allthumbs Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 I am of the mind to use them. Anybody have any thoughts on the matter? Pro or Con? What do people think about the fallout, both physical and political? I guess that my position is that in a war, winning is the thing. I don't have a problem nuking the enemy. Matter of fact, I think that should be the first resort, not the last. Why waste American lives if we don't have to? I wonder where people get the idea that our tactical nukes are so radiological. The only radiation emitted is during the initial blast - gamma rays that dissipate almost immediately. These weapons were designed that way so that our troops could occupy the terrain almost immediately after impact. Our nuclear weapons are not area denial weapons or area destruction weapons - they are point destruction weapons. In other words, they are used against specific targets. And they are not dirty - they just make a bigger boom than conventional weapons. Thermo baric weapons kill, but they also destroy by causing over pressurization at the point of impact or above the point of impact. Over pressurization collapses buildings, bridges, etc. Used properly they can cause double destruction - where the over pressurization causes destruction, and then the sudden depressurization caused by the burning of the atmosphere around the point of impact creates a vacuum sucking debris back into the point of impact. And lastly, and I have said this before - it is our stated national policy that if WMDs are used against us, we will retaliate in kind. Since we have renounced the use of chemical and biological weapons, we can only respond with nuclear weapons. In a tit-for-tat scenario, our nukes would be used against troop concentrations and logistical facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Well-stated, Trask. I would state that tactical nukes should be a last resort prior to troop landings. As in, try everything conventionally available in bombs and missiles to soften things up. If there are targets that are too deep or too elusive to get with conventionals, go tactical nuke (case in point, deep bunkers). Make a desert of glass and Trask and I get the novelty concession: "Get your actual piece of Iraqi desert, $5." We'll make a mint!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Personally I don't think we should go to war with Iraq. Our allies have basically accused us of lying. Muslims think we are waging war on Islam. And people think we are nuts because Saddam is harmless. He's not bothering anyone in France. He's not bothering anyone in Germany. So what is the big deal? So I say, leave Saddam alone. Let him be. We should continue to monitor him with TR-1 over flights. Maybe we ought to dust off a couple of SR-71 Blackbirds and let them fly over Iraq. Position a few spy satellites. Why? Because Iraq was so insistent that we not fly over them with the TR-1 (what the news is calling the U-2) until recently. Apparently they had something to hide, but no longer? Now, and again this is personal conjecture, I think we are about to wage war on the wrong country. I think we need to wipe the Saudi family off the map. There is another oppressive regime that is afraid of loosing power! The entire family and all their cousins (read the officer corps of the much vaunted crack force known as the Saudi National Guard)(please note the last comment in parenthesis in tongue and cheek sarcasm) need to be wiped from the face of this earth. Just my personal opinion. Maybe we could get Saddam to help us - nah - I think he is related to the Saudis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 you guys are hilarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Read the recent words of John McCain: Freedom's Defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 you guys are hilarious Anything to cheer you up, Iain. Does this mean we can't climb together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Finally, some one else is noticing that the Saudis have alot more to do with things and that Saddam is just any easy target Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Backing off of Iraq is quite plausible if we did it right. And as to the problems in Europe... all we'd have to say would be directly to our allies - and what we would say is - "OK - then this is your problem, you deal with it. Don't call us, we'll call you. If someone attacks Turkey we'll come help the Turks who took a risk for us. Otherwise, piss off." We also need to pull our troops (2 divisions) out of Germany. That has helped bolster their economy from the first day of the Marshall Plan until today. We also probably ought to pull out of NATO. It is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. I'm not preaching isolation. I am saying that it is time that the nations of western Europe ponied up to the bar and did their fair share of providing for the common defense of Europe. It just ain't our job no more!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 The house of Saud moves with glacial speed. But it is moving. Eg.: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_reforms_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 I think that the biggest problem in the Middle East is that there is no strong central government anywhere in the Middle East to include the areas formerly known as Persia - with the possible exception of Saddam Hussein. Think about it. Afghanistan was a breeding ground for terrorism because there was NO central government. Pakistan is almost as bad. Mushareef might say one thing, but his intelligence structure and part of his army are doing another. And what is really scary is those folks DO have nukes. Iran is run by religious leaders - never a good thing. No public administration talent whatsoever. Plus it looks like they will have nukes soon, too. Jordan is weak. Palestine is a joke. Saudi Arabia is teetering on the edge of a power struggle that the Saudi family may not be able to long control - and once again we are on the wrong side of THAT argument. Egypt is probably the most stable of Arab countries - that and Oman and the UAE. But those last two are enlightened despot governments focused on the people of those countries. Yemen is torn by civil war and will continue to be for another decade. It is also a breeding ground for terrorism. The one common denominator here is a weak government is ripe for exploitation by organizations like Al Qaeda. Somalia HAS to be where Osama is hanging towel lately. It's a frickin mess. Did any of you watch 60 Minutes Sunday? Those Korean college students are clueless. Kim Jung Il would just as soon kill them as look at them. But they think it is all a big joke. So I think we should just withdraw from Korea. Hell, I don't own a KIA or a Hyundai, so what do I care. Maybe these people will learn. And when Kim Jung Il does strike we'll see what the rest of the world does - besides wring their hands in panicked confusion. I am so sick of us being the torch of freedom for an uncaring world who despises us. I have only an old Anglo-Saxon word for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Think about it. Afghanistan was a breeding ground for terrorism because there was NO central government. I would venture a guess that poverty and illiteracy are more at fault than an absence of Big Brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 from arabnews.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 more accurate: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 I agree with Trask that it's bullshit that we aren't holding the Saudi's feet to the fire. What happened to GW's pledge that if you are not with us you are against us? The Saudis are not with us; no one in that region is. People bitched because Bush, the Elder, didn't take out Saddam, but GW's war isn't going to take care of the whole problem, either. There will still be problems, because the terrorists know that there are certain countries in the Mid East that the US is soft on and those governments allow them to operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 it is a sad state, but it seems to me that it is inevitable. Something has to be done. The middle east is a hot house of violence and terror that would simply spread if given the choice. We can can and sadly I think should put an end to this. It is not, in my oppinion, "Peace" if you have to live in constant fear. Peace at any cost is no peace. and would eventualy lead to the destructuin of freedom as we know and love it. That is not the world I choose for my self and my children. So once again, I sit here and thank God that there are those that are willing to go out in the world and protect, fight for, and die for our freedom and our way of life. May we all do what we can to earn and desurve that kind of sacrafice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Poll: 50% of Americans now believe Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Osama bin Who? And after iraq, new "evidence" will "PROVE" North Korea was responsible for 9/11. After Korea is nuked... maybe it was GERMANY behind 9/11??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 what ever dru. I watch the news... and I am aware of who Osoma is. That is not the point. there are many issues in the entire region that will hopefuly be solved. And they can not be solved all at one time. One thing at a time. I am not pro war. I just don't want to end up wearing a sheet all over my pretty self every where I go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Dru, it's easier to believe in fantasy than in the truth. That's probably why "The Big Lie" has become a best-seller in France (the book posits that the US was responsible for crashing its own planes into the WTC towers). You seem --like many in the world today-- to be Not Getting America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Poll: 50% of Americans now believe Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Osama bin Who? And after iraq, new "evidence" will "PROVE" North Korea was responsible for 9/11. After Korea is nuked... maybe it was GERMANY behind 9/11??? Exactly, what a bunch of cattle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Are the people who would advocate our reserving the right to use our nuclear weapons the same people that were outraged when Nelson Mandela pointed out that we are the only nation that has used nuclear weapons against civilian populations? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 To be fair Mattp, Nelson said a lot of other stupid shiat too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 trask, you are an idiot. using so called "clean" nuclear weapons opens pandora's box. isn't it better to use diplomacy first? with any luck, common sense will prevail and there won't be the need for any weapons. it's been said before and i'll say it again, we're the biggest nuclear threat in the world, not iraq. Pretty brazen position for a country w/about 10% of the world's population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Damn! I was hoping you two guys would hook up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 minx - kiss my ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 geez...goat, i already told you we did. my taste in men has always been questionable 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.