Nuclear Response to 9/11?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, you should sense a pattern ...it's exactly what humans have been doing since the beginning of time!! The people who were once trusted allies turn and become hated enemies ...it's happened a gazillion times in all of human interaction.

    But notice that you ONLY see that pattern in US relations, but are blind to it throughout history? Why is that? ...just a bias against the US?

    Baron Max
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You don't know much do you?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Nukes are a horrible thing...Much more horrible than conventional bombs....enough said.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    That's why many of your founding fathers wanted the U.S to stay out of alliances and foreign disputes. Perhaps that is going a little to far, but the U.S fights far too many fights that are unnecessary, obtains allies that are sometimes worse than their enemies and manages only to obtain more enemies in the end. Not to mention generally hurting relations with nearly everyone. Never a smart move.
     
  8. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Unfortunately an Isolationist U.S would send the world economy into recession,then we'd be looking at china as the new economic leader.
     
  9. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Nuclear weapons would have been a bad idea. If we got to use them on Afghanistan, then guess what, Chechnya and Taiwan? The belief that there are rules that apply to the United States and not to Russia and China and everyone else is something we like to believe, but not something anyone outside the U.S. believes.

    In any event, the nuking of Afghanistan and the related deaths of innocents (and most people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11), not to mention the related, slow, deaths in Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan, India and possibly even China from the fallout, it would have caused more problems than it solved. First, and foremost, it would have radicalized the Muslim populations of the world to an a far greater extent. Right now, most Muslims in the world are not our enemy...if we engaged in wanton slaughter on that scale, I'm not so sure we'd be able to say that.

    The fact is, we were able to effectively wipe out al Qaeda's operational ability in Afghanistan without nuclear weapons. Far from teaching radicals not to fuck with us, using nukes would, imo, have encouraged even more animosity against us, and I think it certainly would have increased international tensions.
     
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    You prefer unstable politics to an unstable economy. By the way what goes up always goes down with economics. By the way #2 China is leading the economy on MANY levels. While the U.S is printing money and borrowing money(from ASIA) to wage war, China is a busy busy bee building a robust economy.
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,427
    technically we already have had a nuclear response our main ground support plane the A-10 use depleted uranium rounds which are radioactive
     
  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Depleted uranium is not radioactive, any more than granite is.
    It is, however, chemically toxic.
     
  13. shekhar1438 Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    Nuking is not the permanent solution. If you keep on thinking and planning with such ideas, then someday, you will get all this back to you. Remember this. The only solution to any problem, may it be 9/11 or some other important issue of the world today, is to resolve these issues with patience and understanding and moreover peacefully. This is the only way by which our race sustains itself in this game of life, otherwise, our human race is in jeopardy. Take this as my prophecy... Hope you (and by far all of us, humans) change our mode of thinking and try to resolve any issues peacefully. Try to discuss on how to achieve this in the forums and that will benefit all of us.
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,427
    uh it is radio active in small amounts it doesn't really effect people but with the amount we use it does start to have an effect. it just ever some slighlty radioactive. lots of things are radioactive we all have a radioacitve isotope in us carbon-14
     
  15. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Just like granite...

    And the toxicity will have an effect long before the slight radioactivity.
     
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,427
    does it really matter how it fucks people up
     
  17. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    True, retaliating like that would put the whole world against you, if it isn't already. A nuke on anybody is a serious thing. Cynics may think that peace is a waste of time, but the more time we spend talking than blowing people up, thats a good use of time.
     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Would you hold to those same ideals for World War II? In Germany and Japan? And remember, we did try diplomacy and patience ...it didn't work with either Germany or Japan. So would you have allowed Germany to conquer all of Europle, and Japan to conquer all of southeast Asian ....using your patience and understanding?

    Sure as hell stopped Japan's conquests, did't it? Permanently, too!

    And bombing the livin' shit outta' Germany helped win the war in Europe.

    Baron Max
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Afghanistan as a nation was not at war with us, only a portion of it's population. If we nuked Afghanistan, it would be viewed as a war on Islam, and all Muslims would wage war against us.
     
  20. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Why didn't you nuke Vietnam? Or just Hanoi?

    WWII is not even close to being equivalent to the current situation. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or really just that stupid?
     
  21. BlueMoose Guest

    -I guess using nukes near Russia and China couldnt be realistic option back
    then and its madness still.

    -Such a story that Blair did go to war with Bush because fearing that US
    might use nukes makes Blair look "good" now though....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    -For the future responses, who knows, Afganistan is still unsecured and
    Iraq is a big mess. Where to response ? The whole muslim part of the world ?
    Teheran ? Riad ? US made Iraq to be their battlefield in war on terror,
    maybe sending there more troops and fully occupy the country and fight
    on there, that seems to be the strategy if there was/is one.
     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    We should have! But the idiots agreed in the Paris Peace Talks not to even bomb Hanoi with conventional weapons!! What kind of bullshit is that? And we couldn't bomb the harbor of Haiphong, where the North Vietnamese got most of their war supplies from China. Duh?

    Why isn't it? Please explain in real-world terms, and not some mamby-pamby liberal bullshit terms ...please!

    Baron Max
     
  23. BlueMoose Guest

    My mistake, I found the plan for Iraq, I hope it works.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

    QUOTE
    There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

    The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy, to assure good relations with a sovereign nation. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.

    The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. In addition to a president, two vice presidents, and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments, from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held. America fully supports Mr. Brahimi's efforts, and I have instructed the Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.

    In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala'din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.

    All along, some have questioned whether the Iraqi people are ready for self-government, or even want it. And all along, the Iraqi people have given their answer. In settings where Iraqis have met to discuss their country's future, they have endorsed representative government. And they are practicing representative government. Many of Iraq's cities and towns now have elected town councils or city governments - and beyond the violence, a civil society is emerging.

    The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority. By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves. And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad, or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country.

    The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.

    America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty.
    QUOTE
     

Share This Page