US Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

[Elysiumfire]

It never ceases to amaze me the lack of sanity in much of Bush's plans. Now that he has set himself up with the (pre-emptive) right to use nuclear weapons on terrorists (err, is that one per terrorist, coz if so, he ain't got nowhere near enough). Is this guy actually sane? Have the Americans got a bunch of sociopaths running their country? I am now seriously thinking in stopping eating 'sloppy joe's' in protest!

I am sure that you all realise that if American forces actually use a nuclear device on another country -whether tactical size or not - other countries will launch theirs. Since the end of the 2nd world-war, mankind has been struggling to find a way to live with the existence of nuclear weapons. Presidents have looked for ways to lessen the nuclear arsenals....Bush, however, actually wants to use them.

I really am trying to be objective here, and not to allow myself get carried away with the number of thoughts going through my head. I keep trying to assure myself that not all Americans are the same, that not all of them supported Bush and his gang of non-caring murdering thugs, that 50% of them did not vote for him; but then, I remind myself that 50% did, and that the country is so divided.

Now I am wondering, is this planet inhabited by a species that is insane enough in its diversity that it will rationalise the righteousness of nuclear war? Nuclear war, though, is a misnomer, there can never be a nuclear war, only a nuclear suicide, and Bush seems ever so determined to bring it about by manufacturing the armageddon of the prophecies. So I am going to blame 50% of America for giving to the world this total nutcase, and I am going to blame the other 50% for doing nothing in protest about it.

I am a great accepter in actions speaking louder than words, so far America has done squat to extricate itself from the biggest disaster in American history and that of the world. If this looney tune gets his way, he'll make Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other contemporary mass killers seem like amateurs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of dying, but when I do die, I want to do so knowing that my species continues long after I am gone, but with president madman in charge of the 'button', the chances of that are somewhat lessend.

Edited to remove offensive comment

Elysiumfire

Edited September 11, 2005 by Thistle

[ajagsfairy]

Its not a hard concept to grasp that hate breeds hate.. violence breeds violence.. yet so many dont grasp the concept. How come we are the only ones who can have wmd? Its sick. I cant even comprehend how someone doesnt realize that WAR effects EVERYONE using a Nuke will effect everyone. I still think the leaders that are fighting or having a go at eachother should be locked in a room together till they either compromise or kill eachother. Either way that would spare soldiers lives.. innocent victims lives and all and all be better for everyone. How come people cant settle differences and stuff without killing eachother. Its disgusting and makes me hang my head in shame. I dont blame mother nature for her revenge we totally deserve it sometimes.

[soonerlover]

It never ceases to amaze me the lack of sanity in much of Bush's plans. Now that he has set himself up with the (pre-emptive) right to use nuclear weapons on terrorists (err, is that one per terrorist, coz if so, he ain't got nowhere near enough). Is this guy actually sane? Have the Americans got a bunch of sociopaths running their country? I am now seriously thinking in stopping eating 'sloppy joe's' in protest!

I am sure that you all realise that if American forces actually use a nuclear device on another country -whether tactical size or not - other countries will launch theirs. Since the end of the 2nd world-war, mankind has been struggling to find a way to live with the existence of nuclear weapons. Presidents have looked for ways to lessen the nuclear arsenals....Bush, however, actually wants to use them.

I really am trying to be objective here, and not to allow myself get carried away with the number of thoughts going through my head. I keep trying to assure myself that not all Americans are the same, that not all of them supported Bush and his gang of non-caring murdering thugs, that 50% of them did not vote for him; but then, I remind myself that 50% did, and that the country is so divided.

Now I am wondering, is this planet inhabited by a species that is insane enough in its diversity that it will rationalise the righteousness of nuclear war? Nuclear war, though, is a misnomer, there can never be a nuclear war, only a nuclear suicide, and Bush seems ever so determined to bring it about  by manufacturing the armageddon of the prophecies. So I am going to blame 50% of America for giving to the world this total nutcase, and I am going to blame the other 50% for doing nothing in protest about it.

I am a great accepter in actions speaking louder than words, so far America has done squat to extricate itself from the biggest disaster in American history and that of the world. If this looney tune gets his way, he'll make Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other contemporary mass killers seem like amateurs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of dying, but when I do die, I want to do so knowing that my species continues long after I am gone, but with president madman in charge of the 'button', the chances of that are somewhat lessend.

Thankyou America, you've acheived your objective...you've ****ed us all!

Elysiumfire

837845[/snapback]

The problem is we as Americans are tired of getting screwed by the rest of the world and never doing anything. I seriously doubt that if we launched a tact nuke or whatever the rest of the countries would lanuch theirs. They are not that stupid becuse if you p***ed us off bad enough we could destroy the whole damn planet. So lighten up and take your punishment like a man

[twpdyp]

Since the dawn of this great country our military minds have played "what if" scenarios. Planning a response to every conceivable situation, being as prepared as we can. This is no different. I do not see the United States ever using a nuclear device on a terrorist nation or a terrorist held region. Having said that I do hold that once the nuclear Pandora's box was opened with the first successful detonation it cannot be closed. If the United States was to give up all of its arsenal of atomic weapons it would be nothing but a useless gesture. The only thing that keeps a nuclear missile or bomb from being used is mutually assured destruction. If we begin to eliminate these weapons the balance will be upset and the likelihood of a detonation rises. Yes the United States helped to create this situation but as in nature when man interferes and the balance is upset the best we can hope for is to create a new balance. It will not be to long and a nuclear weapon will be as antiquated as a spear is in modern warfare. It will be replaced by something else when defense systems render a nuclear weapon undeliverable. Then a new balance will then be achieved.

Edited September 11, 2005 by twpdyp

[Rhomphaia]

It never ceases to amaze me the lack of sanity in much of Bush's plans. Now that he has set himself up with the (pre-emptive) right to use nuclear weapons on terrorists (err, is that one per terrorist, coz if so, he ain't got nowhere near enough). Is this guy actually sane? Have the Americans got a bunch of sociopaths running their country? I am now seriously thinking in stopping eating 'sloppy joe's' in protest!

I am sure that you all realise that if American forces actually use a nuclear device on another country -whether tactical size or not - other countries will launch theirs. Since the end of the 2nd world-war, mankind has been struggling to find a way to live with the existence of nuclear weapons. Presidents have looked for ways to lessen the nuclear arsenals....Bush, however, actually wants to use them.

I really am trying to be objective here, and not to allow myself get carried away with the number of thoughts going through my head. I keep trying to assure myself that not all Americans are the same, that not all of them supported Bush and his gang of non-caring murdering thugs, that 50% of them did not vote for him; but then, I remind myself that 50% did, and that the country is so divided.

Now I am wondering, is this planet inhabited by a species that is insane enough in its diversity that it will rationalise the righteousness of nuclear war? Nuclear war, though, is a misnomer, there can never be a nuclear war, only a nuclear suicide, and Bush seems ever so determined to bring it about  by manufacturing the armageddon of the prophecies. So I am going to blame 50% of America for giving to the world this total nutcase, and I am going to blame the other 50% for doing nothing in protest about it.

I am a great accepter in actions speaking louder than words, so far America has done squat to extricate itself from the biggest disaster in American history and that of the world. If this looney tune gets his way, he'll make Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other contemporary mass killers seem like amateurs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of dying, but when I do die, I want to do so knowing that my species continues long after I am gone, but with president madman in charge of the 'button', the chances of that are somewhat lessend.

Thankyou America, you've acheived your objective...you've ****ed us all!

Elysiumfire

837845[/snapback]

Your hook is rusty and your bait is crap. We prefer live worms in this pond.

Thanks for trolling.

[+joc]

Its not a hard concept to grasp that hate breeds hate.. violence breeds violence.. yet so many dont grasp the concept.

As long as it isn't YOUR hatred we are talking about. What hypocrisy! It is okay for you to spew out your 'hatred' of Bush....because of course it is OK to hate him.

Hate does breed hate...and violence does breed violence...but you seem to have missed the connection...Hate breeds Violence!

[Elysiumfire]

Twpdyp: Normally, I would agree with a number of points of your post, In all exchanges of warfare its is usually diplomatic to allow the other guy a means to surrender, it is the switch that helps to 'turn off' hostilities. You retain a line of communication 'open', but in a scenario of nuclear hostilities you cannot guarantee that such a line will remain open because the use of nuclear weaponry totally annihilates the infrastructure, both your enemie's and your own.

Nuclear weapons have not been used because of the M.A.D. (mutually-assurred-destruction) policy, not because of conscienable thinking. If you launched you were guaranteed that your country, too, would suffer equally, this has been the 'uneasy' balancing mode of the nuclear stasis. What is now unbalancing it is this 'pre-emptive' policy of Bush's signalling that he is ready to use them without warning, not because of some nuclear threat to the US, but simply a threat to terrorists not to seek WMDs. This is no detterrent to a terrorist! It may be to a conscienable leader whom doesn't want to see his people and his country destroyed by nuclear weapons, but to a terrorist - whom uses his/her life as a weapon anyway - it is not; they have nothing to lose.

Bush is not looking at the causes of terrorism. He is not sitting down with his cabinet and saying "Okay guys, what is it that we are doing that elicits a terrorist response? What is it that we can do to alleviate the suffering caused by our policies in other lands?" It is an indifference to the plight of the many poor shown by the wealthy few. It is not, though, an indifference from the US, alone, it is a Western indifference that ought to be dealt with at the G8 meetings, but it is not.

To assume that using nukes on terrorists will not see pre-emptive launches from other countries, is not an assumption I would like to make, there are too many unguessable variables. In using nukes, Bush will hit a country that is next door to another country whom might receive radioactive fallout. It would protest this, other countries would protest this(rightfully so). Already we have a scenario of a building up of tension and anger, some would see it as an act of war and demand that the US cease using Nukes, if it does not, I believe you will see pre-emptive launches, and other countries will follow suit. In order for nuclear weaponry to be effective, you have to get it off within a very short space of time, its a all or nothing scenario.

If Bush thinks that the world will stand idly by while he authorises nukes on other countrie's soil, he had better think again. America had better think again. World opinion would be set against you with a wrath beyond anything you have yet seen, even in countries you consider friendly. Using nukes is not an option, never has been. It would dilute the policy of MAD, and blow open the door to our species nuclear suicide..

America, you need to get your heads out of your asses, and get that fruitcake in office out, along with his corrupt administration. Take a good hard long look in a mirror, for there you will see staring back not a conscienable human, but DEATH! THE DESTROYER OF HUMANITY.

Elysiumfire

Edited September 11, 2005 by Elysiumfire

[Fluffybunny]

Elysiumfire,

really am trying to be objective here, and not to allow myself get carried away with the number of thoughts going through my head.

You are not doing a very good job of being objective...

America, you need to get your heads out of your asses, and get that fruitcake in office out, along with his corrupt administration. Take a good hard long look in a mirror, for there you will see staring back not a conscienable human, but DEATH! THE DESTROYER OF HUMANITY.

I love how inspiring your words are; that musical call to action that brings the masses together to stamp out tyranny:

America, you need to get your heads out of your asses, and get that fruitcake in office out, along with his corrupt administration. Take a good hard long look in a mirror, for there you will see staring back not a conscienable human, but DEATH! THE DESTROYER OF HUMANITY.

Yes, it is moving...just like Henry the 5ths battle speech at Agincourt... So stirring and emotional. I just can't see how half the Americans wouldn't just fall in line behind you for your cause. Perhaps running for office would be in order for you? We know how much money you would save on speech writers; with prose so powerful, you couldn't help but win in a landslide.

Americans just love to be told to pull their heads out of their asses; really. How you were able to focus on that rally cry so eloquently just goes to show how right you are. Excuse me whilst I dab the tears of pride from my eyes. The last time I was moved so much was when the US Army band played the National Anthem on the Fourth of July.

Oh, wait, I was reading Shakespeare...oops...let me get back to your post...

...

...

Okeedokee, well it appears that Decaf might be in order for you, and perhaps a nice long bath and a nap afterwards to De-Stress yourself. Perhaps after destressing yourself just a little bit it will be possible to come back and post your thoughts in a manner that doesn't offend a full 100% of the Americans that you are attempting to reach(rather poorly). IF you choose to tell people to pull their heads out again, I will not hesitate to lock this threads. Be civil here, we are not asking for much.

Joc:

As long as it isn't YOUR hatred we are talking about. What hypocrisy! It is okay for you to spew out your 'hatred' of Bush....because of course it is OK to hate him. 

Ding-Ding-Ding!!! We have a winner...right on the nose!

[Conspiracy]

if he uses nukes against terrorists you do realise they'll hit america back, and im sure they'll hit it back hard...

[Dr_Strangelove]

if he uses nukes against terrorists you do realise they'll hit america back, and im sure they'll hit it back hard...

838372[/snapback]

Whether we use nukes against them or not the terrorists have already stated that they intend on killing as many Americans as possible. I often wonder why they haven't already. The biggest reason I can think they haven't used a nuclear weapon so far is all the inherent problems in using a nuclear weapon. Nukes are not all that easy to get or use.

I have it figured this way; eventually terrorists will manage to get a nuke and detonate it in the United States. They might even manage to get more than one and detonate it.

The result will be a nuclear backlash from whoever is in charge of the United States. It won't matter if its Bush.

As far a George pondering the idea of using nukes the fact is we have been pondering the use of nukes on everybody from the old Soviet Union to errant pizza delivery boys for 60 years now. We wargame all the possible threats all the time. We have large organisations within the military-industrial complex that do this all the time. Just because we wargame it or discuss it doesn't mean we are going to nuke anybody!

Try to remember that even the President doesn't have absolute control over our nuclear arsenals. Just because he can authorise it doesn't mean its going to happen.

[Dan'O]

Was there some link for this that I am missing?

[Elysiumfire]

Actually, the real issue with this thread (apart from Looney Tune wiping his **** on the Salt Talk Agreements) is that many (but not all) Americans are in denial of the causes of the criticism levelled at them. In the same manner that Bush doesn't address the causes of terrorism, a number of Americans do not address the causes of the criticisms.

It is easier to lambast those that criticise than to look your own faults in the eye. Most of your problems seep from self-inflicted wounds. When you take away 9/11 and hurricane Katrina, you are still left with Bush, whom many Americans believe was actually responsible for 9/11 - take a look at the LetsRoll911 website for one example. The President elect is not supposed to severely divide his country, he is supposed to unite it, he is supposed to practice what he preaches, he is supposed to be the shining example to all. Instead, what you have is a man not fit for the office of President, you have a man whom thinks that going after a handful of equally warped individuals justifies the destruction and wholesale slaughter of countries and the people in them. You have a man whom espouses democratic freedom to the people of Iraq but lessens that of Americans through a hastily non-congress read Patriot Act. Hypocrisy! Don't level that at me when you people swim in it.

If you people are hell-bent on destruction, then make it your own, keep it within your own borders, but when you take it beyond your borders you had better expect to get criticised. 9/11 was a direct result of American foreign policy. Your country along with other Western nations took its rape and pillage doctrine to those countries where the terrorist breeds like wildfire, and trying to sell that doctrine as a cause for 'freedom' is hypocrisy beyond belief. Given time, Iraq will settle down, but it won't be to the tune of an American fiddle, it will be to their own music, and all those killed in the slaughter, Iraqi, American, British, and other nationals, will have died for nothing, except for the ambitious oil-grab of one man.

You people put him in the position to do that, and those of you whom did not vote for him do nothing to resist him, you have abdicated your responsibility to your constitution and therefore, your country. And now, he is eyeing up those dusty nukes, and if that is not a cause for justified criticism, then I don't know what is.

You can be as sarcastic (lowest form of wit) and as dismissive of me as you wish, but the mirror does not lie!

Elysiumfire

[Elysiumfire]

Hee Hee! Dan O, that is the most intelligent question today!

Regards

Elysiumfire

[twpdyp]

I understand that the President of the United States carries a certain amount of world power. I also understand that in a lot of cases his decisions effect more than just U.S. citizens. I will go even one further and say that you sir or madam do not understand American government and the checks and balances contained within the Constitution. The President cannot just call for the bombers and missiles, it would take the consent of Congress. Consent that if indeed this story were true he would never get.

Am I to understand that those of us Americans that voted for President Bush and those who did not are the target of you diatribe. If I understand your logic then it is only the intelligent few who should make the decision on who should be president. Some of us are just to stupid and the rest are to wimpy, is that the way I should read the long and windy prose contained in your last post?

Also may I point out that by resorting to name calling and insults your argument looses a bit of its punch. Perhaps in the future a more intellectual approach would yield the results you are attempting to obtain.

Best and Kindest Regards To You and Yours

twpdyp

[Rhomphaia]

Also may I point out that by resorting to name calling and insults your argument looses a bit of its punch.

Wrong. It loses all of it because it just p***es off the target audience and automatically makes said audience hostile towards the messenger.

Elysiumfire, two pieces of advice.

1) Cut down on the insults and blatant inflamatory remarks.

2) Troll for a fight somewhere else. I for one am not going to give it to you.

Edited September 11, 2005 by Rhomphaia

[Dr_Strangelove]

Also may I point out that by resorting to name calling and insults your argument looses a bit of its punch.

Wrong. It loses all of it because it just p***es off the target audience and automatically makes said audience hostile towards the messenger.

Elysiumfire, two pieces of advice.

1) Cut down on the insults and blatant inflamatory remarks.

2) Troll for a fight somewhere else. I for one am not going to give it to you.

838620[/snapback]

Very true indeed. Name calling generally also make the reader question the maturity of the person calling names.

[Raptor]

Sorry for being lazy, I've got a headache and a short attention span

Is all this hypothetical or did someone in power actually suggest using nukes?!

[Dr_Strangelove]

Sorry for being lazy, I've got a headache and a short attention span

Is all this hypothetical or did someone in power actually suggest using nukes?!

838784[/snapback]

I believe this whole line of discussion has something to do with the Bush Administration changing our policy around nuclear weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001053_pf.html

[Raptor]

Thank you