The 'would you use a nuke' vote thread

[Thrawn]

Edbert1, thanks for the clarification I think I understand your position much better now.

john,

"what about british colonel Tarleton or whatever his name was, he killed civilians, POWs, etc?"

Evil ******** that should have been shot.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Edbert1, thanks for the clarification I think I understand your position much better now.

Understood and appreciated sir .

I just want to add that while my viewpoint comes accross as harsh, brutal and yes, I'll accept uncivilized as a description too; that my opinions are those of a fairly cynical person with little faith in our kinder and gentler angels within, not so much in their existence but at least in their ability to control the other side that also lies within. So with that acknowlegement on my part, and my beleif that our enemy is both dedicated, capable (particularly should we underestimate him), and sincere in his desire to destroy us, I determine to take whatever road, however long, bloody, and hard to ensure our victory. If I was not an old fart (the US Military doesn't want my arse) I'd be over there right now, much to the chagrin of my wife, family, and many of my friends.

America is one of the most benevolent countries around, we can be your best friend. But we are also, at least by many European standards, primitive and willing to be brutal (at least we used to be). So while we make excellent allies we simultaneously make horrific enemies. I want those who wish us harm to think more than twice about provoking our wrath, but also note with my first post in this thread I said "nay" to the use of teh n00k, at least until one gets used on us. I beleive that if you are prepared to fight that you MUST do it with all force you have, if you are not willing to do that then decline to fight altogether. I just place nuclear weapons outside of that window, for while a 4,000 pound explosive might be indescriminate to some degree it is in fact in another league from even a tactical n00k.

[lukster]

Only in retaliation, but not half assed if it comes to that.

[Ripsnort]

Does anyone know how insane it is to even be speaking about USING nuclear weapons?  

Sheesh.

[Yeager]

Muffley:

But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

Strangelove:

No sir... Right arm rolls his wheelchair backwards. Excuse me. Struggles with wayward right arm, ultimately subduing it with a beating from his left.


Also when... when they go down into the mine everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! Ahhhh! Right arm reflexes into Nazi salute. He pulls it back into his lap and beats it again. Gloved hand attempts to strangle him.

Turgidson:

Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Strangelove:

Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

DeSadeski:

I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

[AVRO1]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Does anyone know how insane it is to even be speaking about USING nuclear weapons?  

Sheesh.

Hard to say over the intardnet.

To those who aren't trolling I only have one question :

If it's right for you to nuke them, would it not also be right for them to do the same to you ?

The power of nuclear weapons resides in their possession not in their use.
You'd think people from a country that was at the center of a 40 years cold war would understand that, but you'd be wrong it seems.

[Gh0stFT]

NO,
people tend to forgett the horror of nuclear attacks (ie. Hiroshima, Nagasaki) way to fast.

[Hap]

All that comes to mind is "Lord of the Flies."



hap

[Hangtime]

The power of nuclear weapons resides in their possession not in their use.

In a world where everyone.. including you, it would seem; is certain that the United States will not use a nuclear weapon, then the 'deterrence' provided by ownership of the weapon is rendered useless.

If we need to employ that weapon to deter a nation from continued development of it's own nuclear weapons program the deterrence is rendered once again valid... two points being made by the same flash.

1. The non-poliferation policy of this nation and it's treaties are enforced.

2. We will use any and all means at our disposal to preserve our assets and the lives of our troops. Up to and including the use of nuclear stategic oir tactical assets.

If this means that once every 50 years or so they are employed to make the point and retain nuclear primacy and enforce non -poliferation.. so be it.

[Yeager]

Imagine if you will, jihad and atomic weapons......

[Hangtime]

I can. I did.

Hammer those facilities now. If we wait, we will be hit first.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I can. I did.

Hammer those facilities now. If we wait, we will be hit first.

I am not in disagreement with the action, but it can be done without teh n00k. Besides we lose much moral authority if we use one for the sake of preventing the use of one.

[StSanta]

Originally posted by SirLoin
"Invade & destroy"..Then "Be realistic & humble"

Are u another crackpot?

I thought it was apparent when I wrote it, but I'll clarify for those less inclined to understand the subtleties of scale and combination.

The act of invading and destroying can be a response to aggression. Having a realistic view of the opponent, the political and cultural environment, the future after an invasion and so forth is advisable. If the enemy threatens your existence, it must be destroyed, rendered incapable of taking offensive action. Either that, or you'll have to accept an eventual domination by your enemy.

Still, there's no need to turn into a powerhungry megalomaniac, seeing threats where there are none, acting out of paranoia rather than reason. Or overestimate own strength. Or to think that military victory points to an inherent racial or cultural superiority.

The two statements are compatible and that'd be clear if one uses just a little more brain capacity than what is required to watch a Die Hard movie.

Crackpot indeed.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I can. I did.

Hammer those facilities now. If we wait, we will be hit first.

I'd rather wait. We can then justify a much larger attack than just a single nuke in Iran. Besides, there's always the possibility they might nuke San Francisco.

[Hangtime]

Thats pretty much like waiting on taking a shower... "i stink, I'm dirty.. but I'm gonna get dirty and stinky tomorrow.. I'll just wait."

That stinks.