Flinging the nukes: When is it acceptable? - Page 2

**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.

Otter · 01-07-2006, 01:48 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?

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, 01:51 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, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

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 nukes are outdated.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.cg...NGM393GPK1.DTL

Otter · 01-07-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crush

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.

Hammock Parties · 01-07-2006, 01:54 PM

Hey Rain Man...are you just curious or are you...checking.

listopencil · 01-07-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

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.

**Bugeater** · 01-07-2006, 01:57 PM

Rain Man, are you angry about something?

**Rain Man** · 01-07-2006, 03:04 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.

Hammock Parties · 01-07-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

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

I'd be impressed.

**Rain Man** · 01-07-2006, 03:09 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, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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...

Hammock Parties · 01-07-2006, 03:11 PM

I'm surprised you haven't mentioned John Elway.

**Rain Man** · 01-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gochiefs

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, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplex3

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.

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: $2828491 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: 141,828

01-07-2006, 01:51 PM	#17
Crush Amateur Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Casino cash: $4827091	A BIG NO on nukes, unless you want to live on the Planet of the Apes. I, sir, do not.
Posts: 15,298

01-07-2006, 01:54 PM	#20
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4220478	Hey Rain Man...are you just curious or are you...checking. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 279,473

01-07-2006, 01:57 PM	#22
Bugeater The Maintenance Guy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Renovated Bugeater Estate Casino cash: $6232680	Rain Man, are you angry about something?
Posts: 70,443

01-07-2006, 03:04 PM	#23
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $2828491 VARSITY	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. __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,828

01-07-2006, 03:09 PM	#26
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $2828491 VARSITY	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? __________________ I'm putting random letters here as a celebration of free speech: xigrakgrah misorojeq rkemeseit.
Posts: 141,828

01-07-2006, 03:11 PM	#28
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4220478	I'm surprised you haven't mentioned John Elway. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 279,473