Are people really talking about using Nuke?!?!

R1100S-Rider · 01-14-2008, 12:41 AM

I found this on the local news station blog... Someone posted a bunch of questions on the local News station website. They have a blog people can go to, and "post" (Its a FOX station so you don't really have a opinion) there opinion. Well, the questions were asking if you were president what would you do in this situation... Well one of the questions was the following...

"What will it take for you to authorize the use of nuclear weapons?"

I couldn't believe it! People are REALLY having thoughts on using Nuclear Weapons? I don’t follow the news, so if any of you do. Is the US really thinking about using Nukes, or talking about it?

troth281 · 01-14-2008, 12:47 AM

The option is on the table if Iran keep it up. Absolutely nothing wrong with nuclear weapons....they saved countless lives during World War II.

TheSollyLama · 01-14-2008, 01:31 AM

a nuclear weapon is a deterrent. It's no deterrent if all it is, is a paper tiger.

Would I nuke Iran? Why the hell not? Exactly what would the world be losing? Not a hell of alot.
They've been warned. If they continue to want to play games with us, then they'll end up paying for that stupidity.

Not just us, the world has spoken and said that the lunatics in that sandbox cannot have big boy toys, because they lack the stability to possess them. They can keep trying to get them, and they will get a boot planted in their ass.

What's sad is that the UN and the rest of the world have spoken on the issue, yet only the US actually has the stones to ACT instead of run off at the mouth like the UN is famous for.

I'll say that there better be DAMN solid proof before we go tossing any bomb around. But the US has shown amazing restraint with places like Iraq and North Korea. Iran is trading on the kindness of the US not to glass that entire place.

At some point the paper tiger needs to grow real teeth. We've played nice for way too long with people that have no intention of acting civilized. What that moron in charge of Iran needs is a tomahawk missile up his caboose to wake him up. He's a minor despot that is playing games with a real power. We act nice and all it does is bolster that loon's sense of righteousness.

The sad part is that I have no doubt many Iranians are fine people. And they would have to suffer because of the lunatic fringe that has taken over their country (not unlike what is happening here, but that's another thread).

Besides, those bombs cost alot, and you'd be able to say your tax dollars got put to use...

R1100S-Rider · 01-14-2008, 07:11 AM

Does anytime have a clue what will happen if we do use nuclear weapons? Really do you?

If we would send a nuke to Iran, North Korea or any country millions would die. Millions! It would be felt around the world; even the USA would be affected from just the bomb.

Then guess what. They would send a nuke over here. I'm sure both Iran, and North Korea are going to sent a couple at us. Then what do we do? Send more to them? We can't unless you want to kill everyone on this earth. I don't blame Iran, or North Korea for making Nuclear Weapons. Chaney, and Bush have scared them by threatening them with Nuclear Weapons. If we used a nuke our economy would collapse, I guarantee it!

I can't believe people are actually suggesting using Nuclear Weapons!

bush · 01-14-2008, 07:27 AM

This isn't 1945. The US isn't the only country with nuclear weapons.

In 1945, they were dropped from big, slow, easy to target planes. Today they're mounted on rockets, and even the US missle defense system is a joke.

We can expect some form of payback if we nuke anybody. You, your kids, your friends, and the rest of your family could be incinerated in a matter of moments because of this gung-ho "Iran needs to be taught a lesson" attitude.

bush · 01-14-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troth281

The option is on the table if Iran keep it up. Absolutely nothing wrong with nuclear weapons....they saved countless lives during World War II.

This isn't WW2 anymore.

List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think Russia, China, or Pakistan would be happy with the idea of a nuke going off in their backyard.

bush · 01-14-2008, 07:42 AM

Also, about 220,000 civilians died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, lives were saved, but damn near a QUARTER MILLION PEOPLE were killed in the process.

bush · 01-14-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troth281

The option is on the table if Iran keep it up. Absolutely nothing wrong with nuclear weapons....they saved countless lives during World War II.

You're absolutely right. There's nothing wrong with nuclear weapons.

So let's let Iran have them. Right?

CrazyBiker · 01-14-2008, 08:03 AM

In that case why not include Pakistan too - currently the most dangerous nation in the world. And nuclear weapons don't save lives - thats the most stupid argument I have ever heard. Its not America who decides who can have what. Its for the world to decide.

bush · 01-14-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyBiker

In that case why not include Pakistan too - currently the most dangerous nation in the world. And nuclear weapons don't save lives - thats the most stupid argument I have ever heard. Its not America who decides who can have what. Its for the world to decide.

Pakistan has at least 30 nuclear warheads.

TheSollyLama · 01-14-2008, 01:13 PM

the world did decide. They decided that Iran and North Korea cannot have nukes, the same way they said Iraq could not have them. They even set up entire commissions to ensure they don't get them.

But the UN is worthless as tits on a boarhog. And as usual, it fails to back up a single thing it demands from it's high horse. So the US is the one left enforcing the law laid down by that League of Nations reincarnate.

The UN will bluster, but the US will end up acting. The UN is like that kid in school that picks fights then runs to hide behind his bigger brother.

Millions will die, yes. As will if these countries get nukes. Not that I even fear they have the technology to get one here. They will do what Saddam did and murder millions in their own country.
The question I have for all the people that whine about civilian casualties from a US nuke is why they don't care about those same people if their own corrupt and abusive regimes nuke them?

Iran is far more likely to nuke itself, just as Iraq used chemical weapons on it's own people more than even their Iranian enemies.
So are we to just allow that to occur?

You can be one of two things- reactionary or proactive. Waiting for the millions dead is utterly worthless. Waiting for Iran to have the power to bully it's neighbors (who will then demand nukes too) is a stupid idea.

Letting Iran have nukes will mean that Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and so many others will then have a legitimate demand for their own. This is a domino effect we cannot afford to allow.

How can we allow an enemy- one obviously unstable with lunatic leadership- to have nukes, then tell our allies in the region they cannot?

We've made this mistake. We allowed India to have nukes. Then we had to allow Pakistan (thier sworn enemy) to have them as a counter.

It comes down to the fact that by allowing nukes over there, all we accomplish is an arms race that benefits no one.

Fizzgeek · 01-14-2008, 01:32 PM

We will probably have to let whomever wants to use them against us to hit us first. Then the gloves can come off. The REAL opposition would be internal. Our whiners would have to be made to see the light. (pun intended)

We could have used them in Afganistan right after 9-11. The climate was suitable and collateral damage would have been minimized. We didn't and all the 3rd world now believes we have NO BALLS! They would use them if they had them. They can't understand why we won't. They just can't.

TheSollyLama · 01-14-2008, 01:48 PM

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.

bush · 01-14-2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fizzgeek

We will probably have to let whomever wants to use them against us to hit us first. Then the gloves can come off. The REAL opposition would be internal. Our whiners would have to be made to see the light. (pun intended)

I'm not against using a nuke in retaliation. Punishment fits the crime. But we shouldn't be the ones to drop nukes at our first instinct.

Quote:

We could have used them in Afganistan right after 9-11. The climate was suitable and collateral damage would have been minimized. We didn't and all the 3rd world now believes we have NO BALLS! They would use them if they had them. They can't understand why we won't. They just can't.

Yeah fucking right. Any Arab with an AK-47 that thinks the US has no balls obviously didn't see us crush Afghanistan and 100,000+ troops roll into Baghdad.

You want to know how we should deal with Islamic extremism? Shoot them with bullets dipped in pig's blood. Yeah, that's right.

Once they find out we're shooting them with the blood of an unholy animal, they'll think twice about jihad. No martyrdom, no virgins in heaven. Straight to hell for all eternity.

Fizzgeek · 01-14-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bush

I'm not against using a nuke in retaliation. Punishment fits the crime. But we shouldn't be the ones to drop nukes at our first instinct.

Yeah fucking right. Any Arab with an AK-47 that thinks the US has no balls obviously didn't see us crush Afghanistan and 100,000+ troops roll into Baghdad.

You want to know how we should deal with Islamic extremism? Shoot them with bullets dipped in pig's blood. Yeah, that's right.

Once they find out we're shooting them with the blood of an unholy animal, they'll think twice about jihad. No martyrdom, no virgins in heaven. Straight to hell for all eternity.

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.

And the British did a little of that Bullets-in-the-pork business during the Indian Mutiny in the 19th century and later. I wonder if it was on-purpose, though