Bush and Nukes?

Aries

Aries

Vice Admiral
Well, to start another great debate, what do you guys think about the White House's "new" nuclear strategy. for those of you who don't know about that, the Bush Adm. says that if anyone threatens us or our friends, we will respond with everything we have. now it doesn't specificly say we will nuke them, but that threat is implied in the statement. so again, thoughts?
 
How is this different from the strategy we've been pursuing for the last 57 years? I fail to see why this is of the least bit of interest, as it represents absolutely no change whatsoever in US policy.
 
Yeah, this is pretty much the same thing the US has always said. They just like to repeat themselves every once in a while. It doesn't mean that they're actually going to use nuclear weapons, though.
 
It's not a different strategy. however, CNN is pursuing it as if it is a new revelation. Hell, half the news programs today have been focused on this issue. oh, and to add on to my previous thread, the policy also said something about if we think you have WMDs, well go after you with everything. just caught that a couple hours ago.
 
there's also the renewed interest in actual use of tactical nukes. since their fallout is minimal, they can be 'excused'.

-scheherazade
 
Christ, Ender, you whine like a woman. If I wanted a morality play, I'd go read Titus Andronicus.
 
US policy has always been to respond to aggression with an equivalent level of force, and more if necessary to get the job done. The US considers nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons to all be Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, the US is also extremely reluctant to use biological and chemical weapons (the number of drawbacks on the use of these two types of weapons is fairly sizeable).
Guess what that leaves?
If Saddam or someone else starts letting loose on us with an arsenal of chemical weapons, don't be too surprised if a tactical nuke or two goes off in response.
Just don't expect it in downtown Baghdad.

Yes, the US is the only nation to have ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger.
Yes, they were both dropped over largely civilian targets.
No, I don't buy the revisionist line that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, or that the US wanted to warn off the Soviets.
And before Ender goes posting links to 'evidence', I've already seen it all already, and quite frankly, I still don't buy it any more than I buy the crap about FDR 'letting' the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor.

Let me just close with this.
During the time period between then and now, the US is still the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in a war. Yes, its unfortunate that they had to be used at all, but given what had already happened, the long term consequences were probably for the best. And no matter what nation you are a citizen of, you should be grateful that it was the US that had the weapons, and not some other nation. The US is hardly perfect, and has done a lot of really stupid and/or immoral things in the past, but the its citizens generally try to do the right thing, and have a habit of keeping its leaders in check, as well as periodically dropping into isolationism and wishing the rest of the world would just go away and leave us alone. That's a lot more than you can say for 99% of the other nations out there (and yes, I realize that those figures only leave enough room for a couple of other nations), including many of our European allies.
 
I'm tired of thinking (or even hearing) about America's relations with other nations. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to curl up into my jaded teenage shell and try to forget that anything outside my cave of a room exists.
 
"You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 El Dorado convertible - Hot pink! With whale-skin hubcaps, an all-leather cow interior, and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights! Yeah! And I'm gonna drive down the highway at 100 miles an hour, Gettin' one mile per gallon, wolfin' down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds that come in those old-fashioned, non-biodegradeable styrofoam containers. And when I'm done suckin' down those greaseball burgers, I'm gonna throw the containers right out the side, and wipe my mouth on the American flag, and there's not a God-damn thing anybody can do about it! You know why? Two words - nuclear fuckin' weapons! Russia, Germany, Romania, they can have all the democracy they want, They can have a big democracy cakewalk right through the middle of Tiennamen Square And it won't make a lick of difference, because we got the bombs. Okay?

"John Wayne's not dead, he's frozen! And when we find a cure for cancer, We're gonna thaw'r out the Duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off! You know how pissed the Duke's gonna be? Have you ever taken a cold shower? Well multiply that by fifteen million and that's how pissed the Duke's gonna be. I'm gonna get the Duke, and Lee Marvin, and John Casavetti and a case of Whiskey..."

- "Asshole" by Dennis Leary
 
I doubt that Bush, or any sane politician, would actually resort to using nukes, tactical or otherwise.
The problem with people like Bin Laden and Saddam is that they do not have any respect for the power, and consequences, of nuclear weapons. So they look at them as sort of the ultimate weapon.
In my opinion the ultimate weapon would be a fully armed carrier battlegroup supported by JSTARS aircraft.
It's extremely unlikely that it would come down to us launching nukes, although it would serve Osama and Saddam right for being such assholes.
 
Pay no attention to the "if Saddam gets nuclear weapons, he'll use them because he's mad" crowd. Everybody is intimidated by nuclear weapons, and everybody that want nuclear weapons, want them primarily as a deterrent. Everybody knows the consequences they would face if they actually used nuclear weapons, and nobody wants to face those consequences. There are no psychopathic "rogue states" that want to start up WWIII or whatever.

This is why nuclear weapons are so great, and this is why Bush said what he said - deterrents aren't much use if people forget that you have them.
 
Dang, LeHah, you sure know how to live. But you forgot eradication of homosexuals for sport.:p
 
Unfortunately, much of the Middle Eastern world isn't necessarily filled with individuals who think as rationally as you or I, Quarto. I've heard the occasional quote from Arab residents of that region who are convinced that if Saddam, or any other Arab nation, does get a nuke, it'll go off over Tel Aviv that afternoon. Truth be told, given the corruption, graft, religious fanaticism, hatred of Israel, and general corruption in much of the region, I suspect that the wishes of the nation in question are almost irrelevent. When someone develops a nuke, word is going to get out, and the terrorists will stop at nothing to get their hands on it.
 
Originally posted by Ripper
Dang, LeHah, you sure know how to live. But you forgot eradication of homosexuals for sport.:p
Click to expand...

In the nation of LeHah, all are welcome except those that force their own morals and values on others.

(Yes, I realize thats a double-standard statement)
 
Originally posted by Aries
Well, to start another great debate, what do you guys think about the White House's "new" nuclear strategy. for those of you who don't know about that, the Bush Adm. says that if anyone threatens us or our friends, we will respond with everything we have. now it doesn't specificly say we will nuke them, but that threat is implied in the statement. so again, thoughts?
Click to expand...

I hope that nuclear warfare does not happen. Bush said that they would nuke the country responsible for September 11th on the afternoon or evening of September 11th. I'm glad that has not eventuated. Also, it would be a world ending act of hypocracy if this was the case.

Originally posted by Aries
oh, and to add on to my previous thread, the policy also said something about if we think you have WMDs, well go after you with everything. just caught that a couple hours ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what context is the statement made in? Nuke those who have nukes? Do everything in their power to prove that they have nukes?

Originally posted by scheherazade
there's also the renewed interest in actual use of tactical nukes. since their fallout is minimal, they can be 'excused'.

-scheherazade
Click to expand...

Which to me is a scary thought. SAS? Sure. Nukes? Hell no!

Originally posted by Ender
Let's just rembemer some history, before we repeat it.[/QUOTE

Yes, lets.

Originally posted by junior
If Saddam or someone else starts letting loose on us with an arsenal of chemical weapons, don't be too surprised if a tactical nuke or two goes off in response.
Click to expand...

As a country would have a right to, but I firmly believe we should destroy these world massecring devices.

Originally posted by junior
Yes, the US is the only nation to have ever detonated nuclear weapons in anger.
Click to expand...

And that's what scares me.

Originally posted by junior
Let me just close with this.
During the time period between then and now, the US is still the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in a war. Yes, its unfortunate that they had to be used at all, but given what had already happened, the long term consequences were probably for the best. And no matter what nation you are a citizen of, you should be grateful that it was the US that had the weapons, and not some other nation. The US is hardly perfect, and has done a lot of really stupid and/or immoral things in the past, but the its citizens generally try to do the right thing, and have a habit of keeping its leaders in check, as well as periodically dropping into isolationism and wishing the rest of the world would just go away and leave us alone.
Click to expand...

Very well put.

Originally posted by WildWeasel
I'm tired of thinking (or even hearing) about America's relations with other nations. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to curl up into my jaded teenage shell and try to forget that anything outside my cave of a room exists.
Click to expand...

I've done that before. Take cover in my slightly older and more dented shell with...anyway. I do want to forget about these these things sometimes. But I think it's a sin to close my eyes to it forever.

Originally posted by Shaggy
I doubt that Bush, or any sane politician, would actually resort to using nukes, tactical or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I hope not.

Originally posted by Shaggy
The problem with people like Bin Laden and Saddam is that they do not have any respect for the power, and consequences, of nuclear weapons. So they look at them as sort of the ultimate weapon.
Click to expand...

If I can just step into the realm of Wing Commander for a minute, think Tolwyn and his Behemoth.

Originally posted by Shaggy
In my opinion the ultimate weapon would be a fully armed carrier battlegroup supported by JSTARS aircraft.
Click to expand...

Or the Tiger's Claw. In my opinion the greatest group of pilots in Wing Commander, period.

Originally posted by Shaggy
It's extremely unlikely that it would come down to us launching nukes, although it would serve Osama and Saddam right for being such assholes.
Click to expand...

It would. But thankfully I think we're better than that.

Originally posted by Quarto
Pay no attention to the "if Saddam gets nuclear weapons, he'll use them because he's mad" crowd. Everybody is intimidated by nuclear weapons, and everybody that want nuclear weapons, want them primarily as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

I think that people like Binladen, and possibly Saddam Hussain as well, see it as the ultimate weapon to use against infidels. But countries like America making threats to use nukes are empty, and I feel that nukes are too good a deterrent, in so far as it strikes terror into the hearts of people the world over.

Originally posted by Quarto
Everybody[/i] knows the consequences they would face if they actually used nuclear weapons, and nobody wants to face those consequences. There are no psychopathic "rogue states" that want to start up WWIII or whatever.
Click to expand...

Binladen?

Originally posted by Quarto

This is why nuclear weapons are so great,
Click to expand...

Great?

Originally posted by Quarto
and this is why Bush said what he said - deterrents aren't much use if people forget that you have them.
Click to expand...

That's true I guess.

Originally posted by junior
Unfortunately, much of the Middle Eastern world isn't necessarily filled with individuals who think as rationally as you or I, Quarto. I've heard the occasional quote from Arab residents of that region who are convinced that if Saddam, or any other Arab nation, does get a nuke, it'll go off over Tel Aviv that afternoon. Truth be told, given the corruption, graft, religious fanaticism, hatred of Israel, and general corruption in much of the region, I suspect that the wishes of the nation in question are almost irrelevent. When someone develops a nuke, word is going to get out, and the terrorists will stop at nothing to get their hands on it.
Click to expand...

Words that are so true under a sky so blue. Hey, I'm a poet and I wasn't aware of it. Damn. Seriously, wise words.

Originally posted by LeHah
In the nation of LeHah, all are welcome except those that force their own morals and values on others.

(Yes, I realize thats a double-standard statement)
Click to expand...

No it's not. Giving your opinion is one thing. Forcing others to believe what you believe is quite another.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by junior
Unfortunately, much of the Middle Eastern world isn't necessarily filled with individuals who think as rationally as you or I, Quarto. I've heard the occasional quote from Arab residents of that region who are convinced that if Saddam, or any other Arab nation, does get a nuke, it'll go off over Tel Aviv that afternoon.
Click to expand...
I'll admit, with somebody like Bin Laden, it's difficult to know what the hell he would do (but not with Saddam - he is a more conventional leader, and he would not do it, because he has an interest in remaining in power). But even this is not because he is irrational, but simply because he has managed to so far conceal his real behaviour beneath tonnes of rhethoric. Nonetheless, remember, it's tempting to think that those people - the others are less rational than we are. But guess what, they think the same of us :).

Phillip: Yes, nuclear weapons are great. They're wonderful. How can I say that? I can say that, because they prevent wars. I couldn't care less what their actual potential for destroying the world is, the fact is that they've saved more lives than any other weapon in history. Look at the recent almost-war between Pakistan and India. Do you think the US would have sent Powell in there to look for a solution, if it wasn't for nuclear weapons?
 
just to add to what Quarto said, I think the major reason India and Pakistan didn't go to war was because they had nukes.

and for Saddam, the thing I'm worried about is what happens when Saddam is on his deathbed and he has nukes. We've seen how much he cares for his own people, so what's to stop him from launching a nuke a somebody else, when he's already gonna die soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top