Thoughts on Nuclear attacks?

[BALLAHOLLIC]

When it comes to war, How do you feel about the US using Nuclear weapons on other countries?Do you think they should take out an entire city and get it over with?Are you against the killings of innocent people?

 

[Clangus]

I think everyone should use the money the spend on weapon research and find a cure for cancer or famine. I think everyone has these thing cos they are scared of everyone else having them..... Bloody stupid. IMO

 

[redneck]

I don't think the US should use Nuclear weapons unless its seen as a last resorce, such as a country actually landing soldiers on US soil, or if a country uses them against the US.I've always thought Nukes were more of a defensive weapon than an offensive one.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

I agree. Nuclear weapons are a last resort. Right now I do not see a nuclear attack happening because countries aren't stupid enough to go down that road. Business rules the world right now and no government with nuclear weapons right now would go through with it. Nuclear weapons now make you immune to international attacks, thats why so many smaller countries want to get them, it automaticly gives you a lot of power and say in the world.

 

[the_pestilence]

Nah, I think we should wait until we get a nuke that is powered by FUSION!

 

[KMart?]

I don't think the use of Nuclear Weopons will be needed in the War with Iraq, nor do I ever want the need for them to arise. It short of brings up the age-old question:"If you had to kill one innocent child to save the world and guarantee man's survival forever, would you do it?"In translation: Would you wipe out the thousands if not millions of horrid and mislead human beings with a Nuclear Weopon even if it would destroy thousands of mistreated children and innocents who want no part in war?While I share less pity for ignorant Middle Eastern inhabitants than most, I would never accept the use of Nuclear Weopons in this fashion. As much as I would like to believe it would never happen - Nuclear attacks - there are some corrupt, mislead, and idiotic rulers out there who just might do something stupid. Are the chances high of anything like that happening? No. Actually, the chances are almost nill. We're talking a .000000000000001% chance here of a Nuclear Weopon being used anytime soon, but don't be fooled, there is always a chance something terrible will happen.

 

[Michael Bryant]

Red's right, Nukes are just deterants. How come the Cold War never escalated? Because both the USSR and the USA were afraid to launch a pre-emptive strike for fear that they'd be destroyed by retaliation.Also, major cities aren't targeted unless:A) Your missiles aren't accurate.orB) You lack or don't want to show first strike intent**During the Cold War the USA had it's nukes pointed at Russian cities instead of missile sites. That way the Russians wouldn't get suspicious.Of course nowadays, with the advent of crazy religious nutjobs nukes might not be that good. However, and EMP attack would be a lot worse, it would be a cheap and an easy way to completely render the USA useless and defeated.

 

[The Fray]

You know what I think.I think America will fal at some time in the next 300 years due to a Nuclear War to be honest. I'm kinda scared, I'd be horrified if we were even threatened, it's a scary thought.

 

[ReppinTheD]

I think its absolutely wrong.With the recent Nuclear Bomb problems with Iran, and North Korea - I don't think the United States should use any Nuclear weapons. The United States should not be able to threaten others and hold arms while other countries such as Iran and NKorea are not even allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons. We can question their intentions, but they also question ours - we have to look at both sides in order to be fair.I think the United States SHOULD have Nuclear Weapons for protection, but should not threaten other independent countries just because they possess weapons. We are not superior to anyone.

 

[Something-To-Say]

My thoughts on nuclear: I wish my president could pronounce it.

 

[redneck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Dec 20 2006, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think its absolutely wrong.With the recent Nuclear Bomb problems with Iran, and North Korea - I don't think the United States should use any Nuclear weapons. The United States should not be able to threaten others and hold arms while other countries such as Iran and NKorea are not even allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons. We can question their intentions, but they also question ours - we have to look at both sides in order to be fair.I think the United States SHOULD have Nuclear Weapons for protection, but should not threaten other independent countries just because they possess weapons. We are not superior to anyone.</div>The US is the lone military superpower of the world, as the lone military superpower it's your job to terrorize other nations with your might. Egypt did it, Babylon did it, Greece, Rome and Persia all did it; the Bizantines and Ottomans did it; as did the French, British and Spanish. its not even a western thing, China, Japan, Mongolia,the Aztecs ect all did it as well. and it serves an important purpose, as the most powerful nation on Earth its your responsibility to basically keep everyone else in line, is you don't than your civilization suffers because everyone else pretty much becomes retarded.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Dec 19 2006, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The United States should not be able to threaten others and hold arms while other countries such as Iran and NKorea are not even allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons.</div>I cannot recall us threatening anyone with nuclear arms. I could be wrong on that, but I just don't remember any reports of that.Iran is not allowed to have nuclear arms due to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty allows certain countries including the US and excluding Iran to have nuclear arms. Iran ratified the treaty, so they have no grounds on which to complain. As far as I can tell, it was not forced on them. NK ratified the treaty, but pulled out in 2003. They are the only country to ever withdraw from this treaty.link

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Fray @ Dec 20 2006, 01:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You know what I think.I think America will fal at some time in the next 300 years due to a Nuclear War to be honest. I'm kinda scared, I'd be horrified if we were even threatened, it's a scary thought.</div> In the next 300 years nuclear weapons will be the least of our problems. Your an idiot if you think we will be obliterated by nuclear weapons considering we have more nuclear weapons than the whole world combined...Nuclear weapons are used as a deterrent and no country would ever be stupid enough to randomy shoot one at us.

 

[redneck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I cannot recall us threatening anyone with nuclear arms. I could be wrong on that, but I just don't remember any reports of that.</div>A couple years ago when Kim Jong Metaly-il was launching Missles towards Hawaii the US said if any of them are Nuclear capible that we'd retaliate with Nuclear weapons. also, in the opening stages of the invasion of Afghanistan it was rumored that either Tajikistan or Uzbekistan might get involved and they were warned if they used chem, nuclear, or biological weapons that the US would use Nukes. basically the US has only threatened the us of Nukes if someone else uses them first; and I think thats a pretty fair assesment concidering Bush could have used them on Afghanistan.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Dec 20 2006, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A couple years ago when Kim Jong Metaly-il was launching Missles towards Hawaii the US said if any of them are Nuclear capible that we'd retaliate with Nuclear weapons. also, in the opening stages of the invasion of Afghanistan it was rumored that either Tajikistan or Uzbekistan might get involved and they were warned if they used chem, nuclear, or biological weapons that the US would use Nukes. basically the US has only threatened the us of Nukes if someone else uses them first; and I think thats a pretty fair assesment concidering Bush could have used them on Afghanistan.</div>Yeah, okay. We haven't just outright threatened anyone, though. If we get attacked, I would hope we retaliate.

 

[Diawsome]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Dec 20 2006, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>A couple years ago when Kim Jong Metaly-il was launching Missles towards Hawaii the US said if any of them are Nuclear capible that we'd retaliate with Nuclear weapons. Also, in the opening stages of the invasion of Afghanistan it was rumored that either Tajikistan or Uzbekistan might get involved and they were warned if they used chem, nuclear, or biological weapons that the US would use Nukes. basically the US has only threatened the us of Nukes if someone else uses them first; and I think thats a pretty fair assesment concidering Bush could have used them on Afghanistan.</div>Weren't those the missles that they aimed at the Sea of Japan?

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Diawsome @ Dec 22 2006, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Weren't those the missles that they aimed at the Sea of Japan?</div>Those missiles were fired earlier this fall, not a couple years ago. So I'd assume redneck is talking about something else.Also, the US's threat against NK was probably mostly innocuous. 1. The NK's weapons are borderline antique.2. Bombing the NK would be pointless, since China would probably back them after that... they are a much more fearsome foe.

 

[Michael Bryant]

China is overrated. Their military is about 40 years in the past. In other words, it's not modern. China wouldn't back NK anyway, it would be a stupid idea for China to get into a conflict with the US, it could devastate both economies.

 

[The White T-Mac]

instead of investing money in peace, they invest money in tools for mass murder. peace cant happen when you invest in WMD.

 

[Delonte4Prez]

White Tmac I see you in all these thread just saying we should throw our hand down and just accept that we are not the biggest superpower in the world. We are if you didnt notice. So when we stop investing in WMDs and other countries develop much more advanced technologies than us, whos to say we arent threatened by other countries to be overruled and if we dont comply we're gonna get the our sh*t blow inside out. If we dont keep our military at the finest level there is, we wont have the same lifestyle or all the freedoms we have in the future. You think in such crude terms that we can just completely stop funding weapons research. You also said in another thread that every soldier should be pulled out of iraq right now, but we still have troops in north korea....I dont see anyone complaining about that.....Nukes ARE defensive not offensive weapons and if we dont have them we expose ourselves terribly and that cant happen. Developing WMDs is all about national security, and I hope to god your FOR national security.

 

[redneck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>but we still have troops in north korea....I dont see anyone complaining about that.....</div>We have troops stationed in around 160 differnt countries world wide. we have them there to protect not just American interest but other countries interest as well.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The White T-Mac @ Jan 19 2007, 01:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>instead of investing money in peace, they invest money in tools for mass murder. peace cant happen when you invest in WMD.</div> Every legitimate country on earch is investing in it's future on earth and thus WMD. You can do both.