Nukes are not nukes are not nukes. For Eris’s sake, an M-80 is not C4 is not PETN just because they are all chemical explosives. Sweeping proclamations about poorly understood attack devices isn’t gogint to win you any points in this debate.
No nukes!
No nukes!
No nukes!
No nukes!
(Raise your hand if you didn’t see that one coming.)
No, I don’t understand 'em. But I seen what they can do and I don’t want 'em. 97% fusion or not, they are a weapon of mass destruction - and using one renders the United States government unto complete hypocrisy.
Feeling’s mutual. 
Well, not completely, anyway - we are on the same side of not using nukes here.
Sory if this thread is dead, but I’d just like to clear some things up. I am not advocating turning the other cheek and letting terrorists of scott free. I think we should take millitary action to bring these assholes to justice. If they shoot, shoot back. But dont bring yourselves to the same level as them by killing innocents.
And saying that citizens of Afghanastan are directly responsible for the acts of their country is fucking insane. I dont think any Afghani voted for the Taliban or for Bin Laden. Saying that is just like saying YOU are responsible for the Kent State shootings, and YOU are responsible for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The government does a lot of unpopular things all the time. I am not responsible for the death of Timothy McVeigh just because my government killed him. I’m rambling, but I feel strongly about my “morally corupt” cause.
think peace,
JB
Ps. No where in this thread did I ever advocate “peace at any cost” Please dont put words in my mouth.
Olen, you are the champion of calm I must say, as irritated as I am with you in two threads you’ve got a cool head and I don’t.
But “weapon of mass destruction” also does not apply to all nuclear devices. Admittedly, it probably applies to all fusion (and hence “clean”) nuclear devices, though. I don’t know if we can instigate a fusion chain-reaction in a msll enough payload for a super-effective yet amazingly small explosion.
But if he’s holed up in a mountain one clean nuke will indeed be called for (assuming, again, that we resort to violence in the first place, which I think is 99.9% likely). What worries me is that the terrorists are going to pull a Saddam and hide inside heavily populated-by-civilian areas and that any violence will result in huge damage to a relatively innocent population.
I just know that there are times to use a nuke, and there are nukes for most big jobs, and there is no telling the future. I don’t want this country to limit its options over arbitrary ideals.
In fact, I think that is why some Congressmen were making statements about recognizing that there will be damage done to innocent civilians… because these persons are likely to hide amongst the innocent, and the conviction now is strong enough to not let that hamper a reactionary strike with proactive consequences.
Will that make us, or them, look bad? I say both, but history will probably not be so objective.
I stand by my conviction that a government should and does operate off a utilitarian-style morality, and as such, can find any number of justifications in retribution through damage to enemy populations.
I am aware that you have a different view of government, and as much as this sounds like pawning one debate off on another, I don’t think we’ll see personal resolution here, comrade.
Thank you, sir. And I mean that in all sincerity.
See, here’s where I’m confused. If you can call a ‘small’ or ‘clean’ nuke, which is designed to minimize immediate destruction and fallout yield, a “weapon of mass destruction”, why can’t you call a larger, ‘dirty’ nuke the same thing? Clearly dirty nukes have more destructive power over the short and the long term.
Well, I’m definitely going to speak out against retaliation now, before the decision is made - whether or not it makes any difference - but even if retaliation is decided upon, I don’t think even “one clean nuke” will be called for. Especially since, as you yourself agree, it’s a weapon of mass destruction.
It’s been doing that for 55 years now, thank God. What are the times to use a nuke?
This just sets my mind reeling. They’re saying the slaughter of innocents elsewhere in the world is acceptable because innocents at home lost their lives. Madness, in my opinion.
I would rather history not have to judge this kind of action in the first place.
Utilitarianism is ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, is it not? How can a tennis game of destruction be good for anyone directly in the path of the attack? To me, the greatest good for the greatest number would be a world where both terrorism and nuclear retaliation are positively unthinkable.
OK, first off all y’all quit calling me ‘comrade’. It’s not a term even us Reds bandy about lightly, and coming from anyone who isn’t a Socialist, it generally comes off as snide and patronizing.
You’re probably right about not seeing personal resolution. Debates rarely ever end up there, especially when coming from truly diametrically opposed positions. That’s life, though, innit? Time will tell how well our positions hold up, since opinions do sooner or later collide with reality.
"WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK." -T.R.
"WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK." -T.R.
It’s time to swing the stick.
At this point, anybody who doesn’t think there is going to be a violent response to this action is deluding themselves. At the same time, our leadership appears to be fairly rational, so there probably won’t be any indiscriminate nuclear carpet bombing. Any solution will lie somewhere in between.
We’re going to have to make in unacceptable for nations to aid and abet terrorism in any fashion. If this can be done by economic sanctions, then I’m all for it. However, nearly ten years of crippling economic sanctions against Iraq have done just about squat. If it comes down to military actions against other countries, there will be civilian casualties. I’ll grieve for them, but it won’t stop me from supporting it.
As for the person trying to compare Osama bin Laden to Timoty McVeigh, your rationalizers must be over spinning and strained to the limit. They were both trained by the US military. Millions of people are trained by the US military, you can’t hold the government responsible if some of them take their training and us it against the public.
p.s. Shut up Kalt, you’re an idiot.
Addendum, FWIW.
I personally am in the Retired Reserve, and have been wondering if/when I’m going to get a letter from the Army Reserve Personnel Command. There might not be much use for computer programmers in the present conflict, but my first MOS was Tank/Armor Crewman (commander).
I was saying that both you and the terrorists want to damage civilians. Also that both you and the terrorists want to do it out of retaliation.
I am not defending the terrorist mindset in the name of safety for America. How is America nuking Afghanistan not terrorism? Its certainly not war as war would be fighting against targets who can fight back. War would be going after the terrorists. You could call nuking the capitol a massacre.
**
They shot.
Oh, I’m sorry. They used our mothers and fathers, grandmas and grandpas, husbands and wives, children and best friends - as bombs.
So killing innocent Arabs is ok because…
They shot, and killed mayn innocent people. Discusting terrorists. Lets try not to stoop to their level. Dont kill civilians.
It’s a pretty simple idea, although it might be hard to carry out. that is for the millitary to plan, not me. But, unfortunately, I think most in the millitary have the same mindset as you, Milo, FUCK THE ARAB CIVILIANS!!! THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED JUST FOR BEING ARABS. Give me a break.
peace,
JB
So sure of this, are you? Many people in the world would disagree, myself included.
We are not a “Good Neighbor” and our holier-than-thou attitude that we are is at least partially responsible for what’s happened to us. We dabble in much of the world, piss off many, and don’t really care. Some of us aren’t even aware of it, like yourself.
I hope we piss a lot of people off when we respond to this attack.
That doesn’t really address Mekhazzio’s post at all.
peace,
JB
[quote]
We are not a “Good Neighbor” and our holier-than-thou attitude that we are is at least partially responsible for what’s happened to us. We dabble in much of the world, piss off many, and don’t really care. Some of us aren’t even aware of it, like yourself.
[quote]
Sooo, the “people” that arranged that wonderful deed on Tuesday morning were acting as a “Good Neighbor” and didn’t have a “holier-than-thou” attitude? They don’t dabble in much of the world, piss off many, and, don’t really care?
These guys use violence and terror to kill thousands of your innocent countrymen, and “we” are the bad guys?
Oceans_11, I dont think thats what Mekhazzio is getting at. He is just saying that the US is not always the Brady Bunch of the world. We fuck up, we do bad things, we piss people off enough that they want to hurt us bad.
I think what he is trying to say is that if we retaliate with a nuclear attack, which is what this thread is about, and needlessly kill innocent Afghan civilians, we are NO BETTER THAT TERRORISTS. If that is not what you’re saying Mekhazzio, I apologize. But it is what I am saying. KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN RETALIATION MAKES US TERRORISTS.
peace,
JB
I believe it was stated earlier in this thread that the point is to try and AVOID needlessly killing innocent Afghan civilians. Aside from “Kalt”, no one on this thread supported indiscriminate killing of ANY civilians.
I personally know survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have heard their stories of people coming out of caves and shelters and hanging themselves at the horror of the devestation. But they also understand why this force was necessary, and respect the U.S. as much as any other American I know.
No better than terrorists? No better than terrorists?
The world has show unprecidented resolve for peaceful relations between warring nations. Do we occupy states? NO. STAND DOWN, we say. QUIT BEING A DICK TO YOUR CITIZENS, we say. We send in diplomats by the truckload.
Civilized nations all over the world have sought peaceful resolutions to conflicts time adn time and time again. Don’t conquer. Get your own country together. Quit oppressing people.
You can be a fucking dictatorship. You can be a religious state. Just…don’t…be…a…dick.
You tell me where this diplomacy has taken us. Because as far as I can see, it accomplished providing jobs for diplomats. In the end, these governments allowed terrorists to occupy their borders. And why shouldn’t they? They weren’t harming the state, and they weren’t acting in official capacity in any way. “Hey, we don’t like them either.”
Well, diplomacy be damned. Are you going to go over to the Palestinian revolutionaries and sing “Give Peace a Chance?” Israel gave peace a chance when it offered them land in exchange for peace. Israel still holds that land.
Sorry. This rhetoric serves no purpose. They don’t like America meddling in their affairs? Then quit… being… dicks. What, we jump at the chance to offer support? We like giving food out to refugees? We love juggling public opinion where we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t? Where when we fail to act people wonder at our gluttony and selfishness, and when we do act people accuse us of imperialism? STOP KILLING EACH OTHER and we wouldn’t be there in the first place.
We are dealing with an area where MAD doesn’t apply to the most dangerous citizens. And you want to rule out nukes? The nukes don’t scare the terrorists, and the people don’t turn out these people to avoid an armed response.
Pakistan pledged some support for America today. Why do you think that is? Because they know what our diplomats can do? Because they want to give peace a chance? No way. Because they know the rest of the world is fed up with terrorism, and the big guns are bing oiled as we speak. They were in no hurry to hamper terrorists because there was no immediate need to.
This has changed. The threat of an armed response did this. Nuclear attack is a real fear, and we should damn well keep it that way. It is time for someone else to walk on eggshells now. It is time for someone else to request the peace talks. It is time for someone else to be reactive.
'Cause the US isn’t. And it doesn’t seem like NATO is going to either.
I abhor physical violence. I support peace like no one I know. But I’m not going to look suicide bombers and their ilk in the face and pretend they want to talk it out. They have demonstrated time and time again that they don’t want to talk.
Well, neither do we.