PDA

View Full Version : Flinging the nukes: When is it acceptable?


Rain Man
01-07-2006, 11:27 AM
The accompanying poll will have several scenarios. Please check all instances where it would be acceptable to fling a big nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile at someone.

Here are the ground rules:

1. In each scenario, assume that your use of the nuke would save the number of American lives shown.

2. In every case, assume that the recipient of the nuke is a government that is hostile to the U.S. and there is no ambiguity of morality on the conflict. (In other words, they're truly bad guys. There's no question in the minds of 99 percent of Americans. They're killing babies and molesting children and forcing nuns to wear Raiders jerseys and banning televised football and and requiring steaks to be cooked well done until there's no flavor left at all and requiring women to wear shapeless, padded, oversized clothing and implementing 80-hour work weeks and banning beer and replacing Dilbert with Marmaduke in all of their local papers and changing all airings of WKRP in Cincinnati reruns so that they end with the Black Plague striking Cincinnati.)

3. In the case of any scenarios involving soldiers' deaths, assume that the hostile country has declared war on us, and it wasn't our fault.

4. In the case of any scenarios that solely involve civilian deaths, assume that the country has not officially declared war on us, but has stated that they plan our demise and have ads in local papers recruiting terrorists.

5. Assume that our nuke would land in the middle of the country's capital city, killing the nation's leadership along with 1,000,000 of their citizens.

6. Assume that there would be reactions from other countries about our use of the nuke, and you can decide what those would be.

JBucc
01-07-2006, 11:32 AM
I'm for random nukings

beer bacon
01-07-2006, 11:33 AM
I'm for random nukings

Nuke the whales.

Count Zarth
01-07-2006, 11:45 AM
None of the above. Although growing extra arms and legs would be cool, I can use them.

Simplex3
01-07-2006, 11:50 AM
Much to the suprise of anyone that knows my political leanings, I'm a big "no" across the board, and here's why:

You drop a nuke and it isn't just the people you blow up that pay for it. They're the lucky ones. The people that pay for it are thousands of miles downwind for generations to come.

I'm a firm believer that too large a percentage of the brave men and women who die for our country do so because we force them to pussy-foot around in a war zone. If the military is there they need to be shooting people and breaking s**t. If they aren't then get them the f**k back home.

The problem with that is we're too spineless to actually wage a war anymore. You know, where you invade a country and destroy all supplies, manufacturing, food, utilities, etc? Where you kill anything that moves and has a gun (and some that don't do either)? The few things we do blow up we pay to replace with newer, state of the art replacements.

For instance: If your dumb ass was still in Fallujah with your kids after it had been cordoned off for days then you probably need to be dead. You KNEW the attack was coming. What, you thought you were somehow immune to gunfire?

JBucc
01-07-2006, 12:10 PM
In reality I don't think we need be dropping nukes on anyone unless We are about to be destroyed or something. Otherwise we can just kill the bad guys regular.

Mr. Laz
01-07-2006, 12:14 PM
you don't use nukes unless

1. someone else uses nukes on us first

2. we are facing immediate complete destruction (and you can't stress "immediate" enough in that statement)

Count Zarth
01-07-2006, 12:14 PM
In reality I don't think we need be dropping nukes on anyone unless We are about to be destroyed or something. Otherwise we can just kill the bad guys regular.

Surf over to the DC Forum and you can learn that WE are the bad guys!

Rain Man
01-07-2006, 12:17 PM
you don't use nukes unless

1. someone else uses nukes on us first

2. we are facing immediate complete destruction (and you can't stress "immediate" enough in that statement)

Is reason #2 an argument that Truman shouldn't have have dropped the bomb on Japan? Or was it different when no one else in the world had nukes?

Calcountry
01-07-2006, 12:25 PM
I voted for the show them who's boss option. Really, we should have used a tacticle nuke on Torah Borah.

Osama Joe Mama would be screwing virgins with his 2" penis right now.

kregger
01-07-2006, 12:26 PM
Only if Peter Sellers gets to push the button.

Mr. Laz
01-07-2006, 12:28 PM
Is reason #2 an argument that Truman shouldn't have have dropped the bomb on Japan? Or was it different when no one else in the world had nukes?
apples and oranges imo

1. war was vastly different back then. War was a slaughter-fest, a meat grinder soldiers dying by the thousands ... dropping the bomb may have actually saved lives in the long run.

2. i don't think they really even knew what the had in "the bomb". The impact of dropping a nuclear on the environment wasn't even thought of back then imo.

3. the world was different... countries are so intertwined now because of economics. The kill or be kill/world domination no longer exists on a country vrs country scale. Many other eco-political options exist that make using nukes much less acceptable.

4. [/edit] forgot ... the nukes are so much stronger now

ArrowheadHawk
01-07-2006, 12:31 PM
random :thumb:

Otter
01-07-2006, 12:45 PM
My theory:

Only use nuclear weapons as a response to a nuclear attack. You're opening up too big of a can worms.

kcfanXIII
01-07-2006, 12:45 PM
a huge NO accross the board. nukes are outdated. massive total annihaltion bombings are the way of the past. with the "perfection" of smart bombs that can hit specific military, and infrastructure targets it eliminates the need for the nukes. the bottom line is with the united states in such poor standing around the world, no excuse can be good enough to "fling nukes" because anytime we use them it will be seen as too aggressive, and we are opening the door for retalitory attacks. for example, we nuke, say kerplechicstan, the rest of the world would see this as an act of aggression. no matter what our justification was, china would see this as an oppertunity to launch attacks on us. the only reason nukes are still around is to insure we are not nuked ourselves. mutally assured destruction still dosen't sound too good to me.

Otter
01-07-2006, 12:48 PM
Is reason #2 an argument that Truman shouldn't have have dropped the bomb on Japan? Or was it different when no one else in the world had nukes?

It was different when no one else in the world had nukes. The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima (sp?) were also firecrackers compared to what even freakin' France has today.

Crush
01-07-2006, 12:51 PM
A BIG NO on nukes, unless you want to live on the Planet of the Apes. I, sir, do not.

Rausch
01-07-2006, 12:51 PM
a huge NO accross the board. nukes are outdated. massive total annihaltion bombings are the way of the past. with the "perfection" of smart bombs that can hit specific military, and infrastructure targets it eliminates the need for the nukes. the bottom line is with the united states in such poor standing around the world, no excuse can be good enough to "fling nukes" because anytime we use them it will be seen as too aggressive, and we are opening the door for retalitory attacks. for example, we nuke, say kerplechicstan, the rest of the world would see this as an act of aggression. no matter what our justification was, china would see this as an oppertunity to launch attacks on us. the only reason nukes are still around is to insure we are not nuked ourselves. mutally assured destruction still dosen't sound too good to me.

I bet these "new nukes" will be...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

Otter
01-07-2006, 12:51 PM
A BIG NO on nukes, unless you want to live on the Planet of the Apes. I, sir, do not.

It would be kind of cool to be able to deficate in public.

Count Zarth
01-07-2006, 12:54 PM
Hey Rain Man...are you just curious or are you...checking.

listopencil
01-07-2006, 12:54 PM
a huge NO accross the board. nukes are outdated. massive total annihaltion bombings are the way of the past. with the "perfection" of smart bombs that can hit specific military, and infrastructure targets it eliminates the need for the nukes. the bottom line is with the united states in such poor standing around the world, no excuse can be good enough to "fling nukes" because anytime we use them it will be seen as too aggressive, and we are opening the door for retalitory attacks. for example, we nuke, say kerplechicstan, the rest of the world would see this as an act of aggression. no matter what our justification was, china would see this as an oppertunity to launch attacks on us. the only reason nukes are still around is to insure we are not nuked ourselves. mutally assured destruction still dosen't sound too good to me.

Yep. In all seriousness situations requiring the destructive power of nuclear weapons would be incredibly rare and the consequences are huge.

Bacon Cheeseburger
01-07-2006, 12:57 PM
Rain Man, are you angry about something?

Rain Man
01-07-2006, 02:04 PM
I'm just pondering putting one down right at the crescendo of the 1812 Overture this July 4th. That would really create some 'oooohs' and 'aaaaahs' among the spectators.

Count Zarth
01-07-2006, 02:05 PM
I'm just pondering putting one down right at the crescendo of the 1812 Overture this July 4th. That would really create some 'oooohs' and 'aaaaahs' among the spectators.

My chemistry teacher always said it would make for a great show.

Rain Man
01-07-2006, 02:06 PM
My chemistry teacher always said it would make for a great show.

I'd be impressed.

Rain Man
01-07-2006, 02:09 PM
A lot of folks are saying that nukes should never be used, not even if doing so would save the lives of 10,000,000 Americans. That's a pretty strong statement.

I wonder if nukes could have any peacetime uses since they can't be used in war. For example, could we use nukes to create an opening in the Rocky Mountains so that I didn't have to drive up the mountains and then back down when I'm traveling west? Or how about using a nuke to create a great new harbor somewhere for oil tankers? Any other suggestions?

Rausch
01-07-2006, 02:11 PM
A lot of folks are saying that nukes should never be used, not even if doing so would save the lives of 10,000,000 Americans. That's a pretty strong statement.

I wonder if nukes could have any peacetime uses since they can't be used in war. For example, could we use nukes to create an opening in the Rocky Mountains so that I didn't have to drive up the mountains and then back down when I'm traveling west? Or how about using a nuke to create a great new harbor somewhere for oil tankers? Any other suggestions?

France...

Count Zarth
01-07-2006, 02:11 PM
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned John Elway.

Rain Man
01-07-2006, 02:12 PM
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned John Elway.

If he ever gets a cavity in one of those front tusks, they may need a nuke to blast it open for the filling.

Taco John
01-07-2006, 02:13 PM
For instance: If your dumb ass was still in Fallujah with your kids after it had been cordoned off for days then you probably need to be dead. You KNEW the attack was coming. What, you thought you were somehow immune to gunfire?



Property ownership has a way of affecting people in a way that makes them make some pretty poor choices when their property is infringed.

Rausch
01-07-2006, 02:16 PM
Property ownership has a way of affecting people in a way that makes them make some pretty poor choices when their property is infringed.

Life > Property...

luv
01-07-2006, 02:21 PM
France...
Not everything french is bad. French silk, french fries, french toast, french kissing, etc, etc, etc.

Otter
01-07-2006, 04:05 PM
A lot of folks are saying that nukes should never be used, not even if doing so would save the lives of 10,000,000 Americans. That's a pretty strong statement.

Hmmm, I'll try to refine my earlier post:

Given the weapons the USA has at it's disposal and the speed in which they can attack as well as world-wide military bases I don't see a secerio where nukes could be more effective than conventional weapons.

Unless zombies would overtake France or somthing like that. Imagine stinky, rude, beret wearing mindless living dead inhabiting the streets.

:hmmm:

If a scenerio, which I can't imagine, comes up where using nukes saves 10 million lives. Let 'em rip.