|
|
|
|
MechEngDropout
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 10474
Location: Off the grid
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/03/06 - 15:44 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | They may have complained for a little while but a nation is entitled to protect itself from a direct and unprovoked attack. If Afghanistan was willing to turn OBL over to us, no problem. If not, we have those nuclear weapons in our arsenal for a reason. And even though the world might have complained, you wouldn't have these insurgents emboldened as they are by our current situation. Now we've lost the momentum even in Afghanistan while we flounder in Iraq and we are distanced from the events of 9/11 the nuclear option is out. But at the time I woudn't have had a problem with it.
Had we used the nucelar option do you think Iran and North Korea would be so bold in their statements against us? I think not. |
If we use a nuke, everyone loses. EVERYONE. Don't think that people will be timid because of it. They might be, but there will also be the ones that are quicker to use a nuclear weapon because we did.
This isn't a thing where we nuke a country and then the only after effect is that no one can use a few hundred square miles for a couple centuries. It really frightens me to hear people talk about nuclear weapons so lightly. It doesn't affect a city or country, it affects the entire earth. I don't think it pans out when you say that a few thousand soldiers wouldn't have died if only we had used a nuke. Sure, they'd be alive, but how many would die? Everyone near the target, not to mention completely obliterating the ecosystem. I would personally volunteer to fight in an army if only to quit destroying our planet, but we're already fuking it up at an amazing rate as it is. 
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/03/06 - 17:33 Post subject:
Not knowing the military training levels of people here, all I will say is the "Nuke 'em 'till they glow" thinking is one that is too often used by those who have no real idea of the true effects of a Nuclear Device.
Does anyone know what Kiloton means ? Megaton ? What about fallout ? How long does it last ? Radiation sickness ? (Its not just for the Taliban) What are the damage radii ? How effective is a nuke against cave dwellers ? Which way does the explosion go when shot in a valley ? what if the target is in the next valley ? A nuke is not a conventional weapon where you can go in as soon as the dust clears. Its not like the movies folks.
You will notice that its never the Military that brings the subject up. Its usually non military that says "Nuke 'em" !!!
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/03/06 - 21:50 Post subject:
| andydp wrote: | | You will notice that its never the Military that brings the subject up. Its usually non military that says "Nuke 'em" !!! |
And quite a few of us who have served in the military believe in using it responsibly. And even military officers do talk about the "nuclear option". What do you think kept the old Soviet Union and China at bay during the Cold War. While we can hope we never have to use it, there are circumstances in which it would certainly be in our national security to do so. Not only do we have the conventional nuclear bombs in our arsenal we have smaller weapons which have not yet been tested on a battle field. The U.S. Military does indeed prepare for those possible uses should the need arise.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/03/06 - 21:55 Post subject:
And bear in mind I have never said "nuke them". That's stricly Andy's term. What I said in response to wtr's comments on the U.S. Invasion of Iran was that had Bush used a nuclear option against Afghanistan I would not have criticized him as I do about the invasion of Iraq. But then I haven't criticized any of Bush's actions in Afghanistan insofar as our military actions against that country.
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 13:41 Post subject:
Please let's not get into semantics. Use of nukes in a strategic manner, such as deterrence, is a legitimate use of those arms. Use of the Nuclear Option when hordes of Russian Armies are invading Europe is also. I am hoping North Korea realizes this also. (When you're dealing with a whack job this may not be so easy)
What I have a problem with is the use of these weapons in what is essentially a hunt and destroy mission. The shoot from the hip mentality that says "nuke em". Ask yourself why cruise missiles were invented in the first place: To make successful surgical strikes at specific targets and destroy them.
Yes, OBL is elusive but the situation should not be used as an excuse to nuke.
|
|
|
|
