Bush's Nuclear Weapons Use - 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 03-17-2002, 01:39 AM   #1
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wrapped around Bono's little finger
Posts: 196
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Bush's Nuclear Weapons Use

Chimpanzees should be put in charge of all the nuclear weapons, and the "great new weapons of mass destruction" Chaney is so excited about, oh wait, chimpanzees already are in charge.
__________________

__________________
U2live is offline  
Old 03-17-2002, 04:18 AM   #2
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 12:02 AM
Okay, your post makes no sense, so put down the bottle for a minute.

First, it is Cheney, not Chaney. No Chimpanzees either.

Second, in 1994 when I served under Bill Clinton, there was a BIG scare about North Korea. President Clinton's response (and rightfully so) was if they attack the south (South Korea) and use chemical weapons then WE (USA) will go NUCLEAR on their ass.

Third, NO President (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter...etc) wants to use NUKES or FUCK up the world like that. How could you or anyone think that???

YES we have them, and YES we WILL USE them if we HAVE to, but we sure the FUCK don't want to.

GET REAL

WE are not the ENEMY, the ENEMY crashes planes into buildings and kills their own and starves their own and plants 'suicide bombs' on their own. WE don't do that.

Think about it. I think you might be the monkey
__________________

__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 03-17-2002, 09:41 AM   #3
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Well Said Z Edge.

Melon, can you post us up a picture of yourself.. Just out of curiosity.. Hahaha..

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 03-17-2002).]
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 03-17-2002, 10:22 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
Think about it. I think you might be the monkey






I'm sorry...I just couldn't resist.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-17-2002, 12:45 PM   #5
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 12:02 AM
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 03-18-2002, 07:23 PM   #6
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Z Edge -

Your post above ignores some basic facts:

1. Who DID use nuclear weapons on a civilian human population? The U.S.

2. Who destroyed the most arable land in the world (Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia) along with about 3 million people largely through the widespread use of napalm, a chemical agent? The U.S.

3. Whose anthrax was floating around the mail system a few months ago? The Ames strain, manufactured in the U.S. by the U.S.

So while I would love to believe otherwise, you'll forgive me if I don't share your sunny confidence that the U.S. wouldn't use nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons if it felt like it, and with complete disregard for civilian casualties. It has before.

And now I'll go eat a banana.
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 03-19-2002, 01:31 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge:
YES we have them, and YES we WILL USE them if we HAVE to, but we sure the FUCK don't want to.
The "...we will use them if we have to..." doesn't make me feel better. One of the things I'm worried about is that with the development of smaller 'tactical' nukes, the threshold for using them might become a lot lower in the future.

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-20-2002, 03:07 AM   #8
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth:
The "...we will use them if we have to..." doesn't make me feel better. One of the things I'm worried about is that with the development of smaller 'tactical' nukes, the threshold for using them might become a lot lower in the future.

So you're worried about our willingness to use nuclear weapons because it lead to us using nuclear weapons?
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-20-2002, 03:16 AM   #9
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth:
One of the things I'm worried about is that with the development of smaller 'tactical' nukes, the threshold for using them might become a lot lower in the future.

Just curious, do you even know the motivation for making such 'tactical nukes'? E.G. You just think that they're to be used to 'clear a city block' instead of a Town.

It seems almost that people equate the new proposed weapons with the City Clearing H Bombs of Hiroshima, which is nothing of the sort which the Administration is pushing for.

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 03-19-2002).]
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 03-21-2002, 10:39 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:02 AM
The small "tactical" nukes are developed in order to destroy military targets which would have been very difficult to destroy with conventional weapons. For instance underground military installations. Destroying these by using the City Clearing H Bombs would obviously be out of the question forcing the army to find another way to destroy these targets. With the arrival of the new tactical nukes, there will be a faster and easier way to destroy them and Iím afraid the army will use them regardless of (amongst other things) environmental damage.

There will be less consequences attached to the use of the smaller nukes compared to the use of the old nukes so the threshold for using the new nukes will be lower.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 03-21-2002, 01:41 PM   #11
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth:


There will be less consequences attached to the use of the smaller nukes compared to the use of the old nukes so the threshold for using the new nukes will be lower.
Ahh. Exactly.. Just making sure ya knew that.. And so.. We are led to believe from your post that this is a 'bad' thing.. It is a change in the landscape of warfare.. No longer is the term 'NUKES' associated with city clearing world destroying Blasts..

So, from your logic you are saying that even us dropping a Burrowing Nuclear Bomb that digs 150 yards below the surface of teh planet explodes, with no or extremely little evidence above ground is worthy of a country replying to us by dropping a 'city clearing' world destroying nuclear bomb on New York City?

Just wondering..

L.Unplugged
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 03-21-2002, 02:08 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:02 AM
Ummm,
I just wanted to remind everyone here that the USA has had small tactical nuclear weapons and battlefield nuclear weapon since the 1950s. Many of these stockpiles cut though in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the USAs nuclear force. My point is that we have had small nuclear weapons for almost 50 years. The first nuclear weapon developed to be fired from a piece of artillery or cannon was developed and successfully tested in 1953.
So this idea that small nukes lowers the threshold for using nuclear weapons is incorrect judging by the past 50 years. Only in the most extreme and dire circumstances would nuclear weapons be used. Nearly all missions that can be concieved of can be accomplished with conventional weapons given enough resources and time.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-28-2003, 08:25 PM   #13
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 06:02 AM
-----------------------------------------
Z-Edge: Second, in 1994 when I served under Bill Clinton, there was a BIG scare about North Korea. President Clinton's response (and rightfully so) was if they attack the south (South Korea) and use chemical weapons then WE (USA) will go NUCLEAR on their ass.

Third, NO President (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter...etc) wants to use NUKES or FUCK up the world like that. How could you or anyone think that???
=---------------------------------------------

Well, given that we have helped screw the world by providing so many Land Mines, which have paid a heavy toll world wide on children, women, and innocent men, I'd say we could unknowingly or knowingly f+++ the world over....

Now many of you might think land mines aren't as big of an issue as Nukes are, but they are a massive problem...

There are so many land mines, and so many young , innocent victims... Yet, we still think it is important to have land mines, o, and even maybe "smart land mines" to help us stratigically in our missions... Whether it be in Guantanomo or Korea... Well, if only we were smart enough to realize the end result and the heavy price innocent people have to pay... But no, realistically there are sadly many people who don't care how many people die, as long as they are in a different country...

All i can say, is the use of such weapons have never gotten this world anywhere, and to think that Nukes are considered, that is just ridiculous...
__________________

__________________
Amna is offline  
 

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 01:02 AM.


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