why use nukes?

[psycho-squirrel]

alot of people want america to use nukes on countries to "get the job done quicker". i dont see why they want to have us use such a big weapon for a small problem.

the nuke is a weapon that should only be used as the very very very last resort. if our country will still be here tomorrow, then it hasn't come to that yet.

the last resort is if ether another country is going to fire their nuke on us, or if they have invaded our country and are winning the battle.

we dont have any enemies that are like that. iraq, iran, north korea. the axis of evil. they are nothing more then a thorn in the side. iraq is more of a thorn because we are putting too many troops there and they keep dying, so iraq is a stubbed toe.

the last time we faced something that was reaching to that last resort was durring the cuban missle crisis back when JFK was president.

if we used a nuke, then that would be an invite for other countries to use nukes. nuclear war is a suicidal war. in the end we are ether all dead or our civilization is taken back a few thousand years.

just because we have nukes doesnt mean we should use them.

plus you have to have a very good reason to use a nuke. and that reason is when all other resorts fail.

if we use a nuke, then that can open a new age of war. nuclear war. and as i said before, nobody wins. with great power comes great responsibility. and yes i know that was from spiderman but that is a saying that has been around for a very long time. spiderman just took it. we have the power to make the human race extinct, along with alot of other creatures. we could very well destroy this planet.

if you think we should use a nuke, or even think about using it, then you are very very mistaken.

the answer is simply NO!

[dELtaluca]

At 2/23/07 04:24 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: if we used a nuke, then that would be an invite for other countries to use nukes. nuclear war is a suicidal war.

or as we technically call it: its MAD.

Mututally Assured Destruction

[Vicious-Circles]

Makes a pretty cloud though...

[cellardoor6]

Well...The US doesn't really need to use nukes. The only the reason the US maintains it's nuclear arsenal is for deterrence against possible nuclear attack from other nations. Nuke us, and you get nuked. Mutual assured destruction.

However, the use of nuclear weapons is becoming more appealing now because of the change of the nature of war. For example, the US now is the only country to field an effective anti-ballistic missile capability. This defensive capability could save the US from complete destruction from any nuclear power other than Russia (though millions of Americans would still die). On the other hand, China's nuclear arsenal is pretty small (200 or so nuclear warheads), and an even smaller amount can reach the US on nuclear tipped missiles (20 or so), and an even fewer amount would survive US AEGIS, and ABM land-based anti-ballistic missile defenses (probably around 10).

So if a war with China was completely certain, and people in the US believed that China would use nukes, the US would ensure success if it nuked China preemptively in order to take out some of its nuclear missiles before they could launch. Not saying that this would be a good idea or that people are seriously contemplating nuking China, but if the situation got hectic, the best way to protect yourself from a nuclear war if it is certain, is to attack preemptively.

On the other side of the spectrum, small strategic uses of nuclear weapons have presented themselves. For example the US has developed small, tactical nuclear bombs that have smaller amounts of radiation and are not as destructive as strategic nuclear warheads. The US developed these specifically to be used as "bunker busters" to penetrate hundreds of feet of earth and concrete in order to destroy enemy bunkers. This is because in the past decade or so, a lot of potential future enemies of the US (Iran, Venezuela, North Korea) have begun building their military structures (and nuclear reactors) deep below the Earth to protect them against superior US military power.

North Korea and Iran specifically learned to do this after they saw what the US could easily do to a country who had the latest, most sophisticated air defenses (Iraq, Panama). Determined US air power is basically impossible to defend against due to stealth technology and long range precision weapons, so the Iranians and North Koreans learned to, instead of relying on air defenses only, they decided to bury their structures deep under the earth to protect against the bombs.

So if a war with North Korea or Iran was imminent, the US would seriously consider using relatively clean (low radiation), small-yield tactical nukes in order to destroy buried structures. Right now, the US has conventional bunker busters that can only penetrate 30m or so of rock and reinforced steel/concrete, but Iran and North Korea both have bunkers that are hundreds of feet below rock, dirt and concrete.

Conventional tactics usually led to just destroying tunnel entrances, but in the case of Iran, the targets would be nuclear reactors, and in order to accomplish the mission, the internal structure would need to be destroyed to reduce the need to attack again in the future. With North Korea, they have nuclear weapons already, so they could still communicate, conduct operations, and send commands to launch nuclear weapons from bunkers whose entrances were only destroyed.

So, it seems that using nukes isn't quite as crazy as it sounds.

[tawc]

Nukes are a stupid idea, and it's not really countries like china who i'm scared of. Because they don't want to die as much as america wants to die.

Terrorists and Islamic countries who have some fucked up muslim in power who may bring about destruction of the world.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/23/07 06:44 AM, tawc wrote: Nukes are a stupid idea, and it's not really countries like china who i'm scared of. Because they don't want to die as much as america wants to die.

Um, Americans "want" to die...?

As opposed to the Chinese who use human waves and suicide attacks as standard military doctrine...

Ok...

Terrorists and Islamic countries who have some fucked up muslim in power who may bring about destruction of the world.

So doesn't that kind of lead to an example of where using a nuke against these certain Islamic countries might be the only way to counteract a nuclear attack from them? Taking into account a multitude of variables in which using nukes was the only way to preserve the life of your people?

I don't think nukes should be used, I wish nukes didn't even exist. But you have to understand that the use of nukes isn't THAT wacky of an idea...

[PhysicsMafia]

Id just like to point out that several of these so called "fucked up islamic countries" hav gad nukes for some time and none of them have used them. Theres still only one country to ever use nukes in an actual attack on a civilian population.

They are a good deterent but they when only some countries are allowed to develop them its not so much a deterent to war but a way of maintaining military superiority for a few countries.

[cellardoor6]

At 2/23/07 07:27 AM, PhysicsMafia wrote: Id just like to point out that several of these so called "fucked up islamic countries" hav gad nukes for some time and none of them have used them.

Um, there are actually ZERO Islamic countries who have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has a majority Muslim population, but comparing their government to wacky governments like Syria or Iran is ridiculous.

Pakistan doesn't seek the destruction of entire countries, Pakistan doesn't provide missiles and weapons to terrorists. Iran however DOES do this, and since they use all that is in their power to attack Israel and to supply, direct, and fund terrorist attacks, don't you think that allowing them to get a nuke would be a bad thing?

Especially when you consider that Iran's Supreme Leader is a fundamentalist Shiite Islamist Ayotollah....

Theres still only one country to ever use nukes in an actual attack on a civilian population.

The US, but that is only because the US developed the nuke first. And the use of nukes in Japan by the US actually saved lives by avoiding a fullscale invasion of Japan that would have caused MILLIONS of deaths, rather than the 200,000 deaths combined between Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Also, had Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, or even the British or French developed the nuke first, well it would have been a lot worse considering the imperial tendencies of these countries at the time. Even Britain wouldn't have hesitated to use nukes more freely if they had developed it first.

So consider it a miracle that the US achieved nuclear arms first, before the Axis, and even before the rest of the allies.

[tawc]

At 2/23/07 07:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Also, had Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, or even the British or French developed the nuke first, well it would have been a lot worse considering the imperial tendencies of these countries at the time. Even Britain wouldn't have hesitated to use nukes more freely if they had developed it first.

I doubt Britain would of used them 'more freely' than america.
Japan, germany and the soviet union maybe though

[PhysicsMafia]

None of the Europeans could have really used them in Europe. The dangers of nuclear fallout being blowen to their own countries or to that of their allies wld have been to great. And you can only presume that the A bomb saved lives, and even if it did 200,000 civillian lives is a huge price to pay.

Pakistan are hardly the most stable of countries, they have been threatening india with nukes for decades over who owns Kashmir. They are only getting good press now because they are letting the americans have a military base there for operations against al qaeda.

Now that N.Korea have them the idea of invading there is out the window. And how can u claim that america have no imperialistic ideas? this is just a new era of imperialism, invade a country or fund a revolution and install a puppet government, this is just the evolution of imperialism.

[HogWashSoup]

i'll tell you why we should use nukes.

iraq. if we had nuked them in the first place then we wouldnt have had this problem.

what we need to do is nuke all countries that are our enemies.

and about the part you said of it would be an invite to other countries to use nukes, that is stupid.

we used nukes on japan. 2 of them. smaller versions of the ones today called atom bombs, and that pretty much shut them up.

we are america and we have nukes. nukes are a weapon. no diffrent then the other bombs that we have except that you just need one for a large area. 100% effective.

you just dont want to use nukes because you are a stupid democrat.

i think all democrats should be ignored and thrown out of the country. they are a threat to the real people of the country.

nukes are great and we must use them.

clear and simple.

[Boltrig]

At 2/23/07 11:51 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: i'll tell you why we should use nukes.

iraq. if we had nuked them in the first place then we wouldnt have had this problem.

what we need to do is nuke all countries that are our enemies.

and about the part you said of it would be an invite to other countries to use nukes, that is stupid.

we used nukes on japan. 2 of them. smaller versions of the ones today called atom bombs, and that pretty much shut them up.

I think the lolipop in the hand that indicates your level is well deserved in this case.
That part about other countries being encouraged to use nuclear weapons is not stupid, its a good point.
Japan had no nuclear capability at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, thats why it shut them up. If They had the ability to retaliate (either by hiding the nukes on subs or in hardened bunkers) then the US would have been nuked back.
That is the state of play these days ; America is no longer the only nuclear power. The release of WMDs would bring about a shift of opinions (IE America used them why cant we?)

we are america and we have nukes. nukes are a weapon. no diffrent then the other bombs that we have except that you just need one for a large area. 100% effective.

No different except that its a horrificly destructive force that not only kills outright, but kills by radiation poisoning and leads to fallout, the effects of which last generations.

you just dont want to use nukes because you are a stupid democrat.

i think all democrats should be ignored and thrown out of the country. they are a threat to the real people of the country.

nukes are great and we must use them.

What a 'tard.

clear and simple.

[SolInvictus]

At 2/23/07 04:24 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: alot of people want america to use nukes on countries to "get the job done quicker".

unfortunatley a lot of people are stupid.

As opposed to the Chinese who use human waves and suicide attacks as standard military doctrine...

i miss those days

[cellardoor6]

At 2/23/07 08:18 AM, tawc wrote:

At 2/23/07 07:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Also, had Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, or even the British or French developed the nuke first, well it would have been a lot worse considering the imperial tendencies of these countries at the time. Even Britain wouldn't have hesitated to use nukes more freely if they had developed it first.

I doubt Britain would of used them 'more freely' than america.

I think Britain certainly would have. For example, if Britain was alone in fighting the Germans, and had a weapon to assure victory, then it's pretty obvious that Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden...etc would have all been nuked instead of using the firebombing that ended up with thousands of lost planes and airmen.

Regardless of how you feel about the US now, you have to realize that the US was the only country who did/would have used nukes responsibly during WWII. Do you honestly think, given Britain's recent and arguably remaining imperialism of the day, that they wouldn't have used nukes to increase their power after leaving their enemies and allies both vulnerable?

Think about it, the US emerged from WWII with all the allies depending on and vulnerable to the US, with all the Axis countries in American hands (with exception of east Berlin), and with the US as the world's sole nuclear power. If the US was as imperialistic as Britain, the US could have nuked the Soviet Union into oblivion, stabbed the allies in the back, and taken over the world as everyone was vulnerable.

If you don't think Britain would have utilized nukes to do this, even though according to its history, Britain had used every other military breakthrough it had for imperialistic means, well then you're not thinking clearly.

Japan, germany and the soviet union maybe though

They certainly would have, theres no doubt about that. But Britain most likely would have if the US wasn't there to keep them in check. And little do Brits know of this, but during the Soviet-American-British meeting at Yalta, Winston Churchill specifically proposed the idea of dividing up Europe between the 3 countries. Winston Churchill had no intent on allowing Democracy to grow in conquered axis nations, or even previously allied nations. The only reason Germany, France, Italy, and the surrounding nations that were involved in the war are now Democratic, prosperous countries, is because the US refused to allow otherwise, and the US founded, funded, and allowed democratic institutions to grow in these countries all while the US poured billions of dollars into their economies to help them get back on their feet.

To suggest that any other country, even Britain, would have shown the restraint and mercy that the US did... well its ridiculous. No country in the history of the world had ever done such a thing, the US was the first.

[lapis]

At 2/23/07 11:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I think Britain certainly would have. For example, if Britain was alone in fighting the Germans, and had a weapon to assure victory, then it's pretty obvious that Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden...etc would have all been nuked instead of using the firebombing that ended up with thousands of lost planes and airmen.

And these bombing raids were of course joint USAAF-RAF operations. There was a Total War on at the time and neither the US nor the British militaries cared about civilian losses among the German or Japanese populations. No nuclear weapons were used against the Germans because these weapons weren't ready yet, the first test wasn't performed until July 1945 while all German forces had already surrendered throughout May. Everybody knew how merciless the Nazis were when waging war and there was little sympathy for their subjects in both nations. Maybe the British would have used nukes against the Germans, sure. Then again, the Americans would have been almost just as likely to do so. Maybe a little less because the American people didn't suffer under German blitzes, actions which tend to reduce the amount of empathy you have for the enemy.

If the US was as imperialistic as Britain, the US could have nuked the Soviet Union into oblivion, stabbed the allies in the back, and taken over the world as everyone was vulnerable.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. Maybe the British people wouldn't have cared for their army slaying a few dozen civilians sowewhere in Africa but mass murdering tens of thousands of innocents with a nuke in a territorial war would have never been tolerated. A nuclear attack against the Russians, after a lengthy and exhausting war which the Soviets helped ending, would have been political (if not corporal) suicide for any British leader. No, Churchill would have never used even a single nuke against an unsuspecting nation if they didn't pose an existential threat to the Kingdom. Not against Indian rebels, not against the Soviet Union, not against China and not against anybody else. It was a democracy, you know, and the leaders were held accountable for their actions. I'm sure your opinion of Brits isn't very positive but you must agree that they're not quite keen on atrocities.

If you don't think Britain would have utilized nukes to do this, even though according to its history, Britain had used every other military breakthrough it had for imperialistic means, well then you're not thinking clearly.

I like how you use the "then you're not thinking clearly" clause to strengthen your point, but unfortunately I can't do any better. Cellar, if you honestly believe that any British government would have used nuclear weapons (as in: drop one and kill about a hundred thousand people) to further their Imperialist agenda then you need to lay off the paint thinner.

Winston Churchill had no intent on allowing Democracy to grow in conquered axis nations, or even previously allied nations.

Yeah, that's why he actively pushed for a democratic government in Poland. A fruitless attempt, but it's the idea that counts. From the Yalta Conference report at the FRUS website:

Stalin (page 680): "The Prime Minister (Churchill) has said that he wants to create a Polish government there. I am afraid that was a slip of the tongue. Without the participation of Poles we can create no Polish government. They all say that I am am dictator but I have enough democratic feeling not to set up a Polish government without Poles."

Churchill (page 681): "I must put on record that both the British and Soviet governments have different sources of information in Poland and get different facts. Perhaps we are mistaken but I do not feel that the Lublin government represents even one third of the Polish people."

Churchill (page 717): "He said he felt there was a considerable body of British public opinion that would be shocked if it were proposed to move large numbers of Germans, and although he personally would not be shocked he knew that the view existed in England."

Churchill, same page: "He said he had one other comment. In the Soviet proposal some reference should be made to other democratic leaders from within Poland itself."

Yes, Churchill supported democracy in the territories that were to be liberated or occupied by the Allies and the British people even cared about the fate of the Germans, let alone the inhabitants of nations that weren't guilty of aggression. If you could cite a page and passage in which his call for a full division of Europe is mentioned then please do, but he certainly would have made sure democratic governments were founded or reinstalled in the lands under British control. Not only due to principle but even more so because his people expected it of him.

To suggest that any other country, even Britain, would have shown the restraint and mercy that the US did... well its ridiculous. No country in the history of the world had ever done such a thing, the US was the first.

Yawn.

[zzzzd]

At 2/23/07 11:04 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

To suggest that any other country, even Britain, would have shown the restraint and mercy that the US did... well its ridiculous. No country in the history of the world had ever done such a thing, the US was the first.

I could of sworn France was restored to the french after napoleon.

You have such high opinions of your country. when in actuall fact the american history is no worse than Britains history only shorter.

The native americans
The slave trade (lasted alot longer in america)
Much more discrimination to blacks right up and after WW2
Wars with both neibouring countries over land.
Buying/selling colonies.
Crushing rebbellions
Massacres

America was actually imperialistic, but by the time it was a world power, imperialism was fading. and america realised there was no need for america to have an empire because it was a huge rich country.

I mean for fucks sake the Philippine-American War was in this century.

Stop calling using Britains Imperialism to make america look amazing. Cause it's not.

[zzzzd]

Fuck, my grammar is bad in that post.
Didn't proof read it.
My apologies.

[Ravariel]

At 2/23/07 07:55 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um, there are actually ZERO Islamic countries who have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has a majority Muslim population, but comparing their government to wacky governments like Syria or Iran is ridiculous.

So they're Islamic, but not THAT Islamic, is that what you're saying?

Pakistan doesn't seek the destruction of entire countries,

Except India...

Pakistan doesn't provide missiles and weapons to terrorists.

Saywhutnow? They harbored and gave safe haven to the Taliban that fled Afghanistan... who are now returning there to begin a spring offensive. Some 700 Taliban members have recrossed the border from Pakistan in the last week (according to the BBC), and many think that Pakistan not only gave them a place to stay, but allowed them the resources to plan a renewed surge of attacks to try and take back the country.

Iran however DOES do this, and since they use all that is in their power to attack Israel and to supply, direct, and fund terrorist attacks, don't you think that allowing them to get a nuke would be a bad thing?

Absolutely!

Also, had Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, or even the British or French developed the nuke first, well it would have been a lot worse considering the imperial tendencies of these countries at the time. Even Britain wouldn't have hesitated to use nukes more freely if they had developed it first.

That's a bit of a stretch even for you, dude (aside from Germany).

[Cheekyvincent]

why use nukes when u can use grenade launchers

soz for the unrequired comment

that is the truth of war, its suicidal

[Cheekyvincent]

btw i liked the cloud so badly i used it as my pic

[AIDSextravaganza]

i hate those people who think that bullshit
thats how u start a nuclear war and if not you just slaughter millions of innocent civilians who die of radiation poisoning if they survive incineration
nuclear weapons are fuckd up and should be dismantled
countries should use diplomacy and not militarism