Flinging the nukes: When is it acceptable?

**Rain Man** · 01-07-2006, 12:27 PM

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, 12:32 PM

I'm for random nukings

beer bacon · 01-07-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBucc

I'm for random nukings

Nuke the whales.

Hammock Parties · 01-07-2006, 12:45 PM

None of the above. Although growing extra arms and legs would be cool, I can use them.

Simplex3 · 01-07-2006, 12:50 PM

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, 01:10 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, 01:14 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)

Hammock Parties · 01-07-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBucc

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, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz

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, 01:25 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, 01:26 PM

Only if Peter Sellers gets to push the button.

Mr. Laz · 01-07-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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, 01:31 PM

random

Otter · 01-07-2006, 01:45 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, 01:45 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.

View Poll Results: I would fling a nuke to save ... (Check all that apply.)
1,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	6	25.00%
1,000 U.S. civilians on foreign soil (think worldwide attacks on embassies, ships, and tourists)	5	20.83%
1,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist attack)	4	16.67%
10,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	5	20.83%
10,000 U.S. civilians on foreign soil (think worldwide attacks embassies, ships, and tourists)	6	25.00%
10,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist attack)	8	33.33%
100,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	7	29.17%
100,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist nuclear or bioterror attack)	7	29.17%
1,000,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	7	29.17%
1,000,000 U.S. civilians on American soil (think terrorist nuclear or bioterror attack)	7	29.17%
10,000,000 U.S. soldiers on foreign soil (think invasion/occupation of a country that has declared war on us)	7	29.17%
10,000,000 U.S. soldiers and civilians on American soil (think another country invading U.S. soil)	6	25.00%
10,000,000 U.S. soldiers and civilians on American soil (think another country invading U.S. soil), BUT the nuke must be dropped on an American city that is already under their control, killing 1,000,000 Americans	4	16.67%
None of the above. These don't provide adequate justification for letting the nuclear genie out of the atomic bottle in this day and age.	5	20.83%
I think we should use nukes occasionally and randomly just to remind the rest of the world who’s boss.	12	50.00%
What's a nuke?	2	8.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

01-07-2006, 12:27 PM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3068491 VARSITY	Flinging the nukes: When is it acceptable? 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.
Posts: 141,638

01-07-2006, 12:45 PM	#4
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4460478	None of the above. Although growing extra arms and legs would be cool, I can use them. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 278,589

01-07-2006, 12:50 PM	#5
Simplex3 MVP Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $10004900	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 st. If they aren't then get them the fk 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?
Posts: 28,527

01-07-2006, 01:10 PM	#6
JBucc MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Casino cash: $10004952	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.
Posts: 12,016

01-07-2006, 12:32 PM	#2
JBucc MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Casino cash: $10004952	I'm for random nukings
Posts: 12,016

01-07-2006, 01:14 PM	#7
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	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) __________________
Posts: 95,626

01-07-2006, 01:25 PM	#10
Calcountry Shoot the tube Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $8721645	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. __________________
Posts: 28,250

01-07-2006, 01:26 PM	#11
kregger thick as a brick Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: alpha centauri Casino cash: $10004925	Only if Peter Sellers gets to push the button.
Posts: 964

01-07-2006, 01:31 PM	#13
ArrowheadHawk Rock Chalk! Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Topeka, KS Casino cash: $7964961	random
Posts: 15,672

01-07-2006, 01:45 PM	#15
kcfanXIII Ride on! Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Galaxy far far away Casino cash: $10013172	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. __________________ Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed, overcomes the fear of death.
Posts: 5,470