Skip to comments.
Should We Use Nukes?
Vanity
| 3/25/2003
| RobRoy
Posted on 03/25/2003 2:44:00 PM PST by RobRoy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
I would not want this to happen, so I need to make it clear right here that this is NOT wishful thinking. I am wondering if those who know more than I may be able to punch some big holes in this.
I have noticed that often actions do not bring about the results one intended. Everybody knows that there is no way we would use nukes. I am just throwing out the paradigm and asking, really, is that the big deterent everyone thinks. If we think it through, what REALLY COULD happen if we did use nukes after a chemical or Bio attack, other than the standard response, that is,
1
posted on
03/25/2003 2:44:00 PM PST
by
RobRoy
To: RobRoy
2
posted on
03/25/2003 2:46:17 PM PST
by
flamefront
(Take the oil money from the islamofascists! And not for the UN. Only UN-Americans ignore U.S.)
To: RobRoy
NO. The reason we have nukes is so we don't have to use them. We don't need them, anyway. I know it's not wishful thinking but bordering on not thinking at all.
3
posted on
03/25/2003 2:48:06 PM PST
by
Steven W.
To: RobRoy
No to nukes (of course I don't like fire :)
To: RobRoy
If we wanted to use nukes, we would use them on Mecca and Medina. If Allah can't protect these "holy" cities from the infidels, then Islam ceases to exist as a viable religion. Making the hadj to a radioactive plate of glass doesn't inspire too many people.
To: RobRoy
If the bad guys use chem/bio weapons, then we should use tactical nukes in the field against their troops. Their arty will probably be sending the stuff over as they have no air force. Therefore, we respond in kind to destroy that weapon from attacking our troops. What better way to destroy bio than with nuke power? Use nukes? You bet your fanny we should use them. Not the big boys from a sub, but from our field arty.
To: RobRoy
History repeats itself: America is the only nation to ever use a nuke: Draw your own conclusions.
7
posted on
03/25/2003 2:49:17 PM PST
by
Darheel
(Visit the strange and wonderful.)
To: flamefront
That post was what made me post this. My vanity is suggesting he may WANT the opportunity to use them against a particularly belligerent regime, if it uses other WMD's first, as a message to others.
8
posted on
03/25/2003 2:49:22 PM PST
by
RobRoy
To: RobRoy
Our WMD is tactical nukes... we will use it, forcefully, because N. Korea and China are watching. Just my two cents.
9
posted on
03/25/2003 2:50:04 PM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: Steven W.
>>I know it's not wishful thinking but bordering on not thinking at all.<<
I would tend to agree with that except I decided to really think about it, instead of just saying it's preposterous. And what I came up with concerns me.
10
posted on
03/25/2003 2:50:31 PM PST
by
RobRoy
To: RobRoy
We aren't going to use nukes in Iraq so get over it. Maybe on North Korea if they get out of hand when we destroy that reprocessing plant.
11
posted on
03/25/2003 2:52:21 PM PST
by
Williams
To: RobRoy
Egad, we have some strange folk around here.
12
posted on
03/25/2003 2:52:30 PM PST
by
Illbay
(Don't believe every tagline you read - including this one)
To: RobRoy
Actually, Tactical Nukes Are Already In The Iraqi Theater
The MOAB "looks like" a tactical nuke to many people. This
may not be a mere coincidence. Drop a MOAB or two and then
let people think it was a tactical nuke! This will
soften people up to the concept of using tactical nukes. This war
is a huge bonus for live weapons training worth billions of dollars
in and of itself. Tactical nukes need live weapons training too.
13
posted on
03/25/2003 2:52:34 PM PST
by
nanomid
To: RobRoy
Nukes are useful only as deterrent. Once used, they do not deter. They have little military value, and if used, America will be a pariah among nations for decades to come. Once was enough.
Having said that, if another nation is so foolish as to use them on America, the response should be so strong as to eliminate that nation from history.
14
posted on
03/25/2003 2:52:47 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts: Proofs establish links)
To: RetiredArmy
I think a well placed MOAB would do the same job as a small tactical nuke.
Nice big fuel air fireball, mushroom cloud, and all the psychological "holy crap" effects it would have on the enemy, not to mention the lack of the nasty (literal) fallout from using a real nuke.
The Iraqi's wouldn't know the difference up front, but would have the same debilitating effect.
15
posted on
03/25/2003 2:52:51 PM PST
by
NorCoGOP
(Appeasement of Evil Empowers Oppression)
To: Williams
>>We aren't going to use nukes in Iraq so get over it<<
With all due respect, why not?
16
posted on
03/25/2003 2:53:02 PM PST
by
RobRoy
To: RobRoy
I think the knowledge that we do not have a line drawn in the sand, when it comes to nukes, is very significant. We cannot say that we will only respond to nuclear aggression with nukes, tactical or not, because it removes our first-strike capabilities forever. We must be willing to use them first, because if not, we are being held hostage to their use against us.
17
posted on
03/25/2003 2:53:08 PM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: NorCoGOP
I think a well placed MOAB would do the same job as a small tactical nuke.Amen, and could be justified without encountering WMD. If they use WMD, though, we would be fully justified in using nukes.
To: RobRoy
Personally, I think it would be a very bad idea to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. There are a couple of reasons for my point of view:
1. Radiation, in the form of wind-borne fallout, has a way of not respecting borders. Do we really want to contaminate countries not involved?
2. Given our dominating position, militarily, nuclear response is unnecessary to the sucessful completion of our goals.
3. Regardless of what some on FR believe, we still must coexist as a nation on this planet of many nations. International response to the preemptive use of nuclear arms would result in condemnation by many nations we still consider to be friends.
It is my belief that nuclear weapons should be reserved for strikes in response to the use or immediate potential of use by an enemy. No other use seems acceptable to me.
But that's just my personal opinion. No doubt others will feel differently.
To: RobRoy
Any and I mean any country or group of terrorists residing in ANY country who uses WMD on us should be nuked. I have no problem with using one again. period....
They'd use one on us if they had it...so what.
20
posted on
03/25/2003 2:54:30 PM PST
by
seeker41
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson