nuke iraq till they bleed american - 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 02-04-2003, 02:15 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Re: nuke iraq till they bleed american

Quote:
Originally posted by Flag Pole Pear
Until now, the United States has reserved nuclear weapons for retaliation against nuclear attacks or immediate threats to national survival, a standard tacitly but widely accepted around the world.
Yes, those should be always the only reasons to use nuclear weapons.



But hey, with this government, I wouldn't be surprised if they are indeed considering this. And if this gets approved, international opinion of US will get worse, other countries will lower this standard and once this happens, it won't take long till some terrorist gets a hold of nukes.
__________________

__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:26 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
If hes got any, hah!
Intersting.....So you are saying that he does not?

Where did they all go?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:34 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 09:36 AM
From what I understand, Iraq has/or not (not proven yet) biological and chemical weapons. They don't have nuclear weapons. But, yes, if they do and if Saddam feels pressed against the wall with no option, he might use whatever he has.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:37 PM   #19
Bordering Purgatory
 
Flag Pole Pear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 794
Local Time: 02:36 AM
then u2girl, it makes perfect sense to start a war with him.

remember, under flanigan mcvargas rules passed by the united nations in 1991, the united states was given the divine right to decide who may possess what.
__________________
you could have it all
my empire of dirt
i will let you down
i will make you hurt
Flag Pole Pear is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:40 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:36 AM
It never seizes to amaze me how some people are always trying to justify Bush's actions or words by saying "Oh he doesn't mean it, he's just saying that to scare ... [fill in the blanks]". I don't think we can afford to be that naive.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:44 PM   #21
Bordering Purgatory
 
Flag Pole Pear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 794
Local Time: 02:36 AM
but he was elected by the people for the people!
__________________
you could have it all
my empire of dirt
i will let you down
i will make you hurt
Flag Pole Pear is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:49 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
It never seizes to amaze me how some people are always trying to justify Bush's actions or words by saying "Oh he doesn't mean it, he's just saying that to scare ... [fill in the blanks]". I don't think we can afford to be that naive.
The "Bush is a warmonger" talk is a rerun of the Reagan years. Is history repreating itself??
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 02:52 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Of course it is. Why else do we have another Bush in office, a recession-in-denial, another impending Gulf War, manic military spending, coupled with equally manic tax cuts, and an alternate terrorist-edition of the Cold War?

We're repeating the 1980s and early 1990s all over again.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 03:03 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Bush should only threaten with the bomb, if he's willing to drop it, everything else is dangerous.
And if Bush is serious with this every dictator in the world will feel the strong need to own a a-bomb, because it seems to be the best thing if you have a different opinion and want to negotiate with the USA.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 03:10 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Calm down people. Since 1945, since the Truman administration, the USA has reserved the right to use Nuclear Weapons any time, any where, at any point of are choosing. We have not said that we in fact definitely would, just that we reserve that option. Its called Strategic Ambiguity. It is often the best way to deter and enemy from engaging in some type of behavior.

The USA back in the 1950s, developed Nuclear shells for field Artillery to be used on the battlefield. There were plans to use Nuclear Weapons in nearly every way imaginable. These capabilities and plans have existed in one way or the other for decades. My father who was in Air Defense/Artillery Branch of the Army, often worked with Nike Hurculeas Missiles that were planeed to be used to destroy multiple enemy aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. To do that the Missile had a large Nuclear Warhead. Of course this was back in the 1960s and a little bit into the 1970s.

My point is that this Nuclear Firwall, that Arkin has talked about has never really existed. The Bush Administration does not have plans that do any thing relevantly different than what any past administration has done. In fact, in the late 1940s and 1950s, US policy in response to a potential Soviet Warsaw Pact on Western Europe was massive retaliation. The second the USA saw certain Soviet divisions mobilizing for attack, or their bomber crews getting ready on a mass scale to fly to the or into Europe, any sign of large mobilization for war in Europe, the USA would launch a devastating first strike with nuclear weapons. This was back in the days before ICBMs. An intercontinental flight by a small number of Russian Bombers was long and easy to intercept before they got to the USA. Still, it was viewed that a first strike, would be necessary to prevent Soviet nuclear strikes in Europe and or conventional military forces from penetrating deep into NATO territory.

The point is we were far closer to using Nuclear Weapons in the late 1940s and 1950s, because during those years that was in fact the #1 plan for defeating a Soviet Warsaw Pact Attack. If the Soviet attack could be detected before it actually started, pre_emtion was indeed authorized.

Things changed in the 1960s when the Soviets Achieved Strategic Parity with the USA. The ICBM was the main reason for this. It was determined that despite any devastating first strike the USA could launch against the Soviet Union, enough of the Soviet ICBM force would survive to do unacceptable destruction to the USA. This is refered to as a "second-strike capability". The Soviets "second-strike capability" rendered the policy of "massive retaliation" useless. We were now in the world of Strategic Parity or MADD, Mutually Assured Destruction, if Nuclear Weapons were used. But Strategic Parity or MADD with Nuclear Weapons also presented the possibility that conventional war was more likely now because each side would be detered from using Nuclear Weapons, because of the evential outcome. A Similar type of situation existed in World War II in regards to the use of chemical and Biological weapons that boths sides had.

In response to Strategic Parity, the USA developed the Strategy of Flexible response basically saying that they would attempt to deter and fight conventional conflict with the Soviets with conventional weapons and Nuclear conflict with Nuclear Weapons, but would preserve the option of using Nuclear Weapons from the very start of any conventional conflict. "Flexible Response" was essentially "Strategic Ambiguity". The USA developed stronger conventional forces to fight a purely conventional war with the Soviets in Europe, but despite this preserved the option of using Nuclear Weapons from the very start of any conflict just as it had intended to do in the 1950s.

To sum up, the option has always been there and still is. The Bush administration has simply re-phrased old strategy. It is nothing new. The only thing that is new is the vast number of new conventional weapons systems that are available to achieve the same results desired from Nuclear Weapons. There are conventional weapons designed to burn up chemical and biological weapons, EMP weapons designed to fry electrical systems, and deep penatration bombs to destroyed burried bunkers. If a Burried Bunker could withstand one of these Penetration Bombs, its most likely it could withstand a nuclear weapon as well. Believe it or not it is possible. USA ICBM Silos are hardened to the point that they can withstand a nuclear blast that detonates anywhere outside a 400 foot ring from the Silo. To destroy one of these Silo's you have to get within 400 feet of it with a nuclear weapon, if not, the Silo survives.

Chemical and Biological weapons will not effect US combat troops do to their protective features from such attack. Such weapons though are a threat to unprotected unsuspecting civilians through out the region. There is not going to be a Nuclear response or use of Nuclear weapons against Iraq because there is no need. But the USA as it always has, reserves the right to use Nuclear Weapons in any senerio. While this may not deter Saddam, it is possible that it could deter his troops from using WMD and possibly deter some of them from resisting or fighting at all. History has shown that there is no harm in reserving the option(but not actually using) to use Nuclear Weapons, and it may have a benefit in that it deters the other side from using certain things or engaging in certain actions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 03:20 PM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Great lets start nukin.... With blind faith in a stupid man, i can bet you that we won't dig ourselves and other innocent civilians 6feet underground....

By the way, Bush said God was on our side.... So would that make Bush the next Prophet... Did he reallly talk to God... :S
__________________
Amna is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 03:36 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:36 AM

This is not about the retaliation of a nuclear strike, this is about starting one.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:17 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Dr. Teeth,

Did you read my whole post, I clearly stated that it has been US policy one way or the other to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time, any where, at any point it deemed necessary. This has for the most part been US policy since 1945. Sorry for the Bushwackers, but there is nothing new in Bush's "Nuclear" policy.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:27 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:36 AM

The point I hoped you would pick up is, while most people will agree that the use of nukes in retaliation of a nuclear strike is indeed 'necessary', using nukes in a 'conventional' war is not. Especially when you're the one who started it in the first place.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-04-2003, 04:42 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
The point I hoped you would pick up is, while most people will agree that the use of nukes in retaliation of a nuclear strike is indeed 'necessary', using nukes in a 'conventional' war is not. Especially when you're the one who started it in the first place.
This will not be a conventional war. Saddam was prepared to use WMD if the Coalition had moved on Bagdhad in 1991. They did not and the WMD remained where they are.

Saddam is not going to use them unless he is clearly going to fall. He will use them on our ground forces and he will launch them on Israel. He has always worried about his place in history. One sure way to make sure he is a hero to the Arab world is to attack Israel.

Once he uses them, or the United States thinks he is about to use them, the gloves are off. This will no longer be a conventional war.

I am not upset at the prospect of a Pre-Emtive strike if there is even an inkling that he is about to launch his own WMD on our troops or Israel. I would be more upset if they waited to find out.
Our soldiers, if they are sent into war, deserve to know that the Commander in Chief will use all means necessary to save lives.

Am I happy about the circumstances? No. But it is the reality of the situation.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 03:36 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