Hiroshima.....Nagasaki......AND......?

This is a discussion on Hiroshima.....Nagasaki......AND......? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So lets see if i got this right. Our President is saying that we should (maybe)nuke Iran cuz they have WMD ??? Hmmmmmm ??? Hey,Mr. ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Hiroshima.....Nagasaki......AND......?

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array RSSZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,843
    So lets see if i got this right. Our President is saying that we should (maybe)nuke Iran cuz they have WMD ??? Hmmmmmm ??? Hey,Mr. president,what about our borders??---------

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array .45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    570
    Saw this story on CNN and Fox News.
    No friends left anywhere in the world if this happens but then again in my opinion G.B. was the only real ally we've had in years.

  4. #18
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    So lets see if i got this right. Our President is saying that we should (maybe)nuke Iran cuz they have WMD ??? Hmmmmmm ??? Hey,Mr. president,what about our borders??---------

    No.
    Nuking our borders would be a definate no-no.





  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    Even the insane leaders will back off using WMD's if threatened with credible retaliation. Hitler had nerve and blistering agents, but never used them because of the threat of retaliation with like by the allies. Saddam Hussein had them in the first Gulf War for sure, (since he used them afterward on the Kurds) but did not use them against coalition forces due the the announcement that "special weapons" (i.e. nukes, nerve gas) would be used by the coalition in response to chemical or biological attacks.

    Still, allowing a regime with a history of backing terrorists, with a visibly irrational leader to obtain nuclear weapons is tantamount to standing by while a serial murderer makes plans to kill and not calling the police. Our policy towards Iran should be that any use by Iran or any terrorist organization of nuclear weapons on any of the friends or allies of the US will be considered to be a declaration of nuclear war on the US and the response will be in kind, but of a MUCH greater magnitude.

    Not having plans to use nuclear weapons to deny the creation of nuclear weapons by an insane government would be criminally negligent by our military and government.

    Lastly, make no mistake, that the capability of enriching Uranium by a country with one of the greatest known oil fields and reserves in the Middle East and the world is not for peaceful purposes, but for development of nuclear weapons.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array PatrioticRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rigby, Idaho
    Posts
    5,142
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter
    It reads like a Web~Fake article to me.
    Just my opinion on that.
    "War of the Worlds" part two
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    USN 78-82/USAF 82-93 Medically Retired
    Desert Shield/Desert Storm
    DAV Life Member
    NRA Life Member

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns
    The "actual" use of nuclear weapons has been discussed by every president since they were developed.
    In fact it is a matter of history that General westmoreland requested their use in Vietnam just about every six months during his portion of the war.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight
    I'd agree that the *option* for a nuke is one that should be kept open just in case. But to decide to actually do it?...
    See I think there are some misperceptions about this concept of using nukes on Iran. We're not speaking of thermonuclear bombs here...no 15 megaton "city busters" Nothing probably even approaching Hiroshima at 14-17 Kilotons. What is being discussed is a very narrowly specialized munition called a Bunker Buster. It's designed to penetrate deep through rock and reinforced concrete and rubble underground structures and kill personnel by a short burst of radiation. It's like a snipers bullet. Just because they flip a nuke cruise missile into a patch of dirt in downtown Teheran, doesn't mean the whole city gets vaporized! In fact, if it were dropped in the midst of a wholescale bombardment via B52 or B2 or B1's it's possible that folks won't even notice the nuke detonation. :flamethrowingsmiley
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,741
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier762
    See I think there are some misperceptions about this concept of using nukes on Iran. We're not speaking of thermonuclear bombs here...no 15 megaton "city busters" Nothing probably even approaching Hiroshima at 14-17 Kilotons. What is being discussed is a very narrowly specialized munition called a Bunker Buster. It's designed to penetrate deep through rock and reinforced concrete and rubble underground structures and kill personnel by a short burst of radiation. It's like a snipers bullet. Just because they flip a nuke cruise missile into a patch of dirt in downtown Teheran, doesn't mean the whole city gets vaporized! In fact, if it were dropped in the midst of a wholescale bombardment via B52 or B2 or B1's it's possible that folks won't even notice the nuke detonation. :flamethrowingsmiley
    True. But I'm not just in reference to the environmental impacts. However small and specific the blast, the term itself, "nuke", would cause worldwide panic, hate, and discontent, however unwarranted it is (not that we don't have the last two anyway). The repercussions need to be carefully considered and it needs to be decided that having the entire world against us is worth what the mission would accomplish.

    If we are positive that doing it would keep a blatantly terrorist country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, using our own nuke might just be the lesser of two evils, especially if there is good data saying our conventional bunker busters won't get the job done.
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperKnight
    The term itself, "nuke", would cause worldwide panic, hate, and discontent, however unwarranted it is (not that we don't have the last two anyway). The repercussions need to be carefully considered and it needs to be decided that having the entire world against us is worth what the mission would accomplish.

    If we are positive that doing it would keep a blatantly terrorist country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, using our own nuke might just be the lesser of two evils, especially if there is good data saying our conventional bunker busters won't get the job done.
    So don't call it a "NUKE!" Call it a "Device." Call the transport the Easter Bunny and he's set to drop eggs everywhere.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  11. #25
    Senior Member Array .45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    570
    Now we wouldn't want the whole world against us would we?

    Oops, they already are, sorry.

  12. #26
    1952 - 2006
    Array acparmed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    1,371
    When I was in the military it was taught that nuclear war was inevitable. The purpose of the US military was to delay that inevitability as long as possible.

    I have always believed that that someone, somewhere is going to make one go POP and once that happens then suddenly the world is going to become a lot less populated with large chunks of the planet uninhabitable for the next few thousand years.

    We have had all these nuclear weapons in the world for over 50 years now and the governments of the world are like a bunch of kids who have a box full of toys and they pretend like they are never going to take them out to play with them. I think it's naive to believe that way.

    IMO it's not a question of if, it's when and how bad?

    As for a plan to use them, it would be rediculous not to have a plan. The longer we can put off having a nuke go off anywhere in the world the closer we will come to a technology that will prevent their use, making nuclear weapons obsolete.

    Personally, I don't think that most of humanity is smart enough not to destroy ourselves at some point in time. I think that our technology has advanced a lot faster than our wisdom to use it.

    Nukes are bad but what really threatens us is the germ world. Bio weapons, I think, are what will result in the destruction of humankind.

    IMO.

    (Sorry to sidetrack the thread)
    Heroes are people who do what has to be done, when it has to be done, regardless of the consequences

    "I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the ******** are and can kill them."
    ~George Patton

    DE OPPRESSO LIBER

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    It's only overt uses of nukes that will get the US in trouble with certain other countries. Do you really think the Iranians could ever prove that one of our stealth bombers dropped a stealthed nuclear bunker buster that burrowed deep into the ground and detonated? We could just get on TV and say "We told you nuclear bombs are dangerous, now one of your so-called peaceful installations blew itself up." Since there would be so much of their radioisotopes contaminating the site, they could not even determine the weapon's "signature".

    acparmed is right about the bio-weapons though.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by acparmed
    Nukes are bad but what really threatens us is the germ world. Bio weapons, I think, are what will result in the destruction of humankind.
    Actually, I'm not worried at all about terrorist use of bio-weapons. They're after the sound bite...the photo op. They want the BIG BANG. Lots of vaporized bodies and buildings. 911 on super steroids.

    They'll know that first off an epidemic artificially begun is difficult to guarantee proper vectors for spreading. They'll know that our gov't will lie their butts off and call any outbreak a "natural" event, not an attack.

    Having said that, I do worry about things like the Bird Flu. I'm not worried about terrorists...they're just scum. I fear the wrath of God.
    Last edited by ExSoldier; April 12th, 2006 at 03:01 AM.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation Roflmao!

    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan
    It's only overt uses of nukes that will get the US in trouble with certain other countries. Do you really think the Iranians could ever prove that one of our stealth bombers dropped a stealthed nuclear bunker buster that burrowed deep into the ground and detonated? We could just get on TV and say "We told you nuclear bombs are dangerous, now one of your so-called peaceful installations blew itself up." Since there would be so much of their radioisotopes contaminating the site, they could not even determine the weapon's "signature".


    ~GASP GASP~ That's a good one! I agree!
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array .45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier762
    I'm not worried about terrorists...they're just men. I fear the wrath of God.
    Is that a typo Ex?
    I read it as:
    I'm not worried about terrorists...they're just scum. I fear the wrath of God.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. The last train from Hiroshima
    By big gary in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 5th, 2010, 11:18 PM
  2. American Hiroshima?
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 6th, 2005, 09:29 AM