Are people really talking about using Nuke?!?!

[bush]

Originally Posted by Fizzgeek

Hey I'm with ya' bush,

I just think we would be condemmned if we did. Unless we have un-assailiable proof the enemy struck first. The only way for that to happen would be if some non-Americans were around to "feel the heat" of the blast. THEN we could glass 'em.

Exactly. Anybody that thinks an unprovoked nuclear attack on a predomianntly Islamic nation wouldn't make things worse isn't thinking enough.

[R1100S-Rider]

For some reason this comes to mind when I read this thread.

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?

- Joseph Stalin

[SleeveleSS]

Originally Posted by R1100S-Rider

(Its a FOX station so you don't really have a opinion)

What does this mean? I don't watch FOX either, but to imply you are better than someone who watches FOX when you can't use the correct form of "thier" and admit you don't even follow the news is slightly confusing. I would rather have members of society that attempt to keep up with current events from a biased source than those that voluntarily choose to be ignorant.

[SleeveleSS]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

I prefer conventional weapons, despite the higher cost in lives. Nukes become the weapon of desperation, which is a poor use for megatons of damage.

We can act now, with conventional arms and take the leadership out and replace it with someone that at least lives in the same reality as the rest of the civilized world.

Or

We can ignore it like we did in Afghanistan (the Taliban and Al Queda) until it costs us American lives. Then we have to fight a war against a nuclear armed foe.
Frankly I'd rather fight them BEFORE they can wipe out an entire Division with a single weapon.

We've seen time and again in history that doing nothing is the worse of evils. We've tried isolationism all through the 20th century and each time it failed, dragging us into wars we are ill-prepared for. Causing more damage because we sat on our hands instead of acting.

We ignored the violations of the Treaty of Versailles, we got dragged into WWII anyway, and suffered badly at first because we were years later showing up to the party. Same with WWI before it.
We had 12 years of Iraq's bullshit when we should have owned saddam's squirrely ass in 1991, costing us MANY more lives now than it should have after Desert Storm.

Doing nothing is the surest way to increase casualties on both sides. If nuking that moron in Iran will spare us another Iraq war ten years from now- then I say glass that place in and we'll use it to make beer bottles.

For coming off as an intelligent and educated person, you sure come to some ignorant conclusions.

[Jordan Jones]

The problem I have with the use of nuclear weapons is that I wonder if it really reflects the will of the people of any nation?

Surely not; the effects otherwise would be cataclysmic on a worldly scale.

In other news, we sell Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of weapons.

*shakes head*

[bush]

Originally Posted by SleeveleSS

What does this mean? I don't watch FOX either, but to imply you are better than someone who watches FOX when you can't use the correct form of "thier" and admit you don't even follow the news is slightly confusing. I would rather have members of society that attempt to keep up with current events from a biased source than those that voluntarily choose to be ignorant.

You left out one other possibility:

People who take all the info into account and form their own opinions.

Something tells me that if this were 1939, you'd be a good German.

[SleeveleSS]

Originally Posted by bush

You left out one other possibility:

People who take all the info into account and form their own opinions.

Something tells me that if this were 1939, you'd be a good German.

How can you take any info into account if you don't "follow the news." He didn't just say that he didn't watch news television, he said he didn't "follow the news." I'm all for people making their own opinions, which I could still do even if all I watched was FOX. I'm intelligent enough to tell the facts from their opinions or biases. How can he take any info into account if he doesn't even follow current events?

I'm confused by your good German statement. Care to elaborate?

[eye speed]

Originally Posted by R1100S-Rider

For some reason this comes to mind when I read this thread.

The only thing that comes to mind when i read this thread?

That there are some seriously stupid motherfuckers that post here.

[636blurr]

Actually we probably already do use small scale nukes. Afganistan is nothing more than a testing ground for our new weopons.

[R1100S-Rider]

Frankly I'd rather fight them BEFORE they can wipe out an entire Division with a single weapon.

An entire division? Hell, no. A entire country. If a Nuke went off in London, England. People on the east coast of the USA would die because of it... This isn't 1945, this is 2008. Our Nuclear weapons can take out entire countries. If a Nuke went off in the middle of Germany, they would be completly screwed.

We've seen time and again in history that doing nothing is the worse of evils. We've tried isolationism all through the 20th century and each time it failed, dragging us into wars we are ill-prepared for. Causing more damage because we sat on our hands instead of acting.

We tried isolation because its the only thing we knew what to do... Then we did things that pissed off another county and they attacked us (WWII). The first World War we shouldn't of gotten invalved with. That was our own damn fault...

We had 12 years of Iraq's bullshit when we should have owned saddam's squirrely ass in 1991, costing us MANY more lives now than it should have after Desert Storm.

It’s funny... because we can't leave the Middle East, but we can't stay. We leave the government will be over-thrown in the matter of months, and a MAN will come to power. And you think Saddam was bad... We should of let Saddam keep ruling. Yes, he did horrible things, but he WAS the REASON the Middle East didn't go into a huge war. Sometimes its better to keep and evil man in power, then to take him out. If we stay in Iraq, then go to Iran the USA will go bankrupt. We WILL NOT LAST! We don't have the money, time, or power.

Doing nothing is the surest way to increase casualties on both sides. If nuking that moron in Iran will spare us another Iraq war ten years from now- then I say glass that place in and we'll use it to make beer bottles.

This I agree with you. If we nuke them, then we wont have to worry about them 10 years down the line... because there will be no USA, no North America, Europe, Asia, nothing. The Australians will be the only left, and they will be like "What the fuck, mate?". If we nuke Iran... At least the USA will go under, the government will fail, it shall be over-ran and a new power shall come. Most likely communist.

Watch this video - YouTube - Nuclear Weapons Damage Simulation

[R1100S-Rider]

Bush gives $20,000,000,000 worth of weapons to Saudi Arabi! WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS ASSHOLE! MY GOD! Why havn't we impeached his ass?

Thats like giving North Korea the most powerful nuclear weapon and saying "Launch is anywhere you want!" Of course very one is going to make nuclear weapons, and try to build up their weapons.


You know what! Screw it, just send a damn nuke to Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan! The USA wont be here in 20 years anyways.

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by R1100S-Rider

Bush gives $20,000,000,000 worth of weapons to Saudi Arabi! WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS ASSHOLE! MY GOD! Why havn't we impeached his ass?

Thats like giving North Korea the most powerful nuclear weapon and saying "Launch is anywhere you want!" Of course very one is going to make nuclear weapons, and try to build up their weapons.


You know what! Screw it, just send a damn nuke to Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan! The USA wont be here in 20 years anyways.

Wow arnt you just a bundle of happyness.

Put down the Doomsday bullshit. Those my age and older grew up with it from the ever looming presence of actual evil and a country with the ability to really whipe us off the map. That was the Soviet union, we lived thru all the "and if, and what if we do this, and what if they do that" bullshit, and thats all most of it is.
At best someone will get a nuke here and detonate it, life will go on, its not as big a deal as all the doomsday morons make it out to be, plenty of radiation in lots of nevada from all the testing they did there, no fallout clouds raining down on us, and I have worked around those area's, animals seem to be just fine.

The US is in a recession, but it happens every ten years or so anyhow, its only if its widley publicized if we really notice. A depression probably will hit, but we will get thru that too. Bottom line people turn things around, always have, always will, life goes on.

[rayzzr]

The amount of damage caused by a nuke is determined by the size and design of the weapon. The US even experimented with a howitzer capable of launching small 'tactical' warheads after WWII. It was not considered feasible because of the manpower it took to build the howitzer and move it around the battlefield. Nuclear artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While any nuclear weapon certainly stands to kill and maim large numbers of people if set off in a major city, the damage would be localized within a few 100 miles. Most developing countries do not have reliable delivery systems to get weapons across the pond to us, nor do they have guidance systems to ensure they hit where they are aiming. Certainly any country with a robust space program could feasibly use that research to tip a rocket body with a warhead and guide it to a target. Nuke warheads are high-explosives and fissile material, and they are very heavy. It takes more than a slingshot to lob one.

Israel is the country that stands to bear the brunt of an attack if any extremist nutjobs get their hands on nukes, and if it is proven that Iran is working on one expect them to react swiftly. Many of those countries in the Middle East are seeking nukes, and several have missiles capable of delivering one to Israel. I fully expect Israel to be the first to jump if proof is found that Iran's nuclear ambitions are not peaceful.

They reacted before with an Iraqi reactor and they will again if they feel they need to. Right now the US is probably asking for them to let diplomacy have a chance. Operation Opera (also known as Operation Babylon and Operation Ofra) is the Israeli Air Force designation used to describe the Israeli air strike against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor. Operation Opera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I seriously doubt any superpower possessing nuclear weapons would use them unless it was a last resort. There would be serious implications of using them, and certainly would open that nation up to a retaliatory strike by allies of the nation that was struck.

The US and Soviet Union have 1000s of weapons, and I'm sure they could turn the seas to steam with all the weapons they collectively built in the cold war, but that was a game of brinkmanship - each had to try and out-build the other. The fact that neither side ever attacked the other is an interesting fact - the other knew that by doing so their virtually guaranteed their own destruction. They each took strides to ensure that they could launch a retaliatory strike if provoked, even if they were caught by surprise. While land based launchers could be taken out by a surprise attack, submarines were hard to take out, so nukes were loaded onto them, and bombers flew missions for years after WWII and were airborne constantly from time to time in case we were taken by surprise.

Today we have much more than that two sided game of chess. We have smaller countries wanting to get their hands on the technology. Some of these have questionable governments, and some have been accused of supporting terrorists. If Iran had the ability to make a nuclear weapon, even if it were a 'suitcase' nuke with a small yield I would not put it past them selling that weapon to a group like al-qaeda. In their hands they could take out much more than a couple of towers or a wall of the Pentagon. Suitcase Nukes : Homeland Security National Terror Alert - Homeland Security News

Think about that scenario - who would we retaliate against and how (conventional vs nuclear).Its like getting sucker punched in a crowd of 30,000 people. Who are you going to strike back against? Everyone?

Some info on a low-yield nuke in a metropolitan city: Scenario 1: Nuclear Detonation ? 10-Kiloton Improvised Nuclear Device

These weapons kills in three waves: those that die in the initial blast, those that die as a direct result from injuries in the blast, and those that perish in years to come from radiation effects. Then there are those that die from birth defects from genetic damage caused by the lingering radiation, so I guess you could say there are 4 waves of death in these type of attacks.

A small yield nuclear weapon would likely be their weapon of choice - easy to smuggle into a country (takes care of their lack of a delivery system), and it would shake the confidence of a people in their government and cause panic, which is what the terrorists use to get focus on their agendas.

Not only could they kill a large number of people (read Clancy's 'Sum of all Fears' for an idea of how it *could* happen), the resulting EMF pulse would knock out electronics for miles. Think about something like that happening on Wall Street. Now you are talking about a potential stock market collapse on a world-wide scale. Then consider the collateral damage in the billions for the destroyed buildings, the infrastructure costs, there is also the cost of cleanup. That area would not be inhabitable for some time.

The world cannot afford for the genie to get out of the bottle in this case. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, yet it insists on enriching its own uranium and rejected offers by the EU to provide them with fuel rods. In their 'peaceful' state fuel rods would not be potent enough for weaponization, but by enrichment via centrifuge, fissile materials may be made more potent, and that *can* be weaponized. Nuclear Chemistry - Uranium Enrichment

We don't know how many centrifuges they have, nor will the world ever know unless UN inspectors are allowed free tour of all of Iran's facilities. Facts on Iran's weapon program: WPONAC: Iran's Nuclear Program

Would we use a nuclear weapon as a first strike a