Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on May 17, 2006, 10:55:03 PM
-
in another thread, it crossed my mind that we could have a meaningless poll on the adviseabilty of the US using a nuke to end the conflict in the middle east.
I say Nuke 'em!! If they want nuclear weapons, lets oblige 'em by using those spiffy lil tac nukes we spent a billion or two developing on their nuclear facilities.
let the votes be cast.. you may pose the question any way you like.. then answer it as you please or merely signify 'Aye' or 'Nay'.
:aok
-
nOOk.
Errrrr, aye.
-
I still say we carpet bomb the entire area, making a huge parking lot with the worlds biggest mall in the center of it.
-
Originally posted by asilvia
I still say we carpet bomb the entire area, making a huge parking lot with the worlds biggest mall in the center of it.
That's a nOOk!!!!!
Dammit, Aye!!!
Next....
-
Once you open Pandora box, you will not be able to close it again.
-
n00k the Pandoras box!
-
Nay.
Israel is not worth WWIII.
-
Nuke everything except Mecca.
We need a place to build a Hooters.
-
use a more modern weapon, a Mr. Big
-
I say nay against the nuke. If we use it, surely they will use it as a terrorist attack inside the US.
I do vote for the option to put the B52 back into active service loaded with conventional bombs to flatten the insurgent towns
-
I am torn on the issue of U.S. involvement anywhere, it's a "damned if you do & damned if you don't" situation no matter what that situation is a huge part of the world thinks we're wrong for doing whatever we did, even if what we did was nothing.
No one is perfect, that goes for individual people & govts. But,(there's always a but) I'm for winning at all costs & if you can't win then at least throw the last punch. Sort of like that star trek movie the wrath of kahn, "With my last breath, I spit at thee; For hate's sake, I stab at thee" that was a Captain Ahab quote from moby dick too so I don't feel so bad.
I think I'm tired of being on this over-crowded mud ball & I'm tired of the world wanting us to help them when they need us & then wish us dead when it's the in thing to do. Even though I feel that way, I don't think we should be the first to sling an atomic weapon at anyone. Every other weapon at our disposal should be used first unless we are attacked with an atomic weapon first.
If I were in charge of the arsenal, you can bet I'd push the button without hesitation if the need arose...but I think fuel air devices will do fine up until then. So - NAY.
Edit: Quote,"If we use it, surely they will use it as a terrorist attack inside the US."
Answer, if they had it, they'd use it, whether we did or not. They want all of us dead, men, women & children & our pets & our buildings destroyed. They want us gone from this earth completely.
-
If the nuke only killed religious extreemists..
Yay
-
Originally posted by Russian
Once you open Pandora box, you will not be able to close it again.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I say nay against the nuke. If we use it, surely they will use it as a terrorist attack inside the US.
I do vote for the option to put the B52 back into active service loaded with conventional bombs to flatten the insurgent towns
didn't know they took em off of active service Barksdale sure is busy
-
no nukes. If military action is necessary, invade, bypass the cities, take the nuclear facilities long enough to investigate/destroy them, then leave. Exit strategy = blow everything up and withdraw.
-
"I say we take off and nuke the place from orbit: it's the only way to be sure!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
No damned way.
-
oops i droped something....
(http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9903/08/kubrick.obit/strangelove.jpg)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
nay
to even think about it madness
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
:D
-
:rolleyes:
Stupid.
...in
-
As a last resort.
-
Let them glow!
-
Please don't nuke Korea... Except for some people up in the North, it's really a nice country.
-
To nuke a nuclear facility and ruin the country for 50 000 years at least...just sounds a bit of an overkill..
something has to be done...but not that.
-
No thanks.
-
Nuke all terrorists. Start in DC.
-
No.
hap
-
Pei hold on here...there IS a substantial dollar figure we are talking about here. I don't think a corporal has the authority to make such a decision...no offense.
-
I do not believe that the muslim religion will ever tolerate any other belief.
I believe that they will kill or enslave anyone they get a chance to who will not convert.
I also believe we can wage conventional war and win but will not rule out nukes.
If a muslim terrorist get's a nuke to the U.S. the worst that can happen is a few hundred thousand less blue state voters... they won't waste a nuke on the red areas. they will go for the socialist sardine people first.
lazs
-
this is really funny, i think i see some people who are against fighting in iraq wanting to nuke iran.
war is serious business, not to be taken lightly or to be entered into on a whim.
no nukes.
-
Nuke the whales!
-
I would advocate EMP ..... High Altitude Nuclear Detonation ......
Little Radiation if any .....
No Deaths
Not 1 single working car/computer/radio/tv ....Nuclear Facility...............PRICEL ESS
On a side note,
*Hamas (Palestine aka....terrorist central) is FUNDED by Iran
*Hamas has vowed to destroy Israel
*Syria provides shelter and comfort to enemies of America
*Syria is an insurgent "safe house"
*United States has vowed attacks on Israel are the same as attacks on our soil
For a moment, stop and look at a current world map of the middle east. Israel needs space/depth for protection and security. America has known for years that Iran is a MAJOR problem when concerning Israel's security and lets not forget our honey hole (Oil Fields) that America NEEDS to survive as we currently exist.
Now we have what appears to be a battle map with a classic "pincer" set-up (Iraq ... Iran ...Afganistan) with troops and large bases in place. Bye Bye Iran when the time comes, and we know it wont be long (Bush has less than 2 years left). You could NOT ask for a better pre attack position for Iran than what we currently have. Four (4) port countries Turkey, Israel, Iraq, Afganistan. Three (3) seas to operate carriers from, if Israel can take on Syria while we work the "front line" of Iraq/Iran then Iran becomes yet another solidified base of operation to prevent China from exploiting ie... taking (our oil).
I wont even go into a full discussion of what I think about Saudi Arabia and what their role is here, but to say I think they are the puppet masters of everything going on today concerning oil prices/terrorism/military strategery.
Control of oil is the prize, keeping Israel safe is the "feel good factor" for the masses. This also continues the "War on Terror" because we KNOW people will be pissed off and want to fight which provides economic growth to defense contractors and gun makers. Remember, George Washington (First President of the US) was considered a terrorist by Britian during our revolutionary times. History WILL be written by the victorius.
What I am trying to get at is this, RESOURCES on a overly populated planet MUST be competed for (ie...war). We are already being told China's need for oil will outstrip current supplies in 20 years. Do you want to win or loss????
Maybe all this is just rambling thoughts of a paraniod person or maybe I will be on the cover of "This Week in Prophecy" LOL
I truly HOPE I am wrong on all of this, if I'm not wrong I want to WIN!
-
I have a plan, we all get rid of our nukes.
Here is how.
The US does a covert strike, we take out France, China, the UK, the ruskies, the indians, Pakistan, and any other nuke nation, and then we nuke Saudia arabia, Iran, syria, lebinon, etc.
Once we have used them all up to take out the rest, things will be great!
No Nukes, No nukes! (after we use them!):D
-
n000ks? Nay.
As much conventional expletives as necessary to wipe Militan Islam off the planet regardless of the collateral damage. Aye.
Trying to play nicey-nice and avoid collateral damage to the point of missing the actual target itself. Nay.
Sending our lads out to patrol enemy territory and act as bait while trying to win over hearts-and-minds with Hershey bars? Nay
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
As much conventional expletives as necessary to wipe Militan Islam off the planet regardless of the collateral damage.
So brave behind the keyboard, aren't you. "Collateral damage"=Killing civilians. But easy the say behind the anonymity of the internet. Tard.
-
No to nukes, drop Hillary Clinton and Jane Fonda on them!
-
Muslims will not allow our social life style..nothing more nothing less..Its the way we live..
pretty simple
How about just call it a big bomb..that looks like a anuke..
"no..that wasnt a nuklear bomb"....; )
im tired of these crap countrys ..tiem to let god sort this out
btw Lazs we live in the Linguine spinned blue state;(...but i do my part everyday to change that
Liberalism is a mental disorder
-
also with abortion on demand thats one less liberal...right?..lolol...ying yang
-
Nay.
As soon as we use any nuke, other countries that are not so friendly will use it as an excuse or pay back to nuke the U.S. And don't think it won't happen. We can't even keep people from crossing the borders.
At this point, the first one to use a nuke, no matter what the reason, will be the bad guys. And then it's open season on the bad guys.
It's not worth it.
-
I'm not for nukes as it will effect us too enviromentally.
But what I am for is Chemical Warefare.. We have stuff that will kill people dead and leave the area clean afterwards. I mean, I would still like to have oil after were done.
-
Originally posted by Timofei
So brave behind the keyboard, aren't you. "Collateral damage"=Killing civilians. But easy the say behind the anonymity of the internet. Tard.
Actually collateral damage means much more than that, civilian casualties are just one part of the term. But I submit that when the "civililians" are indestinguishable from the combatants, and are actively engaged in supplying/hiding/supporting the combatants then they lose the status of civilian. If the townsfolk wont root out the miltants themselves then the town goes away, simple as that. Disregarding civilian casualties while waging a war is a better way of doing business than sending our soldiers in on foot to knock on doors.
Disregard for collateral damage while waging war worked well in Dresden/Berlin/Tokyo/(many others), it helped the population put things into perspective and question whether it was worth it or not to continue following madmen who advocated attacking the USofA.
But since you are such a brave keyboard warrior with the personal insults I say we just send you.
-
The opinions on why/why not, terms, conditions.. good stuff. And the humorous takes.. great stuff. we all need a smile now and again. The cheap shots at the poster on a personal level are outside the scope of the conversation. I understand that some sensibilities are seriously offended at the mere proposition.. that's kewl; voice yer dismay, but lets leave the personal diatribe volume set at 'off'.
i now return you to the proposition: Nuke 'em or not?
-
Nook Canada! That will eliminate more islamofacsists then nooking mecca...
-
Nope.
Why use a cannon to squash an ant?
If it transmogrifies into a giant, bring a bigger gun.
But wiping out an entire nation because of combination of anger, machoism and pride in ignorance is a wee bit over the top for me.
Then again, I've been poor and laughed at. Not always being an ******* does wonders for one's ability to see things from different perspectives.
If they cause problems, invade and destroy. Don't occupy. People living there have nowhere else to go when it turns into an utter crap-hole. Our soldiers have, and sooner or later will leave a cesspool of human misery in favour of the warmth at home.
Be realistic and humble. And very determined. Do what is necessary but no not splurge.
-
Nay.
I have a better idea...one our fearless, flawless and wise "leaders" have notoriously failed at for the last 50 years;
The only way we'll be safe from Middle Eastern lunatics and Islamic fundamentalist brutality is to completely and irrevocably marginalize them...like they were before anyone found oil there.
How? We must have energy independence. Period. As long as somebody else has a grip on the flow of basic survival needs (like energy), we dance to that somebody's tune. Imagine being in a truly bloody feud with your next door neighbor, but all your electricity flows through his meter, and you have to pay him to get it. How strong is your negotiating position?
Were we to actually focus on a REAL national security threat (foreign energy dependence), we'd make a massive national effort and investment, develop an implementation plan and make it happen. It would be a massive project, but it is inescapably necessary.
Afterwards, we could simply tell the sandstorm loonys to kiss off and have a great time butchering each other while civilized people sit back and watch them implode. Without oil revenue, they are nothing. (Of course, as someone else pointed out, we'd be blamed for turning our backs on the same people who spent decades trying to kill us all.)
If we don't need their oil, we don't need them.
I know isolationism has not been successful in the past, but these days I like the sound of it, anyway. Speaking as one who must struggle constantly to stay afloat, I'd like to see us take care of our own first and quit sending billions overseas while Americans suffer inflated taxes to pay for it.
-
Hey Edbert1, I guess you have felt the same way if the British commit the wholesale slaughter of American colonials during your revolution eh?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hey Edbert1, I guess you have felt the same way if the British commit the wholesale slaughter of American colonials during your revolution eh?
What, you think there was no collateral damage done during our war of independance? But basic answer to your question is yeah, that is part of what war is.
Obvious exception for the "wholesale" part at least. I see a difference between a civilian being in the wrong place at the wrong time (being next to a jihadist when the JDAM is falling would qualify I think) and being the actual target themselves. Although I know that in most urban WWII bombing raids (the RAF to a greater extent than the USAAF, but that's off-topic) the civililian population was the actual target, I am not advocating we actively seek the wholesale (your term not mine) slaughter of Islamic civilians. I merely suggest that if we are so squeamish in our desire to rid ourselves of this threat that we refuse to fight-to-win then we should re-evaluate our engagement in this war in the first place. In many cases of our current "war" we allow a known bad-guy to escape for fear of hurting a bystander. I submit that doing that is a good way to lose a war.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
If they cause problems, invade and destroy.
Be realistic and humble.
"Invade & destroy"..Then "Be realistic & humble"
Are u another crackpot?
:huh
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hey Edbert1, I guess you have felt the same way if the British commit the wholesale slaughter of American colonials during your revolution eh?
what about british colonel Tarleton or whatever his name was, he killed civilians, POWs, etc?
-
Originally posted by john9001
what about british colonel Tarleton or whatever his name was, he killed civilians, POWs, etc?
At that time, the killing of civilians and POW's was not against the Geneva Convention, it was just bad form.
And didn't Mel Gibson talk of killing all those people in the fort and sending baskets of fingers down river?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Only in retaliation, but not half assed if it comes to that.
-
Does anyone know how insane it is to even be speaking about USING nuclear weapons?
Sheesh.
-
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.
:rofl
-
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.
-
NO,
people tend to forgett the horror of nuclear attacks (ie. Hiroshima, Nagasaki) way to fast.
-
All that comes to mind is "Lord of the Flies."
:furious
hap
-
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.
-
Imagine if you will, jihad and atomic weapons......
-
I can. I did.
Hammer those facilities now. If we wait, we will be hit first.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
"Invade & destroy"..Then "Be realistic & humble"
Are u another crackpot?
:huh
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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. ;)
-
Originally posted by 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. ;)
We may not have to wait long. Whatever came of the report I saw a few days ago of there being traces of weapons grade uranium found in Iran?
This report: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12758225/
-
No first use.
No use a-tall until you definitively identify the source of the attack.
Which essentially means no use ever.
Better just cowboy up because someday, someway we're going to get hit and there will be no clear culprit to hit back.
We're just going to take a few on the chin and have to overcome that and move on.
(And get it through your heads that "nuclear forensics" WILL NOT identify the source of the uranium every time. It might if you have "known source" samples to compare against, but you don't have that for Iran, NK, Pakistan and probably some others. Beyond that, if it definitively proved out to be sourced by the DirkaDirkastanians, the DirkaDirkastanians will claim the material was stolen from them years ago.)
-
Bingo. What Toad said. Exactly what Toad said.
-
My child, my family... we're living within plain sight of NYC. Since we happen to be likely statistics if the other team wins the toss... well; lets just say my views are jaundiced regarding 'taking the first few on the chin'.
-
Yeah, maybe. I lost a good buddy in the attack. Lost a few aquaintences, and a few clients whose businesses went *poof*.
But it's all bs....You might think that your views are "jaundiced".... yet that's no good. It's nobody's business to tell you how you should react to such a bewildering event. If it's jaundice, then so be it.
That being said..... barely anybody on the island is worried about another attack. Call it the price of admission or something - but folks just aren't so nutso about it.
Mostly? They're sick of some hack racist pig ****ing retard from Alabama telling folks in the rest of America how scared they should be from another attack on NYC, while at the same time calling New Yorkers the devil incarnate.
-
If the US gets hit by a nuke, somebody is gonna get nuked in return, regardess of the facts or evidense.
-
After careful consideration I've decided that the policy of 'launch on warning' to be sound.
I have never been a fan of just standing there waiting for the first punch when a belligerent POS grabs my attention and announces he's gonna kick my ass.
We've been warned.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That being said..... barely anybody on the island is worried about another attack.
How many people on the "island" do you know?
-
Way more than you, guaranteed.
-
well, do you know enough to declare with conviction that "barely anyone" is worried about an attacK?
-
Pretty much. Yes. Do you have any standing to try and prove to me anything different? If so, pony up, cactus boy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Pretty much. Yes. Do you have any standing to try and prove to me anything different? If so, pony up, cactus boy.
lol, I love you .
Because you know a few people from the area, I must bow to your assesment. :lol
-
Originally posted by Nash
Way more than you, guaranteed.
Just for the record, how many people do you know again?
-
Yeah.... I knew a few people there.
I also went to and graduated from college there. I also worked there for a few years.
So.... are you trying to tell me I'm supposed to bow to your assesment? 'xcuse me?
Next time someone there inquires about fake grass I'll be sure and give 'em your card.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah.... I knew a few people there.
I also went to and graduated from college there. I also worked there for a few years.
So.... are you trying to tell my I'm supposed to bow to your assesment? 'xcuse me?
What was my assesment?
I was challenging your assesment. You claim to know how the majority thinks on Long Island.
-
blarhg
-
Beetle knows an American who hates guns. Just saying.
-
Nuke, he was talking about Manhattan Island.
Nash, the folks here are aware of the reality. They, like the folks in California sharing a quake fault with a nuke plant.. will continue to live their lives till they can't.
For my part knowing we will be 'avenged' (maybe.. if we can figure out who's responsible) doesn't change the attitude..
Hit 'em. First, this time.[/b]
-
It's just a difference of opinion, maybe. A serious difference of opinion.
-
Nuke the gay liberals! :D
Using nukes is a horrific response to just about any situation, but I think they were used correctly to end WW2. Using them saved lives in comparison to the results of a Japan invasion if that had been necessary to end the war.
I personally wouldn't mind if we dropped one on Damascus, and for that matter Tehran. Problem is, in taking out those who sponsor or participate in terrorism to many innocents would die.
-
lol you're such a sweetheart Dago.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Nuke the gay liberals! :D
Using nukes is a horrific response to just about any situation, but I think they were used correctly to end WW2. Using them saved lives in comparison to the results of a Japan invasion if that had been necessary to end the war.
I personally wouldn't mind if we dropped one on Damascus, and for that matter Tehran. Problem is, in taking out those who sponsor or participate in terrorism to many innocents would die.
There's no reason to nuke Tehran. there's every reason to drop a tactical nuke on 3 of the research sites and demand inspections on the remainder. If they fess up to the rest it ends there. If they lie, then we nuke the ones they tried to hide.. and ask for the list again.
Not one troop needs to invade. No governments need replacing. No economy to rebuild from scratch. No more nation building.. we suck at that. We can be very effective at creating holes.
-
We should nuke them, then nuke all the people around the world with shocked and outraged looks on their faces. Follow up with, "Does anyone else have a problem with that? No? Didn't think so. Now bring us a sandwich."
Next, we nuke hollywood.
We should also nuke anyone who says mean things about our government on the internet, especially if they're from Europe or Canada.
I would also support the nuking of telemarketing centers and that Geico lizard.
-
Every time i see the geico Lizard, i think "ahhh.. it's beet again. wheres my shoe...?"
I don't think we should nuke beet. i just wanna whack him with my shoe.
-
:D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
My child, my family... we're living within plain sight of NYC. Since we happen to be likely statistics if the other team wins the toss... well; lets just say my views are jaundiced regarding 'taking the first few on the chin'.
Geez, what size nuke do you think they would be able to get thier hands on?
-
The city gets hit, we'll feel it immediately. my son in law works in there. my ex works in queens. getting off long island will be a mite problematic if the bridges ain't accessable. freight and commerce out here would stop. about three days of food for 3.5 million people... it won't be fun.
-
nuclear bombing the middle east might just start more problems. I would love to see the middle east napalmed into a smooth glass lot but we cant have everything we want. This "fight on terror" is something that has to be done, but how do u kill a bucnh of punks that hide in caves and strap babys to bombs to kill us. Are guys fighting this war might have to fight dirty and the way the media is it wont happen. They nned to support the troops instead of bad mouthing them.
I dont trust they guys in iran, they want nuclear weapons. We cant let them gain that ability. Everytime i see them i on tv it pisses me of. Those ranians or the terrorist, they look like a bunch of pusses. A guy like bin linden...... o boy i would love to find him. Beat him to the point of death them bring him to a hospital... heal him up and do it again. That bastard has to pay.
-
I've heard most of the damage from a nuke weapon is comparable to a meltdown, that is it goes straight down and is mainly used for hard underground targets such as bunkers. They must be on target. If this is the case, there should be modern weapons capable of doing the job without the radiation effect. There is no military purpose or rationale for their use other than for striking hard targets such as bunkers.
I would say "no" except for such a target that could not be disabled any other way. Sometimes targets such as this are located in a populated area. In this case another "no." One thing about using a nuke is it is a weapon of last resort, and is sure to open the door for retaliation in like manner. If our enemy uses it first, we should retaliate in like manner and to a degree fitting the situation. It basically boils down to the doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction.) This works as a deterrent because nobody wants the world to end this way. It works as defence only if it is not used, because once it starts, where will it stop?
I think it would be a bad idea to use it without a damn good reason to. If necessary, yes. If not, no.
Les
-
hell, if they got so far as to use a real nuke it would almost be a mercy compared to a simple 'dirty' bomb. the panic would kill more than the exposure. and we'd have just as dead a city.
bastards.
hit 'em now!
-
That statement is CRAP..
They will retaliate?..So..you think they are holding back now>?
My problem with this is..OIL..when or IF Iran gets waked..Oil is 6$ adn up....this is all bad
So you folks who say..they will revenge on us?..How?..with nukes already inside our Country..Hell no.....
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
IN
-
hang... you need to move your people away from the blue areas..... no way to live anyway.
lazs
-
They're sick of some hack racist pig ****ing retard from Alabama telling folks in the rest of America...
There is something fundamentally wrong with an attitude that would lead to the utterance of a remark filled with such prejudice.
-
We're just going to take a few on the chin and have to overcome that and move on.
====
someone send an aid car to toads place...he is obviously crying out for help on this :cry
-
Why does Iran's leader say such utter rubbish & threats?
Cause the price of oil jumps each time and they earn billions $$ into the Islamic coffers.
-
As of this point, the overwhelming majority of posters have responded with a 'Nay'. Toad, I salute you, you are in fact correct in your pre-poll assesment that the exceeding majority of posters on this board would consider a first use of nukes to be an act of insanity.
I must admit that I don't share the majority opinion, but I do applaud the common sense and rational application of the western concept of 'fair play' with regards to the employment of the most fearsome weapons in our arsenal.
I hope that our reservations in this regard do not become the epitaph for NYC.. but resign myself to the hope that it never happens.. and that if it does we'll be ok and that those responsible will be eventually captured, tried and prosecuted.
To outside observers, and particularly our european friends... I hope that you are reassured that this nation is not, contrary to the common foriegn belief; populated by a pile of blood thirsty rednecks climbing over each other to be the first to push the big red button.
(myself excluded, of course. ;))
Lastly, for all of you that responded, seriously or tounge-in-cheek... thanks. Enjoyed wandering around in yer brains for a bit. Hope I didn't mess things up.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Nay.
Israel is not worth WWIII.
I was thinking :
-- Why not accept those 7 milion peoples from Israel to US and Canada, !!??
--Why accept 12 milion mexicans ? they are not under death /nuke threats?!
i don't think is going to be peace for them in middle east b4 Messiah comes
-
I think the Iranian president has an account on this bsb.
-
hangtime, once a WMD attack on US soil has been realized, that majority you refer to will diappear in a flash, no pun intended.
-
I think that those with 'majority opinion' on this subject reside outside the target areas... and would not bemoan the loss too much of a few big blue cities.
I suspect they may not have considered the economic impact on the red states the loss of a big blue city like Manhattan would necessarily entail, but are willing to make the trade off just on principal.
Swap NYC for Washington DC when congress is in session and I'd probably join the majority with a wry smile.
;)
-
The bad/sad thing is...we ARE going to have to take one (or more) on the chin. We have been free of the bombings since 9-11 here through tireless & extreme measures of security. Part of those extreme measures are in fact war & posturing for war against countries who support the people who want to kill us.
With our style of life, we can't protect our country 100% without draconian measures being taken. I would say we are approaching that threshold but we aren't there yet. We are almost certainly going to be hit again inside our borders, you can bet on it, if we get a leader who is wishy-washy & weak on our security in the next presidential elections it'll just happen that much sooner.
What are we to do? If we preemptivly (sp?) strike those who wish our destruction, we're monsters & if we wait until they kill several thousand or more of our citizenry, we're suckers & seen as weak thus inviting more attacks.
We are on a path that takes us down a road without an end. If we kill a terrorist, we piss of his family & make more terrorsists. If we don't kill him we get hit. I mean really, what are we supposed to do? I am firmly against using nuclear weapons as a first strike option, it will turn the entire world against us & seeing as how we are nearly there now without using them because of the rest of the worlds jealousy of us, we can't afford to do it.
The Chinese & Russians (& others including some fair weather friends) Have had a strategy on the books for decades about how to deal with the U.S.A.
First they use E.M. pulse weapons which will incapacitate us almost completely & we will not know who delivered the weapon for quite some time. While we are scrambling to fix the vital war/defense mechanisms they hit us with several neutron bombs. The idea is to break the will of the population of the U.S. (which the world views as weak) to fight & lose large numbers Americans doing so. When we roll over & pee on ourselves, they dictate terms.
The American experts in the E.M. weapon field say we would be mostly incapacitated for 6 to 8 weeks. The Russian & Chinese experts say 6 to 12 months. Either way they have plenty of time to do whatever they want to do & superior numbers also. Another thing in their favor is, if we retaliate in a like manner, they will not lose their ability to make war & feed themselves on the same scale as we will.
The main obstacle to that plan is the massive number of armed citizens in the U.S. & they know they would have to come & get us, or wait for the population to begin to suffer massive losses due to starvation & disease & by that time the govt. would have her war fighting capabilities back.
Oh what a tangled web we weave. First strike nuclear weapons? Nope. Sit around on our hands & wait for someone to kick us in the nuts? Nope.
Just what are we supposed to do? Surrender so no one gets hurt but us?
Nope.
it's too bad we can't solve the worlds problems from the AH bbs. Hey that's an idea, make the worlds leaders settle their differences in the D.A. LOL
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I think that those with 'majority opinion' on this subject reside outside the target areas... and would not bemoan the loss too much of a few big blue cities.
I suspect they may not have considered the economic impact on the red states the loss of a big blue city like Manhattan would necessarily entail, but are willing to make the trade off just on principal.
Swap NYC for Washington DC when congress is in session and I'd probably join the majority with a wry smile.
;)
Blue cities or D.C.? Probably not much love lost but it would sure give us an excuse to go all indignant on the tulips of those even remotely tied to terrorism. I have to disagree with Toad on this. Nuke one of our cities and we'll find someone responsible.
-
I feel so much better knowing we will be avenged.
:rolleyes:
BTW, not all of us here in, around and near the fallout shadow of the big blue cities are whiney liberal puzzies.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I have to disagree with Toad on this. Nuke one of our cities and we'll find someone responsible.
Actually, I'm afraid we'll just find someone, whether they are responsible or not.
Not quite the same thing, is it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
We're just going to take a few on the chin and have to overcome that and move on.
====
someone send an aid car to toads place...he is obviously crying out for help on this :cry
And Yeager, you're crying out for some serious reflection on this.
If YOU were President when it happened and your intel agencies and "nuclear forensic" detectives told you they just had no proof on who had done it....
...who would you nuke?
You'd be taking a shot in the dark and killing MILLIONS of people without any proof.
You can live with that?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I'm afraid we'll just find someone, whether they are responsible or not.
Not quite the same thing, is it.
I am pretty sure if one of our cities get nuked, the left will blame Bush, and that will be the same people opposing everything about the Patriot Act, the phone surveillance, Gitmo, etc. Kind of a no-win when someone serves an agenda of hate instead of accepting the reality that there are people who want to destroy our country and kill us all, and are actively working to do just that.
dago
-
It will certainly revise the political debate in this country.
Bet we won't be worrying near as much about whether or not "In God We Trust" is on the coinage.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And Yeager, you're crying out for some serious reflection on this.
If YOU were President when it happened and your intel agencies and "nuclear forensic" detectives told you they just had no proof on who had done it....
...who would you nuke?
You'd be taking a shot in the dark and killing MILLIONS of people without any proof.
You can live with that?
Been following this thread a bit and you have a good point. It's interesting to think about the scope of this problem.
I'd been thinking along the lines of an announced doctrine which would target any/every nuclear capable, terrorist supporting nation with a nuclear response should we get hit.
It's a "tough love" kind of thing.
of course, this doctrine could also be used against us.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Been following this thread a bit and you have a good point. It's interesting to think about the scope of this problem.
I'd been thinking along the lines of an announced doctrine which would target any/every nuclear capable, terrorist supporting nation with a nuclear response should we get hit.
It's a "tough love" kind of thing.
HMMM.. announce this is what we would do. Might make them think about giving samples of uranium .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Been following this thread a bit and you have a good point. It's interesting to think about the scope of this problem.
I'd been thinking along the lines of an announced doctrine which would target any/every nuclear capable, terrorist supporting nation with a nuclear response should we get hit.
It's a "tough love" kind of thing.
of course, this doctrine could also be used against us.
I could be mistaken but, I seem to remember this sort of ultimatum/threat issued before. I just can't remember when but it was along those lines that if we are attacked with nuclear/chemical or biological weapons the govt. of the United States would see it as an attack by all hostile nations who support or aid terrorists or terrorist states & the U.S. would retaliate with all means at our disposal up to & including nuclear weapons.
I just wish I could remember when & where I heard this. Seems like the president said it & it was around 9-11 but I'm just not sure.
-
If a WMD is used against a dense population center of the US then I am of the opinion that the survival of the nation is jeapordy. As president I would use military force to rearrange the global geography in such a manner that eliminates forever the threat of militant Islam to our people. That part of Islam that is peaceful, has babes and likes rock music shall be preserved.
-
Yeager wrote:
If a WMD is used against a dense population center of the US then I am of the opinion that the survival of the nation is jeapordy. As president I would use military force to rearrange the global geography in such a manner that eliminates forever the threat of militant Islam to our people. That part of Islam that is peaceful, has babes and likes rock music shall be preserved.
So as long as we can't tell it's an Israeli nuke....
-
we're on a mission.
... a mission from god.
gotta make the world safe for rock and roll!
..they fear the music. it contaminates their young.
we must use this fear.. build radio and TV stations all around them.... pump in free TV's and radios.. and free Porn. ALL OF IT.
Muahahhahahahhahhahhahhahhahh aha!
-
Yeah, drop B-52 loads of Penthouse on them. Build McMohammeds everywhere.
Now yer talkin'.
-
Totally strangle their airwaves. Full Spectum. Jam all channels but ours. Feed it ALL to 'em.. 250 channels of Porn, MTV. Cooking With Pork. NASCAR. Debbie Does Dallas. Brokeback CSPAN. O'Rielly. ALL OF IT!
MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!
-
Oh, and Yeager.... as for your "nuke 'em all" idea, I can't think of a better, faster way to turn even our truest allies into enemies.
For some reason people think you can hose off a couple dozen multi-megaton weapons and not have a serious ecological consequence of radiation drift to unintended areas.
(http://www.all4all.org/images/2006/04/2479.jpg)
-
Nuclear war is going to happen. Nothing can stop it.
-
cambodia?!? man, u kiddin me
-
I think I've seen this type of thread about 13,489 times give or take a dozen since the intardnet was invented by Gore. Still stupid.
Nuke this thread. Nooooooke it. Nookelar. :aok
-
hang... yep.. the loss of some blue cities wouldn't be that bad.. I think I could live with the economic problems so long as the blue guys had more to worry about than what I may be doing or what the defenition of athiest is or if I should have a 10 round or 30 round mag for my guns.
Or if I am wearing a seatbelt or helmet or going too fast...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I'm afraid we'll just find someone, whether they are responsible or not.
Not quite the same thing, is it.
Plenty of responsibility to go around. That we destroy those that actually triggered the nuke isn't quite as important as making an unforgetttable example of those who nutured the climate that encouraged them.
I know how this sounds but I think it might be a fair trade to suffer the loss of one of our cities if we can in return put a permanent end to the fanatacism that led to it. By permanent I mean a hundred years or more.
Of course we need to be reasonably sure as to from where the attack came. Proof isn't necessary.
-
toad, think NEUTRON BOMB :D
solves the long term radiation problem.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Plenty of responsibility to go around. That we destroy those that actually triggered the nuke isn't quite as important as making an unforgetttable example of those who nutured the climate that encouraged them.
That would be an excellant start. And hopefully enought of a point made to be the end of it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Plenty of responsibility to go around. That we destroy those that actually triggered the nuke isn't quite as important as making an unforgetttable example of those who nutured the climate that encouraged them.
You mean Regan, Bush Sr. (as head of the CIA) et al?
-
beg pardon... but doesn't an airliner chucked into buildings filled with people make the 'weapon of mass destruction' list? Coulda swore I saw that on the list of charges against mussoui?
...and, since we've been attacked with a 'weapon of mass destruction' 4 times already..
*sigh*
How many more we gonna take on the chin?
Just like santa, doesn't washington have a list, checked twice, of the countries both naughty & nice? Coulda swore we're in a 'war on terror'...
And we're waiting for what to happen, again?
Oh, that's right.. attacking states that are terrorist sponsors would be bad for 'business'.
Silly me.
-
Hangtime wrote:Oh, that's right.. attacking states that are terrorist sponsors would be bad for 'business'.
And cousin Bandar would put away the checkbook.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
beg pardon... but doesn't an airliner chucked into buildings filled with people make the 'weapon of mass destruction' list?
No, there is an accepted definition of what constitutes a WMD and an airliner chucked into buildings filled with people doesn't make list...unless they contain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons that is.
-
The Federal Government of the United States of America disagrees. Charge 4 against Mussoui:
Section 2332a. Use of certain weapons of mass destruction
(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or
Within the United States. - A person who, without lawful
authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction [From the indictment: “namely, airplanes intended for use
as missiles, bombs, and similar devices”.] (other than a
chemical weapon as that term is defined
in section 229F), including any biological agent, toxin, or vector
(as those terms are defined in section 178) -
(1) against a national of the United States while such national
is outside of the United States;
(2) against any person within the United States, and the
results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in
the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected
interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by the
United States or by any department or agency of the United
States, whether the property is within or outside of the United
States, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if
death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of
years or for life.
-
Point of order.
Redefinition of WMDs for a terrorist conviction sounds challengable if the definition cannot be applied universally. For instance, sanctioning a country for it's illegal ownership of WMDs known as airplanes.
Just sayin'.
Invade all non-western non-Christian countries that own airplanes.
*ShruG*
Having said that, yes .... terrorists used airliners to cause mass destruction on September 11, 2001 in the United States. They used a truck to cause mass destruction to a barracks in Beruit before then but I didn't see a case put together redefining trucks as WMDs.
-
you people watch too much TV :noid
-
:aok you nailed it moneyguy.
hap
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
So as long as we can't tell it's an Israeli nuke....
Those heartless bastiges have the gall to hit us themselves if they thought we'd wipe out Damascus/Tehran/Riyadh/Muscat/Beirut/Abu Dhabi/Mecca for them in retailation.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
Those heartless bastiges have the gall to hit us themselves if they thought we'd wipe out Damascus/Tehran/Riyadh/Muscat/Beirut/Abu Dhabi/Mecca for them in retailation.
:noid :noid :noid
-
I think Edbert might be right.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think Edbert might be right.
Are you being serious, sarcastic, or facetious?
-
It's one of those wonderous posts where with one line you can be all three.
And, i agree with them both... Israel always has and always will do what is best for them.. and that incudes stabbing us in the back. Recall USS Liberty? How about the espionage cases? These are our allies.. ?? !!
They routinely take advantage of us.. and I wouldn't put it past 'em to do it again.
-
Recall USS Liberty?
Yes I do, & I think there is more to that than meets the eye. A lot more.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
let the votes be cast.. you may pose the question any way you like.. then answer it as you please or merely signify 'Aye' or 'Nay'.
:aok
Nay. Too many innocent people getting killed. Probably never get those truly responsible anyway. The majority* of radical Extremists come from the Sunni camp. Iran (Shia) as an ally, would be a better deal.
*The vast majority (1-1.5 billion) of muslims are non-violent. To kill another or judge another is strictly against the Koran. Very similar to true Christians.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
And, i agree with them both... Israel always has and always will do what is best for them.. and that incudes stabbing us in the back. Recall USS Liberty? How about the espionage cases? These are our allies.. ?? !!
I think all countries act in their own best interest. The more threatened they feel, the more extreme their measures. Not saying it's right or wrong, just is.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
beg pardon... but doesn't an airliner chucked into buildings filled with people make the 'weapon of mass destruction' list? Coulda swore I saw that on the list of charges against mussoui?
...and, since we've been attacked with a 'weapon of mass destruction' 4 times already..
*sigh*
How many more we gonna take on the chin?
Just like santa, doesn't washington have a list, checked twice, of the countries both naughty & nice? Coulda swore we're in a 'war on terror'...
And we're waiting for what to happen, again?
Oh, that's right.. attacking states that are terrorist sponsors would be bad for 'business'.
Silly me.
So when do we attack Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc?
Those terrorists did some training even here in the US and Canada. So, who are you going to nuke?
-
The whole lot of them. Every dang one of them. The entire Middle East. Dunt like it? Then we can nuke you too. By gum, let's just nuke till we puke. I'll even wrap a bow around it. Santa Claus dunt have poop on me!
-
WOW Skuzzy....switched to decaf recently?:lol
-
Hehe, it's just a silly post. One of those, "if yer gonna go off the deep end with a topic, might as well jump in with a equivalent post".
Dang it. I was doin well until I used the word "equivalent". I gotta practice my hick stuff.
-
rofl, I knew you were "jumping the couch" just thought I'd razz you a little.