• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Where do you stand on the ultimate argument ender

Which idea do you support

  • Nukes are a weapon that should never again be used

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • I'd wait till they do something to justify the massive loss of life.

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • Give them some warnings, letting them know we are losing patience. then fair game

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • What part of "glass parking lot." do you not understand?

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Dogger807

Dogger807

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
1,009
Reaction score
238
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I just want to do a quick head count. We all know the war is going nowhere fast. We also know certain enimies are working towards building bombs of their own. How would you feel about a tactical nuclear first strike?
 
sad to say, but i do believe in the next 5 years there is a high probability of a nuke being used again
 
dogger807 said:
I just want to do a quick head count. We all know the war is going nowhere fast. We also know certain enimies are working towards building bombs of their own. How would you feel about a tactical nuclear first strike?
Click to expand...

It would an absolute disaster for the US.
 
Just a flat out stupid idea :(
 
Depending on the situation, a nuclear first strike might very well be a necessity. If its the -only- way we can keep a smiliar event from happening to us, to NOT strike first with nuclear weapons would be completely and utterly irresponsible -- and anyone that would NOT strike first in such a situation should never, ever, be trusted with anything having to do with the safety of others.
 
I'd only support a nuclear strike if it was absolutely needed. And nothing in the current environment is anything close to that requirement. The possibility remains open, but not today.
 
Something like this would have to be set on conditions. It would have to be on a country with nuclear weaponry already in its arsenol and not merely achieving it. A "nuclear" first strike would not be necessary to destroy an enemy's attempt to build nuclear weaponry. It would also have to be in a case where the whole world saw the obvious intent of our enemies. Merely producing enemy plans would not be enough for our critics. However, the question is moot, because unfortunately our global critics would prefer to see a mushroom cloud on American soil as "proof." And many Americans would join their needs (as Billo provides the perfect example in the next post). Even if they are under that cloud.


But consider the most likely scenario here. A nuclear blast on our soil or on an ally's soil would not come from an enemy launch. A nuclear launch upon America by these countries would be suicide. They aren't stupid. But, it would come from a terrorist individual who hails from a terrorist organization. This organization would not be claimed by any government and all Muslim countries in the Middle East would send their condolences. We face a situation today where the 9/11 terrorists died in their quest and the planners are merely a handful, yet no Muslim country claims responsibility for the culture that bred them. The millions and millions of Radicals who cheered for the deed continue to produce terrorists. What will Americans allow their government to do after a nuclear blast? Will we wait in fear of another blast as the world dictates to us that we need proof before retaliation on somebody? Or will we act in our best interest and launch? Of course, if that blast occurred on European soil, our critics would encourage our retaliation on their behalf.


Me personally, I think in terms of tactics. Our enemy has declared his sinister hatred towards us and even boasted on the annihilation of an ally. Why would I be stupid enough to allow the man who has declared to harm me to get a gun? It's foolish. Diplomatic table manners has no place in extreme cases of survival. And a nuclear weapon ain't no BB gun. To insist that nuclear weapons remain forbidden is an easy argument of the theoretician evading the dilemmas faced by those who must operate in the world of flesh and blood.
 
Last edited:
Anyone supporting a nuclear first strike is out of their god-damn mind!

I'm mean that in the strongest terms possible!
 
Billo_Really said:
Anyone supporting a nuclear first strike is out of their god-damn mind!

I'm mean that in the strongest terms possible!
Click to expand...

President Billo!
The Peoples' Democratic Republic of Yourfantasyworld is preparting to launch a pair of nuclear-tipped ICBMs at LA, Oakland, Portland and Seattle! The ONLY way to stop them is to nuke the lauch sites before they can launch the missiles!! We have just minutes to prevent their launch!!

What do you do?
Why?
 
Goobieman said:
President Billo!
The Peoples' Democratic Republic of Yourfantasyworld is preparting to launch a pair of nuclear-tipped ICBMs at LA, Oakland, Portland and Seattle! The ONLY way to stop them is to nuke the lauch sites before they can launch the missles!! We have just nimutes to prevent their launch!!

What do you do?
Why?
Click to expand...

Maintian his quest to pretend superiority as he watches Americans die before he launches in "good conscience" for appearance sake.

Oh wait....were you talking to me?
 
GySgt said:
Maintian his quest to pretend superiority as he watches Americans die before he launches in "good conscience" for appearance sake.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt. :mrgreen:
And this is where my statement that 'anyone that would NOT strike first in such a situation should never, ever, be trusted with anything having to do with the safety of others' comes into play.
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
President Billo!
The Peoples' Democratic Republic of Yourfantasyworld is preparting to launch a pair of nuclear-tipped ICBMs at LA, Oakland, Portland and Seattle! The ONLY way to stop them is to nuke the lauch sites before they can launch the missles!! We have just nimutes to prevent their launch!!

What do you do?
Why?
Click to expand...
We don't launch until they launch. We've had too many close calls over gliches in the system. If they do launch, then we send back a lot more than just 2 missles. If they do launch, we take out every site in their country and do not stop dropping bombs until every site is disabled!

That's what we do...
 
Billo_Really said:
We've had too many close calls over gliches in the system
Click to expand...
Remember that there is NO QUESTION they are going to launch nukes at us.

Do you STILL let millions of Americans die when you could take action to prevent their deaths?

Why?
 
Last edited:
I chose option 1 because of the issues with fallout and radiation. If those were solved due to advances in technology, then I would have no problem with nukes. They would become just another high-tech weapon which has its legitimate uses. Right now though I think they fall into the category of unethical weapons which cause undue civilian casualties (other examples are cluster bombs, mines) and so they deserve to be banned.

If we're talking about a first strike to take out another country's nuclear capability, which seems to be where this thread has digressed to, then I'm all for it using conventional means. I think we may have no other option with Iran, if things keep escalating. It's hard to tell with these crazy dictators how serious the saber-rattling is, but since we are already engaged in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq, I consider them an active enemy of the U.S. Their nuclear facilities and any other military infrastructure are fair game.
 
Monkey Mind said:
If we're talking about a first strike to take out another country's nuclear capability, which seems to be where this thread has digressed to, then I'm all for it using conventional means.
Click to expand...
What if the only way to stop a nuclear strike on the US was to eliminate their strike capability with our own nukes?
 
Goobieman said:
What if the only way to stop a nuclear strike on the US was to eliminate their strike capability with our own nukes?
Click to expand...

I can't think of a scenario where that would be the case. Can you give an example?
 
Goobieman said:
Remember that there is NO QUESTION they are going to launch nukes at us.

Do you STILL let millions of Americans die when you could take action to prevent their deaths?

Why?
Click to expand...

Technically I think they'd be Yourfantasylandians. Or Yourfantasylandese.
 
Personally, I heard somewhere what I think might be a good plan.

Tell all the terrorists:

If there is another attack on US soil, we will bomb Mecca.

If nothing else, this would completely demolish citizen support of their activities.

We would give all civilians a day or two to evacuate before it happened.
 
"We are both atheists: you just believe in one more god than I. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours- Stephen Roberts "
I love that signature, very nice.
 
Caine calls it...

derailing a thread.

Or is t(just changed from "classical' and now am listening to "Van Halen's "Everybody Want's Some" which, in my case, is so not true.) hat just my way of teaching?

Who wants some?

Ah, which way to play this one?

Derail?
Encourage?
Play the middle and see what happens?
Let it ride?

[No self, no "Class in Session", no, don't do it. It's not fair].

Ah, the power of The Warden's text.

Let's try the middle. With some teacher logic.

First strike? Lettuce do this thing...

1. So we Nuke em. Enemey wise? Gets a lot. Women and children wise? What the fu*k are you thinking? Gives em the "we are gonna do the same and be justified" mantra. And rightly so.

And it can go just like this...


Question is...

Dog (can I call you Dog?)

What's your friggin point? Be done with it, state your political position and stand by your guns. Don't puzzy foot aropund some oblique worded poll.

I know where you are going, but Lord, Dude, the rest of these people are retards, and they will fall over each other trying to post some vauge political point they heard someone else say.

"Bush li...you with me by now, right?

Getting very close to a TT rant, done in paint so I can say 4 letter words.

But, you unwashed masses, where does that get me?

Fu*king nowhere.

Nothing new under the sun, all that is.


Now, one of you heros should be telling me "we know all that teacher, and you are right, your time is best spent teaching us that which as never been said on God's green Earth. Namely..."

How to Build a Pyramid.

And you would be right.

But...pyramids is a lot of paint work...this...is simple conciousness streaming.

To a minor extent, I'm just a weak fool, just like the rest of you morons.

Uhmmmmmm...that "Class in Session" bit? Been a while, huh, since we've seen that. Those words, when they come for real, is sumpin no one wants to see. When that happens, folks that want to see my smacking of this member or that that member just turn thier heads, puke, and walk away.

I've been consistantly bringing the B+ game these last few days. Hell, I been amazing myself lately, that should tell you sumpin. Care to buck up to me on that? "A" game happens at times. I say finding thelost1's one and the Count von Count's release of his e-mail are both "A-" game. Not intended, but there you go. Now you fools know. "Class in Session"? Ah, man, I gotta think for those. Some of you old timers know about all that. You duck and cover. Smart.
 
RightOfCenter said:
"We are both atheists: you just believe in one more god than I. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours- Stephen Roberts "
I love that signature, very nice.
Click to expand...

:)

Thanks. I consider it my most eloquent argument (a close second is "who created god?)
 
Originally posted by Goobieman:
Remember that there is NO QUESTION they are going to launch nukes at us.

Do you STILL let millions of Americans die when you could take action to prevent their deaths?

Why?
Click to expand...
I believe in holding people accountable for their actions. As hard as this may be, we don't know for sure until they are launched. I would not want to deliver nukes to a country for something they didn't do (launch missiles). I don't even know, how we would know, they would launch, without them acually launching their missiles. I am assuming you are refering to a situation where we were not in a state of war with that country. That would be a tougher call to make.

It must be made clear to anyone with nuclear capabilities that if they launch a nuke at the US, they will receive something we guarantee, with 100% assurance, they will get something they will not like.
 
Monkey Mind said:
I can't think of a scenario where that would be the case. Can you give an example?
Click to expand...
Its the given in a hypothetical situation. Dont question the given.
 
Billo_Really said:
I believe in holding people accountable for their actions. As hard as this may be, we don't know for sure until they are launched.
Click to expand...
According to the given, it is an absolute certainty they will launch. There NO question that it will happen, and there is NO question that cities all along the West Coast will take nukes if you don't nuke the launch sites -before- they launch. Dont argue the given.

So -- last time -- do you nuke them first, or not.
Why?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Goobieman:
According to the given, it is an absolute certainty they will launch. There NO question that it will happen, and there is NO question that cities all along the West Coast will take nukes if you don't nuke the launch sites -before- they launch. Dont argue the given.

So -- last time -- do you nuke the first, or not.
Why?
Click to expand...
If you define "it is an absolute certainty they will launch" as being "imminant" (the wording in International Law), then yes, you launch your missiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom