Should We Use Nukes?

Vanity | 3/25/2003 | RobRoy

[plain talk]

NO to nukes because of all the obvious reasons (not worth the time re-articulating them now). Besides we don't need to use them. We can pulverize them with conventional weapons. Next question?

[drjimmy]

The case could be made for nukes.
No it can't. If we "go nuclear," so will India, Pakistan, N. Korea, South Africa, Israel, China, Russia--and any other nations of the former Soviet Union that have nukes--etc. There is no ability to dissuade any of those nutty nations from using a nuke if we go ahead and use one ourselves first. And if you think that we're safe in our isolation should India and Pakistan go at it, you need to peel the duct tape off your plastic sheeting and get some fresh air.

[palmer]

We must be willing to use them first, because if not, we are being held hostage to their use against us.

They are a deterrent, we are not held hostage to anything.

[johnb838]

Making the hadj to a radioactive plate of glass doesn't inspire too many people.

Then they will have a NEW God. Frankly, I don't want to see this happen, but I have a feeling a nuclear chain-reaction will be used in the world as a weapon again in the near future and I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing if we were the ones to do it... to put some teeth into deterrence as it were. It's not deterrence if people think you're chicken to really do it.

[Salman]

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.

There's an apocalyptic strain in Islam that says Mecca will be destroyed by the Dajjal (somewhat like "antichrist").

[Renegade]

They were used on Japan to END the war and save allied lives . I would use them in Iraq for the same reason . We developed them. My tax dollars paid for them and I want more BANG for the buck .
Use the Tacts on bunkers . I am not advocating air or above ground bursts .
There would be residual radiation, but it will dissapate.

[Sender]

I agree, the only time we should consider nukes is if WMD, and specifically nukes, are used on the US. Even if Saddam uses chemicals on our invading troops and we have any non-nuclear options to clobber them with, we should reserve any consideration of nukes for the gravest emergency. Using nukes on the battlefield will further whet the appetite of every Quran-waving wacko to save up their plutonium bits for that great day when they can pay back the Great Satan (which they would do anyway as soon as they could).

On the other hand, if anything else is done that results in the deaths of thousands of Americans on US soil, the rule book goes out the window and I say toast 'em extra crispy.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[johnb838]

I think that the message of MOAB is that we've transcended nukes. We can produce the same bang for the buck with no radiation. The thugs of the world need to hear that message loud and clear.

[Salman]

MAD is dead for the Cold War but should it be dead for the Islamofacist war?

Mutual assured destruction only deters enemies that have a strong aversion to being destroyed.

[crz]

And managed to save Millions of lives by doing it. Best estimates were that it would have cost between 2 and 3 million lives (both allied and Japan) to invade Japan.

[mtbopfuyn]

No. It will only give one more excuse for someone else to use one, or two, or three...

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Agree completely- I was ready to post essentially the same points, but I'm glad read the entire thread first.

Also, the poster seems to believe that our use of nuclear weapons would make no difference to the attitudes of the countries that "like" us (actually, countries do not have likes and dislikes, only national interests)- but what do you think would be the reaction of the Japanese people if we did this??? Not good.

That said, I don't know that we won't do it if WMD's are used on American soil. Right after 9/11, I was ready to push the button myself...

[amused]

I think that the message of MOAB is that we've transcended nukes. We can produce the same bang for the buck with no radiation. The thugs of the world need to hear that message loud and clear.

That's what I was thinking.

[FreedomCalls]

When Ranger Able was detonated in Southern Nevada, it ruined a bunch of unexposed film in a Kodak warehouse in Rochester, New York.

Not possible. If Kodak claimed that really happened, then Kodak is probably guilty of insurance fraud.

Ranger Able Mk 4 Device tested at 1 kiloton yield in an air burst at 1060 feet AGL.

[RightWhale]

There is a battlefield scenario where nukes could be advantageous. If a third party interferes in a big way, that is, if 200,000,000 men on horseback show up in a tight group, to heck with being a pariah state--let 'em fly.

[Darheel]

The question was the possibility of it happening again. My post speaks to the inevitability of the event, and highlights the fact that the question itself is ridiculous and irrelevant.

[CougarGA7]

The source of that information is from the book "Under the Cloud" by Dr. Richard Miller.

The fall out cause little dots on the unexposed film where the film was "exposed". Kodak sent a four work telegram to the AEC saying "What are you doing".

[CougarGA7]

four word...not four work.

[TightSqueeze]

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.

The stuff that passes around here as sound conservative thought is frightening, FR has surely become the graveyard Neo-con rhetoric. How about this Young Bozo, After you nuke their holy city they nuke the Vatican, Jerusalem and the Saudi oil fields, what is your next move?