The time to use nukes

[LazyDrunk]

When will it be justified?

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

At 11/16/06 10:48 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: When will it be justified?

When others nuke you...

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 10:55 AM, Sir-S-Of-ROFL wrote:

At 11/16/06 10:48 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: When will it be justified?

When others nuke you...

The thing with nukes is that they tend to hit more than the individuals/group responsible.

So, once one group breaks the atomic silence, it's okay for the victim(s) to use measured nuclear retaliation? I'd have a hard time digesting that.

Is there such a thing as nuclear preventative intervention (i.e. nuking or sabotaging an existing hostile nuclear threat, causing fallout of some sort?)

I think this issue needs to be addressed, as well as Iran's future nuclear intents.

[RedSkunk]

What sort of nukes?

No, fuck it. I don't think it's ever justified. The effects of radiation do irreparable harm to the environment and people not involved in the given conflict. Even to "The Enemy," radiation poisoning and increased cancer rates for generations is a shitty thing to do.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 11:23 AM, RedSkunk wrote: What sort of nukes?

No, fuck it. I don't think it's ever justified.

I figure it could only be justified once, and even that is on shaky ground. But it's also neither here nor there.

The effects of radiation do irreparable harm to the environment and people not involved in the given conflict. Even to "The Enemy," radiation poisoning and increased cancer rates for generations is a shitty thing to do.

In the context of 'utter destruction to the Zionists', Iran could theoretically have no qualms with incinerating an entire peoples, for their sins are so great it must be Allah's will. Going back thousands of years, all filled with strife and warfare, what would it be to the Muslim community to have an off-limits region (around Israel, no doubt) that they just avoid for a few decades?

Put yourself in Iran's shoes. They know nuclear retaliation against them is not a feasible course of action simply because of their nations scale, the animosity of nukes, and hearty support from it's immediate neighbors. So, say Iran has the ability to produce enough material for 6-10 small-yield atomic bombs each year in their new nuclear energy facilities (double-whammy, eh?) Say they persuade some commoner nationalist to detonate outside of Iran's borders . . . then what? What is proper punishment for mishandling nuclear weapons in such a way that "accidentally" falls directly in line with their agenda?

Will others look back on history with regret that the entire Iranian peoples weren't eradicated in the same manner of that which they wish upon their enemies?

[RedSkunk]

At 11/16/06 11:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Will others look back on history with regret that the entire Iranian peoples weren't eradicated in the same manner of that which they wish upon their enemies?

Does the same hold true for the Germans? Fifty years ago, perhaps. Today? The "entire Iranian peoples" cannot be held accountable for their government. A "proper punishment" if Iran **theoretically** aided in a nuclear attack on Israel would be an invasion and toppling of the Iranian government. I should think. Not a "retaliatory genocide."

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 11:45 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/16/06 11:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Will others look back on history with regret that the entire Iranian peoples weren't eradicated in the same manner of that which they wish upon their enemies?

Does the same hold true for the Germans? Fifty years ago, perhaps. Today?

Point taken.

The "entire Iranian peoples" cannot be held accountable for their government.

I might not be looking hard enough for opposition to the current Iranian government's agenda, but what I do see are throngs of Iranians cheering and chanting some very seriously ill statements, to the joy of their leader and their children.

When a nation's hate for another entity supercedes the love of it's own children, twisting them to believe in only a singular ideal, death to Israel and America, is killing them still wrong?

I understand all children are precious. I also understand that some parents would gladly send their children to die in order to further their agenda. I also understand that some children see adults martyr themselves in order to further the islamo-fascist agenda. I understand that the role of martyr, a bringer of death and destruction, in their society is the Western equivalent of a firefighter or police officer.

So, if the leadership of a nation isn't responsible for this culture, who is?

A "proper punishment" if Iran **theoretically** aided in a nuclear attack on Israel would be an invasion and toppling of the Iranian government. I should think. Not a "retaliatory genocide."

And when the children take up arms against the invaders? When men and women alike disguise themselves to defend their government, their way of life? You say the government would be responsible for the brunt of our wrath, but who is the Iranian government pandering to? It's not the peaceful folk they wish to cultivate, but thoughtless warriors who'd give their life and the lives of others solely for the purpose of destruction of a perceived enemy.

Do you see any Middle Eastern nation eating their pride and embarressment after the asskickings handed out by Israel so many times, not so long ago? If you don't see them roughing it out living next to jews, what has history shown them to do?

It would be a bit much to carpet bomb using hydrogen bombs, not to mention set precedence for complete annhiliation, human and nature alike. I don't want to go down that road personally. I would rather just not visit the middle east for a few decades, and take heart in the fact that that particular islamo-fascist ideal was destroyed before it grew beyond conventional restraints.

To me, this group will need to be dealt with sooner or later. I don't like their laws, their social structure, or their justice system. It's fucking primitive and will not change because their religious iron fist is clenched around, nay embracing, their people and preaching death and destruction.

Our laws require us to only wage war against a groups chosen soldiers. It was only a matter of time before some sick fuck dreamt of making women and children, disguised as noncoms, their chosen warriors.

So when, if at all, is the correct time to use nuclear force?

What situation would be juicier than this?

[RedSkunk]

At 11/16/06 12:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So, if the leadership of a nation isn't responsible for this culture, who is?

Read Timothy Mitchell's McJihad. I found it to be illuminating.

Otherwise, I think a lot of your post is overly simplistic and ignoring the historical realities. The conservative Iranian government is a result / reaction against perceived westernization / secularization of the Middle East, of which the US has been the leader. The animosity towards Israel is obvious not only because of Israel's actions but because of how they function as a stalwart, an outpost of said westernization. Nazi Germany is too easy but I'll use it. The popular support of the Nazi regime did not mean that Germans were universally bad people at that time. They were reacting to the structural and historical realities of the situation. They didn't become Nazis because it's a great theory, they did it because it made sense taking into consideration things. Someone needed to be blamed, the spirit of the German people needed to be raised.

Humans aren't agents of change. Their actions are the manifestation of systems. Because a group of people believe something [we perceive as] ass-backwards doesn't mean it makes sense to slaughter them.

But read McJihad.

[RedSkunk]

Just realized that the link was from a database that everyone might not have access to. This is a talk that he's given on the same subject. Slightly different but I think it hits the essential points.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 12:24 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Humans aren't agents of change. Their actions are the manifestation of systems.

And yet the actions of humans precipitate change. Actions are carried out after thought, debate, and values are taken into account. What values do Islamo-fascists hold that may precipitate positive change? Stonings? Indoor plumbing? . . . oil?

What are they doing to revolutionize the world, to make it better? All I've seen them change is warfare, turning it into an ordeal that forces more innocents to die than ever before.

Because a group of people believe something [we perceive as] ass-backwards doesn't mean it makes sense to slaughter them.

I believe it's ass-backwards to do alot of things, including wiping out an entire region. Unfortunately, nukes do just that, and the Iranian government wishes to possess them. Is their intent not clear?

The U.S. is stuck because of our unbeatable military (in conventional terms) and many, many high-yield nuclear weapons, most left over from the Cold War.

The obvious solution would be to model our own nation after something most, if not all groups, could adhere to. Including guarenteed rights, freedoms and maybe even education, free from religious dogma. But right now, our enemies fight in such a way to undermine those values.

It's said that citizens of conquered nations were joyous to be made Roman citizens, because that meant your grandchildren could reap the benefits of their own slavery to the Roman empire.

It's also said that history is written by the winners.

Who would you rather have history written by?

But read McJihad.

I plan to :)

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/16/06 11:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: In the context of 'utter destruction to the Zionists', Iran could theoretically have no qualms with incinerating an entire peoples, for their sins are so great it must be Allah's will.

No, the Ayatollah and president Ahmedinijad are morally opposed to nuclear weaponry. Also, Ahmedinijad despises the Zionist regime not the innocent jewish population.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 01:00 PM, Neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/16/06 11:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: In the context of 'utter destruction to the Zionists', Iran could theoretically have no qualms with incinerating an entire peoples, for their sins are so great it must be Allah's will.

No, the Ayatollah and president Ahmedinijad are morally opposed to nuclear weaponry. Also, Ahmedinijad despises the Zionist regime not the innocent jewish population.

The pope and Bush are both morally opposed to abortion. Also, Bush despises murder of innocents not the cluster of cells known as fetuses.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOTCHA THAR!!@!

[LazyDrunk]

..guess I really did get him.

Say neo, I'd really like to hear you opine about nuclear weapons and the possibility of their use.

[RedSkunk]

What are you arguing here lazydrunk? I have no response because I have no idea what you're trying to say. It seems as if, boiled down to its core, you're trying to justify genocide because a certain group of people have nothing of value in your eyes and might possibly be dangerous.

[LazyDrunk]

I'd like to think I'm merely putting nukes on the table for discussion. We've had them for a reason, for a long time, and even converted the process into a valuable energy resource. Simply "doing away" with nukes could be considered too risky an option. The technology is already there, and science has minted it in stone. I'd just like to know people's opinions on how, when, where and why they'd be justified, if ever.

I throw in my own personal schtick to try to weasel out the schtick in others.

[RedSkunk]

K, then I should have left it at my first post in the thread.

... *leaves it at that*

*whistles*

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

two worngs dont make a right

But two right make a U turn. Two U turns make a circuit. Two circuits make a figure of eight

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/16/06 01:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: ..guess I really did get him.

Say neo, I'd really like to hear you opine about nuclear weapons and the possibility of their use.

You didn't "get me".. I was just eating my tea.

Anyway, my opinion on nuclear weaponry is that under no circumstance should they ever be used. They cause too many civilian deaths and seriously destroy the environment making that area worthless in terms of being hospitable and gathering resources.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 02:28 PM, Neoptolemus wrote: You didn't "get me".. I was just eating my tea.

My bad yo ;)

Anyway, my opinion on nuclear weaponry is that under no circumstance should they ever be used. They cause too many civilian deaths and seriously destroy the environment making that area worthless in terms of being hospitable and gathering resources.

So what should the penalties be for their use, and/or unauthorized loss/sale?

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/16/06 02:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So what should the penalties be for their use, and/or unauthorized loss/sale?

Well, automatic warfare would be a good deterrent to an extent. However, you could just cripple their economy by imposing unrestricted sanctions and whatnot.

[ReiperX]

So since when does having nuclear reactors automatically mean they will start having weapons grade material every year?

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

Justified, shmustified! Launch! Launch! Launch!

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 02:54 PM, ReiperX wrote: So since when does having nuclear reactors automatically mean they will start having weapons grade material every year?

As much as I love spelling out the details for people, I know you're not one that needs it.

Maybe I'm not naive enough though. Why would a nation like Iran even WANT nuclear capability. They've never once used language that would indicate they'd want to wage war, only withholding because of their fear of retaliation.

So reiper, how does one avoid Israeli retaliation?

[IAmSaul]

Never!
One Nuke goes off.. It slowly kills the WHOLE world..
Two Nukes go off.. The killing speeds up..

So on & so forth.

[Jose]

At 11/16/06 03:51 PM, IAmSaul wrote: Never!
One Nuke goes off.. It slowly kills the WHOLE world..

You do know we used a nuke to end world war 2.

Two Nukes go off.. The killing speeds up..

Actually, we used two nukes to end world war 2.

So on & so forth.

Why aren't we all dead?

Using nukes is justified when you get attacked with them. That is a tenet of MAD.

[Altarus]

At 11/16/06 02:54 PM, ReiperX wrote: So since when does having nuclear reactors automatically mean they will start having weapons grade material every year?

Do you know what a heavy-water reactor is?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/16/06 10:48 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: When will it be justified?

when they're launched into orbit to be used against malevolent space aliens.

that's seriously the only justifiable scenario i could think of. :P

[Camarohusky]

At 11/16/06 03:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Maybe I'm not naive enough though. Why would a nation like Iran even WANT nuclear capability. They've never once used language that would indicate they'd want to wage war, only withholding because of their fear of retaliation.

It's pretty easy to see why Iran wants nuclear weapons. Not only is there 2 budding nuclear powers to their east, there's an enormous nuclear power to their west that they view as beligerent. If you were in their situation you'd do the same thing.

So reiper, how does one avoid Israeli retaliation?

Tighten the leash on the rabid dog known as Israel.

[LazyDrunk]

If only we could get worldwide consensus, and binding resolutions, that nukes would be summoned in the event of extraterrestrial invaders. Would we need to have a working world government first, or simply mutual benficiaries?

I would like to see nukes restricted to that use, steve.

Can someone translate that and send it to Iran?

At 11/16/06 05:55 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/16/06 10:48 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: When will it be justified?

Only, and only when a country carries out an attack on the United States, causing mass casualties, and we want to end the following war as soon as possible. Only a military complex should be targeted.

If the target would be a military one, it's reasonable to assume that the complex could not embody more than what conventional bombing could cover. What are the benefits of irradiating the area, over merely obliterating it?

Nukes aren't meant to be tactical, no matter what you've read. The bang they produce for their buck is meant for armageddon. Would you hire McDonalds to cater your wedding reception?

Even though I feel the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were justified, we don't need to kill innocent civilians. Nuking Afghanistan would have been a bad idea because we only wanted to destroy an organization operating inside the country.

Agreed.

[LazyDrunk]

At 11/16/06 06:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Tighten the leash on the rabid dog known as Israel.

I was under the impression the US is holding them back from actually conquering their islamic state neighbors, as they'd attempted to do to Israel around it's formation.

How do you suggest the leash be tightened?