U.S. Envisions using Nukes on Terrorists

[kestra]

Here's the story from Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...clear_doctrine

But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon.

Reading these kinds of articles totally depresses me; making me wonder what the hell mankind is racing towards. Does anyone else think this is just the modern version of the arms race, between us and them?
September 11 was a blank cheque for the Bush Administration; allowing them to justify any action.
I'm sick and tired of this culture of fear. This fear will once again be manipulated and used this Sunday to justify more and more and more.

I don't know what the solution to terrorism is. I struggle with this topic. But it's clear you can't kill them all. The nuclear option freaks the hell out of me, because it'll come back and bite you on the ass, one way or another.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by kestra

I'm sick and tired of this culture of fear.

I am sick and tired of it as well. If we just destroyed our enemy, we wouldn't have anything to fear.

Godfather 2:

TOM: Alright -- just consider this Mike -- that's all just consider it. Now ROTH and the Rosato's are on the run -- are they worth it? And are they strong -- is it worth it -- I mean you've won -- do you have to wipe everyone out?

MICHAEL CORLEONE: I don't fell I have to wipe everyone out -- just my enemies -- that's all.

[Sebboe]

I refuse to be afraid of terrorists.

I think politicians (regardless of party) use fear against us. I know terrorist attacks have hit this country and it could happen again but I don't need to be innundated with reasons to be afraid of it.

The likelihood that it would happen directly to me is so minimal that I can be bothered to worry.

I don't mean to imply that we should not safeguard against terror but the concept that we are at war with it is a bit absurd.

How using nuclear weapons is going to help resolve anything is beyond my imagination and its use seems rather unrealistic.

The entire thing seems like another manipulation of people via fear.

[Lebeau]

I am in disagreement with Sebboe on this one. We have more to worry about than our individual selves. The United States has become a primary target for terrorists. The only way to protect ourselves is to kill them first. I'm not really sure how to go about this "war". You kill them, they're a martyr. You ignore them, they'll keep killing us. Honestly, the best way is to help establish a strong government in their own backyards. Most people regardless of race, religion, or nationality do not condone terrorism. So this war is very much worth it.

That said, I don't support American terrorism either, such as using or threatening nukes. If a 5.56mm rifle round can't do it in a crowded enviroment, what makes them think a nuke will? You'll kill more civilians than terrorists then. Not to mention property damage and fallout concerns. Establish free governments and let them handle their own country.

[Rosuav]

There is a serious risk here that America+allies is ending up no different from the "eeeeevil terrorists" they're trying to wipe out. Nuclear attacks on terrorists? Eww.

[Azyael]

Originally posted by Rosuav
There is a serious risk here that America+allies is ending up no different from the "eeeeevil terrorists" they're trying to wipe out. Nuclear attacks on terrorists? Eww.

Serious risk? Hardly.

The existence of this policy is to present a message of deterrence, nothing more. It is meant to say, “Don’t hit me, because I can hit harder,”

I simply find it hard to believe that any President, current or future would EVER invoke the pre-emptive nuclear strike clause of this policy to fight terrorism. Any President would more then likely use a “Shoot only if fired upon,” policy, and lets all pray it never come to that.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
There is a serious risk here that America+allies is ending up no different from the "eeeeevil terrorists" they're trying to wipe out. Nuclear attacks on terrorists? Eww.

So you object to even so much as the possibility of the U.S. using a nuclear bunker buster bomb to wipe out a nuclear weapons facility in a state known to harbor terrorists? Even so much as a frank military discussion of this option in a pentagon planning document is equal in your mind to flying planes into buildings loaded with civilians?

This is why we actually HAVE people flying planes into buildings full of civilians - because it works. It works! You've bought their whole line. They're not that bad. It's really the U.S. you should be worrying about. Do you honestly think they would continue doing these sorts of things if it brought the immediate and emphatic condemnation and action of the world community that it actually deserves?

And so they blow up another train - saw off another man's head. It never stops, because you believe in it. You believe that there is some underlying justice to their cause. You compare their motives to ours. You compare their actions to ours. We are the same as them because we imagine we have the right to defend ourselves from them with all the capacity we have to bring to bear, according to you?

Well, I hope some day you are not forced to compare their sensabilities to ours in person. I'm absolutely sure you would change your mind if you did.

I hope not too many more people have to die before this game gets old to you. It's not a wise or useful game in the least.

[Malacasta]

I object to anyone using any sort of nuke as a weapon. I don't care how the fuck you try and rationalize it with your bullshit moral outrage. The only country ever to use a nuke as a weapon was the US, and believe it or not, the rest of the world is still fucking outraged about that too.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
So you object to even so much as the possibility of the U.S. using a nuclear bunker buster bomb to wipe out a nuclear weapons facility in a state known to harbor terrorists? Even so much as a frank military discussion of this option in a pentagon planning document is equal in your mind to flying planes into buildings loaded with civilians?

No, I'm not objecting to clear-cut cases. There's always the easy examples to trot out... the ones where you only kill known terrorists, only damage buildings that are devoted to military purposes, etcetera. What's less clear is where you drop a nuclear bomb on a city, and the initial devastation kills lots of civilians, and the fallout affects people in neutral countries.

Also, is it not reasonable to object to meta-terrorism? We object to Moslem extremists blowing things up to get attention; why not object equally to politicians playing on that to get votes?

So, with any new measure that any government brings in, I'd be asking a few questions:
* The Trident question: Do we know nothing about it except that it costs fifteen billion so it must be superb?
* The Polaris question: Will it actually do what has been promised?
* The EuroPass question: How much inconvenience will it cause to the general public?
* The TSR.2 question: Will it effectively deter?
* The Children Overboard question: Is it something that's been in the pipeline for years, but is being announced now because the election's approaching?
* The Carpet Bombing question: Will it, if used, cause widespread death/damage of people who, like the flowers of spring, have nothing to do with the case?

-> Rosuav dons an asbestos suit, preferring cancer to death by flame

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Malacasta
I object to anyone using any sort of nuke as a weapon. I don't care how the fuck you try and rationalize it with your bullshit moral outrage. The only country ever to use a nuke as a weapon was the US, and believe it or not, the rest of the world is still fucking outraged about that too.

I object to anyone using any sort of swearword as a weapon. I don't care how the proton you try and rationalize it with your alpha ray moral outrage. The only country ever to use a swearword as a weapon was Malacasta, and believe it or not, the rest of the forums is still nuking outraged about that too.