posts so far, searching my soul, and considering my responsibility as president, with great sadness I would push the button that would launch an overwhelming nuclear strike that would leave their population centers in ashes. I would then issue a statement explaining that........

"As president my responsibility is to the United States. I was elected to do what I think will be best for this country. In order to ensure that no one EVER thinks they can do something like that and not pay the price, it is necessary that no trace of civilization be found in xxxx country. Please pray to whatever gods you worship for the souls of the innocent dead. Forgive me."

I'd then sit down at my big desk, remove my .45 from the desk drawer, and put a slug into the center of my forehead.

Well, maybe I'd wait for a few more posts.

cars

Nilsen · « **Reply #73 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:00:32 PM »

lol Cars.

but seriously. If i worked in a nuke silo and did not have a family + acutally fired one then i belive i would have taken the 45 myself.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #74 on:** July 23, 2004, 06:28:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reschke

These things I learned as a small boy who got picked on in elementary school till I taught a lesson to the bully. He figured out then after I knocked the piss out of him with my 23" Louisville Slugger wooden baseball bat that you don't mess with me.

I certainly hope you had the brand up young man. Money don`t grow on trees ya know.