Where do you stand on the ultimate argument ender

[Goobieman]

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.

Doesn't this mean you are out of your god-damn mind? :mrgreen:

 

[faithful_servant]

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...

That's dumb.... We allow millions of people to die in order to maintain some sort of mythical rule that says we don't launch until they do? Look at it this way. If, by making a premptive strike, we stop them from launching and killing millions of our people and it stops us from counter attacking and killing even mor emillions of thier people, isn't that a better solution. It's a matter of two nuclear strikes vs. fifty. In your scenario, we kill many more people and do far more damage (both to property and evnironmentally). Having said that...

I don't believe that there is currently any situation possible that we couldn't stop with convential weapons systems just as effectively as nukes. The only real threat would be from a Russian or Chinese launch and those aren't going to happen because while they aren't going to commit racial suicide.

 

[faithful_servant]

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.

Our current convential weapons well able to eliminate their nuclear capabilties. We don't have to blow up their core weapons development sites, just the infrastructure that keeps them running. Cut the power, water, food, supplies access, etc. and you've stopped the process. It's attacking them logistically, instead of tactically (read up on the end of WWII when the German tanks weren't destroyed, but rather just ran out of gas).

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
Doesn't this mean you are out of your god-damn mind?

Yes...........

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by faithful_servant
That's dumb.... We allow millions of people to die in order to maintain some sort of mythical rule that says we don't launch until they do? Look at it this way. If, by making a premptive strike, we stop them from launching and killing millions of our people and it stops us from counter attacking and killing even mor emillions of thier people, isn't that a better solution. It's a matter of two nuclear strikes vs. fifty. In your scenario, we kill many more people and do far more damage (both to property and evnironmentally). Having said that...

What's dumb is not being able to mask such an obvious predjudice. Your disdain for me is quite apparent when you post the preceding just two posts AFTER I posted the opposite. I understand, you didn't want to let a good speech go to waste. Or is it the opposite? You were just too lazy to do your homework before you posted?

Originally Posted by faithful_servant
I don't believe that there is currently any situation possible that we couldn't stop with convential weapons systems just as effectively as nukes. The only real threat would be from a Russian or Chinese launch and those aren't going to happen because while they aren't going to commit racial suicide.

China and Russia signed a defense pact. We fight one, we fight them both! In light of that, were the ones committing suicide. Their combined military is a little more effective than the Republican Guard. Our military is the most bad-a.s.s in the world.

But we ain't THAT bad!

 

[Monkey Mind]

Its the given in a hypothetical situation. Dont question the given.

OK.. in your imaginary hypothetical I might support it, but we should use the smallest nuke that would effectively eliminate the imminent threat. Civilian casualties should be minimized. I doubt our efforts to that effect would matter much though, it could only end in disaster. If we ever get into a situation where nukes are our only choice, we will have already failed.

 

[Felicity]

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.

No one would believe us. The US is losing credibility FAST because those inside and outside her borders don't believe she has the will. She's no longer a sleeping giant...in their opinions...she's drugged by her fat lazy life of leisure.


That said...I don't think nukes should ever be used. It shouldn't get that far.

 

[Felicity]

If we ever get into a situation where nukes are our only choice, we will have already failed.

Exactly.:yt ...

 

[Hatuey]

I guess if they want to attack us first with anything bigger then a mortar(you know what I mean) then hell yeah. Nukes away baby. We should make it a pay-per-view event.