The 'would you use a nuke' vote thread

[Pei]

"I say we take off and nuke the place from orbit: it's the only way to be sure!"

[Yeager]

Once you open Pandora box, you will not be able to close it again.
====
Pandora box was forever opened on July 16 1945 at 5:29:45 a.m. on ground zero for the human race, New Mexico test site, the Jornada del Muerto.

The only thing I can add here for the discussion is the clear and unmistakable reality that militant islam openly promotes suicide as a delivery method for explosives.

[Lazerus]

The repercussions tied to using a nuclear weapon are far greater than the benefits. The apologists would loudly accept the nuclear retailiation we would surely recieve and the escalator to Dante's living room would have us all as passengers. Fuel-air, MOAB, strategic conventional strikes, all can do the job if, "IF", needed.

If we, we being the western world, are attacked with a non-conventional device of any kind, I'm all for glassing over whatever country is determined to be behind it. And any terrorist group able to have a nuke has to have government backing.

[Nash]

No damned way.

[Roscoroo]

oops i droped something....

[Hangtime]

seems to me that the experts have been telling us it's a forgone conclusion that 'sooner or later, if they get them, they'll use one on us here'.

ok. I prefer we take the initiative away, that we make it 'sooner, and there, first. Which to my mind seems to make it pretty clear to anybody else that wants to play nuclear poker with the US that we don't need to bluff when we hold the majority of the big cards. And, we could set the 'sooner or later date' for the terrorists hitting us here quite a few years back. Tuff to build a workable nuke under a fused glass crater with ghosts.

as it stands now, despite the fact we hold the high cards; everybody figures we'd never play 'em. Which makes having them kinda pointless.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Hangtime
"Seems to me that the experts have been telling us it's a forgone conclusion that..."

Aren't you just a little bit over that by now?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Sandman
Nay.

Israel is not worth WWIII.

Too late... its already started. The fuze to this conflict was lit a long time ago...

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Nash
Aren't you just a little bit over that by now?

Hey.. who am i to argue with the duly elected scare mongering corrupt puppets and their paid corporate hack talking head experts?

[Wolfala]

Wouldn't it be easier to train a squad of syphletic hookers and have them going around the ME on a **** rampage - by the time they are finished...wait a few years and see the real entertainment begin.

But yea, i'd say build a hooters in the big cities. Have strip clubs on the corners - follow the Qatar example - everyone goes there b/c its the place to **** and not get into trouble like in SA.

[Nilsen]

nay

to even think about it madness

[Tumor]

NAY!!!!  NO NUKES

We have the conventional combat capability to march through damn near unscathed.  I say we roll over'em.  100% combat committment in full manuever.  Steamroll the entire area.  Cities and civilians that oppose be steamrolled too.  No holds barred!! Screw the kinder, nicer approach... heavy duty bombing of civilian population centers to "win the hearts and minds" works faster.  Execute trouble makers in the rear as it grows larger.  Annex the territory and shove our way of life down thier throats like it or not.  F***K this mamby pamby B.S. we're doing now.  They started this pissing contest.... it's about time we finish it.

Nuke Korea or anyone else who see's it as an opening.

Tumor

[Nash]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Hey.. who am i to argue with the duly elected scare mongering corrupt puppets and their paid corporate hack talking head experts?

Hehe

I reckon, Iran is 5 years out from posing a nuke threat. How accurate is that? Ahh.... it's somewhere there in the ballpark.

So I'm like, Iraq? "Here's the deal. You've got one year. Not only are we not going to draw down to 110,000 soldiers, we're going to bump that up to a quarter of a million. For one year."

"And yes, it has cost us 280 billion dollars so far, but we're going to chuck in another 40 billion. For one year. 'Cuz after this fiasco, it's the least we can do."

"We are going to spend one more year to try and seriously sort you folks out. If we can't do it, then oops, mea culpa, our bad, but we've got to move on."

Then ya face reality, bring the troops back home, spend 3 years saving face, 3 years patching together what's left of the military, and 3 years trying to find a diplomatic solution to Iran.... congruently. If none of it pans out? Well, then yer finally ready to solve it conventionally. Heck, maybe by then the rest of the world is on your side.

What you don't do is buy into another maniacal war all of a sudden, only this time with nukes, with your troops just across the border.

People... some people.... will be fortunate enough to survive/recover from a Bush presidency (many of tens and tens and tens and tens of thousands of people have not). It certainly doesn't help if nukes start gettin' tossed around.

[Hangtime]

nah.

we been there (4 years), done that.

time to issue an iranian **** storm advisory:

"Big Lights in Sky, slated to appear in East..... with EMP advisories for Tehran and the adjacent counties..."

The insurgents in Iraq, without their Iranian supply base will bolt for Syria. Then we issue an Eastern Syria neutron flood warning.

[beet1e]

Stupid.


...in