Bush Pushes for New Nukes - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-07-2003, 09:14 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
*wonders if the point of the thread could be discussed*

So there are no concerns about a potential nuclear arms race? Everyone is cool with using nukes on the battlefield? Any thoughts on the subject at hand?
Sorry, back to the subject. I'm just going to focus on North Korea here.

I'd guess that North Korea is already proceeding with their nuclear weapons programs as fast as they can, so the nuclear arms race is already in full swing on one side.

That being said, I don't know that the US would ever have a chance to use one of these new bunker-busting nukes. If I were North Korea, I wouldn't hide my WMDs in the wilderness out of range of civilization. I'd hide them in subbasement 1000 in a building next to a village or someplace like that. And of course it'd be an utter disaster if we dropped a bunker-busting nuke there.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 07-08-2003, 09:54 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars North Korea is terrorists, ...Who knows of those North Koreans?

You think all North Koreans are terrorists?

Maybe you should be a bit more specific.

Anyway back to the subject:

As much as I am happy the nuclear race as we know it is over, I cannot say that we should totally rule out nuclear testing. Not testing per say for new weapons, but if we let our arsenal go for years without testing, it could be extremely dangerous, especially if for some terrible reason we had to use one of these weapons.

If testing did occur, however, there would be heavy resistance from almost every nation in the world. Thus, if it were to occur, I feel the government would literally have to invite representatives from almost every nation (especially those that would object) to the test.

They would, of course object to this as well, but my rationale is this:

We already have the weapons. It is dangerous to think that they may be used without any kind of mistake. It could be to everyone's advantage if the tests were witnessed by all nations, with the intent of actually reducing the weapons, but with the understanding that if a rogue nation, terrorist group etc were to use nuclear weapons against the US, we could retaliate.

Make any sense?
__________________

__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 10:28 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Normal what a warmongerer

Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4

<snip>
"it also says a return to nuclear testing may soon be necessary"

This guy and his thirst for violence scares me.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 10:32 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:27 PM
ouizy, i see what you're saying, but to me it is just a dangerous spiral. we could retaliate. enact revenge. why does it always have to be about revenge? I guess it seems like common sense to me that if we have nuclear arms and demand that others not have them while we go around attacking countries pre-emptively, rogue nations are going to build up their arms with or without our approval. It's just a vicious cycle. We live in a world that is interconnected. If we decided to use nuclear arms we might feel better in the short run by enacting whatever revenge we felt necessary but it would only come back to haunt us, I think.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 10:38 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Considering America's existing nuclear arsenal, I don't think we have a problem with being able to take this nation out.

Melon
Melon I'd love to hear some figures on this- of the info available to us, how large is America's existing nuke arsenal right now?

I think it'd help put even more into perspective how this is.

thanks.


I know the U.S. develops more & more destructive weapons daily. What's the need to take it further? I'm totally against the development of nuclear weapons. I feel any example the administration can give of being a threat to america is absolute bs- same as the bs they fed us regarding Iraq & their "WMD." What's the need to develop and test more weapons? Shouldn't we be promoting peace? Obviously we don't do that blindly but participating in developing nuclear weapons doesn't read "peaceful" to me. Be prepared, fine. But I can't support being aggressive like this.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 12:38 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:27 AM
These smaller nuclear weapons are nothing new at all. Battlefield Nuclear weapons were first developed in the 1950s. The intent of the weapons the administration once researched and developed is to be able to destroy Bio/Chem/Nuclear weapons that may be hidden underground, without releasing their harmful effects on nearby civilians. The concern is that conventional weapons are not as effective at preventing Bio/Chem weapons from being released into the air, where a small nuclear weapon would be very effective at instantly burning them. The only problem is designing the nuclear weapon and the penetration device so that it can penetrate deep enough, so that no fall out would be created above ground.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 12:44 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
ouizy, i see what you're saying, but to me it is just a dangerous spiral. we could retaliate. enact revenge. why does it always have to be about revenge? I guess it seems like common sense to me that if we have nuclear arms and demand that others not have them while we go around attacking countries pre-emptively, rogue nations are going to build up their arms with or without our approval. It's just a vicious cycle. We live in a world that is interconnected. If we decided to use nuclear arms we might feel better in the short run by enacting whatever revenge we felt necessary but it would only come back to haunt us, I think.
I don't think there's any point to developing new nukes for a second strike. If, heaven forfend, we or one of our allies were nuked, we already have enough weapons (nuclear and otherwise) to destroy our enemies once per day of the week and seven times on Saturday if that's what we want. (The incendiary bombs we dropped on Germany killed more people than the nukes we dropped on Japan during WWII, if I remember correctly.)

What does make sense is developing tactical nukes for busting a bunker or vaporizing an enemy's WMD stocks. (At least, it doesn't sound completely implausible, though we'd have to make sure that the fallout could be contained. And if the bunkers happen to lie underneath populated areas, then the bunker-busting nukes couldn't be used at all.)

Anyway, my point is that I think there are plausible reasons for developing new nukes. It's not being done out of bloodlust, as some here seem to think.
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 07-08-2003, 12:48 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm


I know the U.S. develops more & more destructive weapons daily. What's the need to take it further? I'm totally against the development of nuclear weapons. I feel any example the administration can give of being a threat to america is absolute bs- same as the bs they fed us regarding Iraq & their "WMD."

The older generation in South Korea (the ones who actually have firsthand experience with the Stalinist regime in North Korea) seems to think that North Korea is a threat to them, even if those idealistic young'uns currently running the government don't think so.
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 07-08-2003, 09:05 PM   #24
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 08:27 PM
This is some fucked up shit.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 02:08 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,258
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Well, I'm worried that if North Korea did have nukes, and we didn't take out their entire arsenal on the first shot, Seoul would become a smoking hole in the ground.
So could the U.S.

I'm with oliveu2cm on this one. I really don't think we need to be blowing more money on building more nukes, most of which will just sit there and never, ever be used.

Our money should be going toward other things, more important things.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-10-2003, 10:05 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


So could the U.S.
I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I was talking about using nukes as a tactical defensive first strike, i.e. for the express and sole purpose of taking out an opponent's WMDs.

Quote:

I'm with oliveu2cm on this one. I really don't think we need to be blowing more money on building more nukes, most of which will just sit there and never, ever be used.
Remember, we learn kara-te so that we never need use it.
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 07-10-2003, 09:18 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,258
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I was talking about using nukes as a tactical defensive first strike, i.e. for the express and sole purpose of taking out an opponent's WMDs.
Sorry. My mistake.

Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Remember, we learn kara-te so that we never need use it.
The difference there is that if you personally choose to take karate, you're using your money on something you want, so it doesn't feel quite like a waste.

When it comes to using money for an entire country, I just feel using it to build nukes that won't be used, instead of using it to benefit many various things that this country will definitely use, is a waste.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com