Author Topic: Ground Zero (Read 2821 times)

Reschke · « **Reply #45 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:17:40 PM »

I believe G is right on this one. The same thing applies to US subs although they do have to recieve a code to initiate launch procedures. At least that is what I have been told by some men who used to be in the know on that subject. As for the retaliation on the Kremlin...the only way you do so is to attack the same area with a tactical nuke and take the heat for any colateral damage and casualties that may occur.

The technology is there to limit casualties or to maximize them but that doesn't address the core set of questions.

To me yes you have to reply in a similar fashion to the enemy and if you do not then you have given in once again. I would honestly expect the US to respond to an attack on Norway the same way. Just for instance instead of New York substitute a Norwegian port. The casualties aren't as big but it happens. Not only do I expect Norway to want retribution I would be chomping at the bit for them to ask me to help do so.

Its similar to the school yard bully. Sooner or later you have to stand up to him and if you do it later then he is able to get stronger and learn from his mistake. While if you strike early you may take a beating. However by standing up and hitting hard enough to send a message he will not expect it and then you are in control.

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.

Nilsen · « **Reply #46 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:18:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
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.

Dont you think the CIA would know that there was a rouge fraction in the russian goverment that did this?

RTStuka · « **Reply #47 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:18:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
That scenario is called "rouge boomer". Btw. the Russian boomers do not need any codes from Moscow to launch their missiles. They only need two keys. The captain has one, and the "political officer" has one. At least that's how it was under the Soviet regime.

Actually Russia uses a system much like our nuclear football only better.

Nilsen · « **Reply #48 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:21:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Reschke
I believe G is right on this one. The same thing applies to US subs although they do have to recieve a code to initiate launch procedures. At least that is what I have been told by some men who used to be in the know on that subject. As for the retaliation on the Kremlin...the only way you do so is to attack the same area with a tactical nuke and take the heat for any colateral damage and casualties that may occur.

The technology is there to limit casualties or to maximize them but that doesn't address the core set of questions.

To me yes you have to reply in a similar fashion to the enemy and if you do not then you have given in once again. I would honestly expect the US to respond to an attack on Norway the same way. Just for instance instead of New York substitute a Norwegian port. The casualties aren't as big but it happens. Not only do I expect Norway to want retribution I would be chomping at the bit for them to ask me to help do so.

Its similar to the school yard bully. Sooner or later you have to stand up to him and if you do it later then he is able to get stronger and learn from his mistake. While if you strike early you may take a beating. However by standing up and hitting hard enough to send a message he will not expect it and then you are in control.

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.

Again. This is not a situation where the people of the country is behind or supporting the inintial nuke attack. Should all the people of the country be made responisble and the subject of a nuke attack just to send a "message" to the goverment that has taken control?

AKIron · « **Reply #49 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:23:17 PM »

There is really only way I'd consider not retaliating 10 fold if I had my finger on the button. That is if all Islam demonstrated great genuine remorse over such an action and reformed themselves. Or, that they all renounce Islam. Does anyone really believe either of those would happen?

JBA · « **Reply #50 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:27:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
in the first place such a thing would never happen because president john kerry would not let it happen, and if it did the UN and france would come to our aid.

Nilsen · « **Reply #51 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:27:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
There is really only way I'd consider not retaliating 10 fold if I had my finger on the button. That is if all Islam demonstrated great genuine remorse over such an action and reformed themselves. Or, that they all renounce Islam. Does anyone really believe either of those would happen?

So you have concluded that all or even the majority of muslims would support that attack on NY harbour?

btw...nobody said that muslims or muslim ___fundamentalists___ were behind the attack. you just assumed?

assumtion is the mother of all ****ups

And with a nuklear resonse there would be no second chanse to fix a mistake if one was made bacouse of an assumption

AKIron · « **Reply #52 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:29:42 PM »

Oh, right, my assumption is really way out there.

Nilsen · « **Reply #53 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:30:53 PM »

Btw....pls ignore my spelling. Im having a drink and taking "heat" from everyone in this thread so im typing faster than usual

Nilsen · « **Reply #54 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:34:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Oh, right, my assumption is really way out there.

It can be...but it doesnt have to be. With a nuke response you would have very little chanse of fixing that potential error.

There were many assumptions made before the invasion of Iraq to, but the actin taken towards Iraq is not a final solution... a nuke would have.

What im saying is that you have options until you use a nuke.

Nilsen · « **Reply #55 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:36:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Nilsen et al, the primary function of nuclear retaliation is to prevent a similar attack in the future. Casualties are not even a secondary concern. However overdoing it can lead to a future war where your enemies won't give you the chance of retaliation. Of course that is if your enemy cares about retaliation in the first place.

If a rouge nuke launch is answered by a "ten fold" response that country may very well launch everything they've got while your birds are in the air. If they can't reach you they could launch against their local enemies.

The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.

RTStuka · « **Reply #56 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:41:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.

I tend to agree, even though im a right wing nut job, and as much as I like to kiss arse and take names later when it comes to dealing with countries giving us problems. I do think the use of nuclear weapons would be a big mistake. Just imagine what would happen the first time a major super power launched a nuclear attack, every crazy out there who had is hands on one would blow something up thinking the day of reckoning was upon them.

Trell · « **Reply #57 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:41:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.

and if one side refuses to use nucks after a nuclear attack, then the nukes have allready stoped being a deterrent

AKIron · « **Reply #58 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:41:36 PM »

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?

J318 · « **Reply #59 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:45:13 PM »

Invasion but allow use of tactical nuclear weapons and carpet bombing,

show that we are not afraid to use nukes but the civilian and enviromental damage will be greatly reduced as to a stratgic bombing.