U.S. Envisions using Nukes on Terrorists

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
Land mines are probably the best known of conventional weapons leaving stuff around, since they're designed to sit around until touched. And, personally, I think that mining large areas of ground not in pure military use (eg cities) is just as reprehensible as dropping a nuclear bomb there. Of course, war is always devastating... so, there is some aspect of "war is ugly, what's the difference between this war and that one"; but even in war time, it IS possible to consider what it'll mean after you finish fighting. If nothing else, think what your occupation troops are going to have to deal with.

Carpet bombing leaves large amounts of unexploded ordinance as well. Often there is unused ordinance after the battles are complete that gets left behind.

There is an after-war cleanup cost that needs to be factored in I think, but often is not. In models that consist of using nukes, I hope that the cost is factored in terms of lives saved. If there seems to be a pretty clear danger that a nuke could be used on London or New York or Sydney or Tokyo, or any city really, and that could be stopped by the prudent use of nukes, so be it. If it can be stopped by using lesser weapons, obviously, do that instead.

There's the problem that intel is not perfect. I understand that. How do we know if there is a site being used for x, y or z? Sometimes you have to roll your dice and take your chances, and when one is talking about nukes I guess that dice roll gets to be one big, fat, angry looking pimple of a decision to have to make. I am not at all satisfied with the changes we have made in intel over the past 4 years either.

I began to get very frustrated watching things go on and on about the failure of intel when it is plain that intel has been being cut back for a long time in the US by, guess who, elected officials. So when intel fails, the elected officials turn right around and BLAME the intel community. And being professionals with their jobs at stake, the intel community's leaders can't just snipe back, 'well, it's you people's fault! You cut our funding!' Just in general, professional politicians win political battles with beurocrats hands down anyhow... But there you have it. Politicians cut spending on intel and then stand in AMAZEMENT that we do not have effective intel gathering and analysis. WOW!!!!

I mean, I am not even AGAINST the reductions in intel. I believe the decisions were based largely on reasonable grounds. But having done it, how do you get all indignant that your reduced intel capabilities are, well, reduced?

All that to say... I think by and large you can expect nukes to stay on the shelf. But I still believe the possibility should be looked at and discussed and held open.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I don't know what consituency it would be that would support sloppy application of nuclear weapons?

Allow me to give you a demonstration, as Sir Humphrey gave to Bernard:

1. Do you believe that the Sept 11th attacks were a bad thing?
2. Do you believe that we should do something to prevent a repetition of Sept 11?
3. Should the government take measures against terrorism?
4. Would you support the Foobar Project?

Then you publish what percentage of people said "Yes" to the fourth.

You won't find many people who answer the first question with "No", and people will be more likely to say "Yes" to a later question after committing themselves to "Yes" for earlier ones (to avoid looking like a silly fool who says he believes in contrary notions).

Also, if you rely on someone knowing what the Foobar Project is based on news reports, anyone who hasn't taken the time to find out that it's nuclear, will leave fallout, etc, etc, will probably be in favour of it simply to appear as if he knows.

Net result: 87% of New York supports the Foobar Project wholeheartedly. There, you've just supported your own theories with government statistics.

Of course, we can prove the opposite just as easily. It just requires different leadup questions.
1. Do you believe that killing hundreds of innocent people just to stop a few criminals is bad?
2. Do you believe that all-out nuclear war is a bad idea?
3. Should the government be cautious of using dangerous weapons?
4. Would you be against the Foobar Project?

Tada, now 79% of New York are completely against the Foobar Project!

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
Carpet bombing leaves large amounts of unexploded ordinance as well. Often there is unused ordinance after the battles are complete that gets left behind.

If you look at my six questions above, I named one of them "Carpet Bombing".

Originally posted by Lokrian
Politicians cut spending on intel and then stand in AMAZEMENT that we do not have effective intel gathering and analysis. WOW!!!!

I mean, I am not even AGAINST the reductions in intel. I believe the decisions were based largely on reasonable grounds. But having done it, how do you get all indignant that your reduced intel capabilities are, well, reduced?

Erm... DUH!!!

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
If you look at my six questions above, I named one of them "Carpet Bombing".


Erm... DUH!!!

I appear to have bored you into submission. I mentioned carpet bombing and other things in the context of making the point that all weapons damage the environment and carry the potential for collateral damage, not in reference to your policy related discussion.

I'm familiar with leading questions in polls. I still don't get how all this applies to a pentagon planning paper. The pentagon has been given their marching orders by Bush, and have prepared a document to explain how that would apply in practical terms to military nuclear capabilities. It's not even been purposefully trotted out by the government. It was merely reported on by the press. It doesn't lead in the direction of anything like what you appear to be suggesting.

[Lebeau]

Well, bottom line is I am against nuke attacks unless absolutely necessary. I can't think of a single reason to use nukes at this time, but it's not really my job to make those decisions. Look at the current war. Terrorists don't operate in large nuclear facilities. They don't operate in large anything. They operate out of houses and apartments in residential neighborhoods. They COULD use large facilities. They certainly have the funding for this. But they choose to use small, integrated locales. Why? So we CAN'T bomb them.

They aren't dumb. The Iraqis are the good guys for the most part. Just where can we hit justifiably? And as far as flexing our nuclear muscles, come on... EVERYONE knows we have nukes. So what? We can take out whole cities and probably whole countries. What good does that do us? It was fine in WWII. I'm sure it was debated and debated and debated for weeks on end before we dropped the bombs on Japan. And no doubt it caused lots of suffering. But it did end the war and prevented probably more suffering than it caused. But we aren't fighting that kind of war.

So why flex? To scare them? These people don't care about the well being of their fellow Arabs or human beings for that matter. They don't care for international politics. And most importantly, they don't care about their own lives! So we blow them up. They have no problem blowing themselves up. Then we just killed a whole community just to kill a faction that a conventional strike team could have taken out. Did a nuke kill Uday and Qusay? Nope. I've never been in favor of nuclear warfare as anything but a last resort, and in this war I am less in favor. To me, it sounds like our government is saying they don't care about surrounding communities as long as we kill the bad guys.

Yes, I did use the term "American terrorism". Break it down into its words: isn't that what we're trying to do? Scare them? Let's bring it in closer a bit. I'd say the KKK is a perfect example of domestic terrorism. They still exist. They still have meetings. But when was the last time you heard of a lynching? When was the last act the KKK did? I don't know, but I haven't heard of any in my lifetime. Why? Because we have a government that deters them from illegal activity. Would we ever consider dropping a nuke into the backwoods of Alabama to kill KKK members? No, for many reasons besides the fact that they're Americans too. The collateral damage far outweighs the benefits, too many innocents, and finally, they're practically inactive. That's what we're trying to do in Iraq.

Finally, consider that Iraq is pretty much the center of the Middle East. It is certainly one of the most influential countries in the region. If their terrorist regime is replaced by a stable democratic government, that eliminates a huge financial base. And how far behind can the other countries like Syria be? Most people regardless of religion hate terrorism and hate being oppressed by their government. It's been stated on other threads that other countries are already encouraged by Iraq's success. If the success is complete, governments may well be overturned in favor of democracy. Maybe not what we have in the US, but as long as it's the will of the people and not extremist in nature, I really don't give a shit.

I'm not saying nuclear proliferation is the way. It sounds nice, but considering human nature, it simply can't happen. We need that fear factor to keep people from trying us. Fight our wars with boots on the ground, and avoid every war we reasonably can. And if all else fails and we're getting our asses kicked, nuke the fuckers. But we'd best be on our last leg. We aren't even close to being that desperate.

[Jidoe]

Originally posted by Lebeau
So why flex? To scare them? These people don't care about the well being of their fellow Arabs or human beings for that matter. They don't care for international politics. And most importantly, they don't care about their own lives! So we blow them up. They have no problem blowing themselves up. Then we just killed a whole community just to kill a faction that a conventional strike team could have taken out. Did a nuke kill Uday and Qusay? Nope. I've never been in favor of nuclear warfare as anything but a last resort, and in this war I am less in favor. To me, it sounds like our government is saying they don't care about surrounding communities as long as we kill the bad guys.

That's a very common misconception. When you are saying they don't mind blowing themselves up - are you talking about the suicide bombers who have been brainwashed into it (against the rules of Islam, but in the name of Allah and the Koran) or are you talking about the bosses (which I am assuming you are because nobody cares about the little terrorists, not even the terrorists themselves)? Since I'm assuming you're talking about the bosses (for instance, like Abu-Musab Elzarqawi or even just a head of a link), they sure as hell are afraid to die! Why do you think they keep hiding and running away? They sure as hell don't wanna end up like one of their little brainwashed followers.

[kestra]

It seems our society has come to the point where the topic of terrorism and Islam are synonymous. I'd just like to remind those who may have forgotten that terrorism exists outside the muslim faith.
A few quick examples: Basque ETA rebels
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
Japanese Communist League

Some terrorists are state sponsored, some aren't.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by kestra
It seems our society has come to the point where the topic of terrorism and Islam are synonymous.

Gee, I wonder why. That couldn't possibly be a result of Islamic terrorists being the most prolific could it?

The bigger problem is the media refusing to acknowledge the fact that fundamentalist Islam is the most damaging and negative force in the world since Christianity of the middle ages.

Islam needs a protestant reformation.

[Lokrian]

Get set to be bored stiff again, or just skip my rant...

Well, before you dance on the grave of the Medieval Church of Rome, Rome herself was not sacked by Christians. The breakdown of civilization as Europe had known if for centuries was achieved by pagan tribes which adopted over time, among other things such as their art and architecture, the dominant religion of Rome at the time of its fall as well. Last I checked, most historians agree that what little was left of Roman civilization by the time the "Dark Ages" rolled around was to be found within the confines of the church. As such, it was from inside the church itself that the Reformation was born. Where people find an excuse then to call the church to task for preserving civilization I have no idea. Before Christianization, many pagan cultures considered it the height of nobility and morality to visit your neighbor’s homeland, kill him, rob him of his goods, and slog off to home with them. It was an activity venerated in song and poem, and set forth even as a religious value. It should come as a surprise to no one then that they retained for a long time certain aspects of those values despite the slow spread of Christianity through those cultures in the following centuries.

The Protestant reformation doesn't really have any counterpart in Islam, since the seat of Islamic power has not been captured by foreign powers and the religion changed in fundamental ways by its inheritors in order to serve more suitably for them and their culture as opposed to Rome’s.

Possibly it would be all for the best if Islam went through a Renaissance, or Age of Enlightenment, but it is not due for any sort of internal reformation anytime soon that I can see. It’s hard to imagine what previous civilization they could possibly hearken back to in order to fuel a Renaissance. Islam itself represents the pinnacle of that region’s achievements anywhere at all in its history. Ideas that were once rather progressive in comparison to their neighbors have become hopelessly outmoded, and yet they appear largely unwilling to abandon them.

Nominally secular governments such as the old USSR and modern China's do not exactly bode well for any supposed intrinsic superiority of secularism over religion as a cultural norm anyhow, so possibly that's not the real key to progress either.

It is like pulling teeth to get people to get past their prejudices, their need to idenntify people and label them as 'bad', and see that the only real way forward is cooperation, compromise, and coalition building between various groups rather than singling out the ones that are to be considered, by definition, wrong. Where Islam is concerned, it seems apparant at least to me that the way forward is not so much in any sort of religious reform, as in bringing their people, who already are interested in having more direct influence within their own governments by the way, the support they need to make the change to more democractic institutions.

Once their people have power firmly in their own grasp, they will be in a position to shape their churches in the way they see fit, rather than the other way around.