rbmcdonald Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I find it ironic that our "leaders" warn about how crazy people want to kill us with WMDs, yet in the history of the world we are the only country to ever kill people with nuclear weapons in battle. How could we possibly consider doing it again short of an apocalyptic scenario? How can we accuse others of wanting to use WMDs when we openly discuss the possibility of using them ourselves ... So no, I am not even a fan of our leaders saying that nuclear options are "on the table" ... Because our morals and values are at a much higher level than "there's". We only use WMD when it is morally right, "they" want to use WMD for reasons that are not morally right. When we meddle in the affairs of other countries, it is for the right reason, when "they" do it, it is for the wrong reason. When we install brutal dictators that do not recongnise the most basic of human rights and that wage war on their own citizens, it is for the greater good, when "they" have brutal dictators that do not recognize the most basic of human rights and wage war on their own citizens, "they" are being very bad. Crap Beau, do I have to explain everything to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 You'd use a nuke on a bunch of ragass terrorists in a cave? As others have said, the radiation pulse, heat, flash and blast would all be detected pretty much instantly and the residual radiation later. nukes wouldn't be necessary. If we know they are in a cave complex in the middle of the mountains, why do we need to nuke them. Just hit them with enough conventional ordinance to close of the means of egress, and let them die of dehydration, starvation or suffocation. My question wasn't really aimed at whether it was needed in that scenario, just that what do y'all think of their use? I understand the fallout, etc...but I am of course thinking the radiation is much smaller in nature. The neighbor's dog wouldn't shut the f**k up all morning. I'm exhausted. All this talk about tactical nukes has me thinkin' about dropping one on that friggin mutt. That there is funny! I find it ironic that our "leaders" warn about how crazy people want to kill us with WMDs, yet in the history of the world we are the only country to ever kill people with nuclear weapons in battle. How could we possibly consider doing it again short of an apocalyptic scenario? How can we accuse others of wanting to use WMDs when we openly discuss the possibility of using them ourselves ... So no, I am not even a fan of our leaders saying that nuclear options are "on the table" ... I find no irony in that whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 My question wasn't really aimed at whether it was needed in that scenario, just that what do y'all think of their use? I understand the fallout, etc...but I am of course thinking the radiation is much smaller in nature. I thought your question was quite specific, to wit: Lets say we have intel that there is a rather big cave complex in the mountains of Afghanistan with large numbers of Taliban/Al Qaeda. So we set up an airstrike with one aircraft and a tactical nuke on board...how would anyone know we used one? Is that a viable option? Anyway, nukes have to remain doomsday weapons. Any other use positively encourages more proliferation than is going on already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I think the term tactical nukes is an oxymoron. This is the answer to this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Because our morals and values are at a much higher level than "there's". We only use WMD when it is morally right, "they" want to use WMD for reasons that are not morally right. When we meddle in the affairs of other countries, it is for the right reason, when "they" do it, it is for the wrong reason. When we install brutal dictators that do not recongnise the most basic of human rights and that wage war on their own citizens, it is for the greater good, when "they" have brutal dictators that do not recognize the most basic of human rights and wage war on their own citizens, "they" are being very bad. I'm detecting sarcasam. Strong work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 We could always test them on Canada first. Kinda like we do with all our bad ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 No Nukes. Save The Whales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Whatever happened to the old days of enslaving those you conquer? I see you are a fan of the Morgenthau Plan from World War II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.