Are they serious??

Do you see how perfect this is? Now Bush doesn’t even have to TRY and find WMD’s- he can simply say, “We got em in the blast. Next?”

Excellant, Ive always advocated that we put our nukes to good use. Why send in troops when we can simply erase them from the map with nukes?

@cystic:

The Pentagon proposal - The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations seeks to justify a pre-emptive attack on so-called terrorists or on a nation thought to host WMDs.

Excuse me, but does this mean that Iraq would have been nuked for its WMDs?

I’ll just make the assumption this is correct since you don’t have a link…even though you always blast me for not posting a link on statements such as these…

Producing an executive order to this effect does not mean we’ll ever use it. If the Union of Soviet SOCIALISTS Republics had ever launched on us, I highly doubt we would have retalliated, even though there was an executive order to do so. However, having the order does make the opponent think before engaging in acts that might put that order into effect, and in this case, that might be all they are looking to do.

Now, let’s assume they actually do it, in a matter of days we can have feet on the street in these nations clearing up debris and helping survivors. So it boils down to only a matter of numbers, number of American lives that can be saved vs number of enemies that might be destroyed that do not have to be. Which is more valuable?

In my mind, 1 American soldier that does not come home in a pine box is more important then a thousand enemy soldiers/citizens. If I were a Russian citizens, I’d say 1 Russian soldier is worth more then 1000 enemy soldiers/citizens.

But that’s not really my decision to make. That’s the Pentagon and President’s decision to make. I’d also wager their threshhold would be a lot closer to 1:10 then 1:1000 or more.

Add to that the international stigma of firing nuclear material - clean as it is - against a foreign nation. Hell, the UN cringes when we test fire nuclear rocket delivery systems even without nuclear material on board!

So that further reduces the odds we’ll actually fire nukes at an enemy nation, terrorist or not.

Finally, there are the smattering of other nations that have nuclear arsenals that can reach the United States. Reagan’s and Bush’s (Jr) Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Shield is not currently working at 100%, so we’d have to assume some collateral damage on our own soil.

So, in my opinion, this further reduces the odds we’d actually fire nukes at an enemy nation to almost nothing, regardless of terrorist activities there.

So when do I think we would fire? I think we’d fire if, and only if, we feel that we are in emminant danger of complete destruction including non-combatants and combatants of our own citizenry and way of life and then, only if firing these weapons would save our citizenry and way of life from said destruction.

Link?

I’m wondering what the impetus is for this.

Why send in troops when we can simply erase them from the map with nukes?

Because, you know, that how a nuclear war is triggered.

@Jennifer:

Now, let’s assume they actually do it, in a matter of days we can have feet on the street in these nations clearing up debris and helping survivors.

Lol, you mean like in Orleans?

Now, let’s assume they actually do it, in a matter of days we can have feet on the street in these nations clearing up debris and helping survivors.

Now let’s not be silly here. The reason that nukes are difficult to use tactically is because our troops wouldn’t be able to enter the radiation-soaked land afterwards.

@Yanny:

Now, let’s assume they actually do it, in a matter of days we can have feet on the street in these nations clearing up debris and helping survivors.

Now let’s not be silly here. The reason that nukes are difficult to use tactically is because our troops wouldn’t be able to enter the radiation-soaked land afterwards.

Our nuclear weapons are much cleaner then those of some foreign countries. If the United States were to fire off a nuclear weapon, say from a Stealth Bomber, we could have feet on the street within 7-10 days depending on the weather. We could have unprotected feet on the street in mere weeks after that as we wash off some of the more hot areas with clean water flushing the radiation down and containing it.

This is no longer 1950’s technology. A nuclear blast isn’t going to irradiate a city for 150 years.

@cystic:

@Yanny:

Link?

I’m wondering what the impetus is for this.

Sorry Yanny:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf

It is kind of weird given the context that this document houses the iteration of use of WMD’s. It includes those enemies that it considers may possibly develop excessive conventional weapons.

It just seems to me that the changing dynamics of war should put the whole nuclear thing even further on the back burner than it had been during the cold war. (Having said this, i should point out that i think that all nuclear/other WMD’s should be destroyed. I’m quite certain that the US armed forces as it exists is more than capable of destroying large groups of people without the additional sloppiness that is the nuclear bomb.)

How can you guarentee that all nuclear weapons are destroyed? How can you guarentee that more won’t be built in the future? And for that matter, what would we do with the material? We won’t build nuclear power plants because the eco-freaks won’t let us. (Yes, the same eco-freaks that would have created a 5 year study in New Orleans had they ever tried to rebuild the levvies to study the effect on the local wildlife….the same wildlife now totally destroyed by pollution…)

Nuclear power is still the cleanest, most efficient method of creating energy on this planet. But our fear of nuclear material prevents us from shutting down coal burning energy plants and replacing them with conventional nuclear plants.

Note: Eco-freak is NOT all ecologists or all people interested in cleaning the environment on this planet. It refers only to the radically militant ones that never listen to reason, can’t see outside the box and sometimes cause more harm to the environment that benefit.

@Jennifer:

How can you guarentee that all nuclear weapons are destroyed? How can you guarentee that more won’t be built in the future?

You can’t. Do you propose that because of that they should be nuked?
How can you guarantee that the US will never abuse their WMDs …. i think they should be nuked as well then.

(Yes, the same eco-freaks that would have created a 5 year study in New Orleans had they ever tried to rebuild the levvies to study the effect on the local wildlife….the same wildlife now totally destroyed by pollution…)

And you were the one insiisting on a link?
I take it, as you don’t have one, that this is just gossip and you are irritating the whole of us.

Nuclear power is still the cleanest, most efficient method of creating energy on this planet.

Solar and wind power or renewable fuels are cleaner.

Note: Eco-freak is NOT all ecologists or all people interested in cleaning the environment on this planet. It refers only to the radically militant ones that never listen to reason, can’t see outside the box and sometimes cause more harm to the environment that benefit.

Is there a Conser-freak as well? …. How would that be defined… and who on this board would fit into that box?

@Jennifer:

Our nuclear weapons are much cleaner then those of some foreign countries. …
This is no longer 1950’s technology. A nuclear blast isn’t going to irradiate a city for 150 years.

Here, the super new isotope we now use in our bombs … we managed to let the last (but only the last and not the last but one) step in the chain reaction prodsuce no extra neutrons… We are so good we have control over the process … in each and all of the 10^24 (?, probably more) atoms we want to split.

Jenn, stop irritating me.

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

Our nuclear weapons are much cleaner then those of some foreign countries. …
This is no longer 1950’s technology. A nuclear blast isn’t going to irradiate a city for 150 years.

Here, the super new isotope we now use in our bombs … we managed to let the last (but only the last and not the last but one) step in the chain reaction prodsuce no extra neutrons… We are so good we have control over the process … in each and all of the 10^24 (?, probably more) atoms we want to split.

Jenn, stop irritating me.

You’re wrong.

Haha, I finally got the last word in an arguement because nothing you can reply will be seen by me, ever!

Spthththth!

And yes, I’m being a petulant child, deal with it, cause ya can’t say nuttin ta me no-how! (How many negatives in that sentance???)

@Jennifer:

@F_alk:

Jenn, stop irritating me.

You’re wrong.

Haha, I finally got the last word in an arguement because nothing you can reply will be seen by me, ever!

How was that really stupid bug in the hitchhikers guide called again? I mean the one that believed if you can’t see him, then it can’t see (and thus not eat) you….

why am i reminded of that bug here.

Like I always say…

Neutron 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.

In the meantime,
we’ll enjoy their sandpiles, rice paddies and champagne.

:oops:
Did I post that?

Damn!
:)