To nuke, or not to nuke.

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by trobinett, Oct 21, 2006.

  1. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    This is an easy question.

    If North Korea, Iran, or any other wing nut nation nuked the United States, or any of its close allies, would we retaliate in kind?

    I say yes, what say you?
     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    What is far more likely is that these outlaw states would deal nukes to terrorist groups that would try to use the weapons against the US and its allies. If that happened, we would be justified in using nukes against every military installation possessed by the offender. Then we should invade on the ground. After locating the leaders responsible, they should be publically tried and executed. To remove all doubt, the criminals running Iran and NK should be privately informed of the fate that awaits them should we or any nation (except France) suffer nuclear attack either directly or indirectly. Well alright, we should probably even cover France.
     
  3. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    I think we would. Unless Kerry or the Beast are in office at the time.:(
     
  4. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    As your name says, it could become a onedomino effect. Wouldn't make any difference I say.

    Really, we are just looking for the excuse to nuke these SOB's.

    Their "game plan" to this date is pretty smart.

    I don't want to see any more Americans, or any of our allies harmed, but if they are, and its nuclear, "Katie" bar the door.

    The "Grim reaper" shall be upon the doorstep of the those that dare.

    :blowup:
     
  5. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    No sane person or nation is looking for an excuse to nuke anyone.
     
  6. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    True.

    May have overstated my position.

    Just get tired of all the postering, and threats.

    Thanks for "reeling me in".:gang1:
     
  7. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Here’s a related question: is a first strike with nuclear weapons ever morally justifiable? For the moment, let’s assume that the end of WW2 is not part of the question. Under the conditions that currently exist in the world, is it ever morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons in a first strike? Can such weapons only be morally used in retaliation? NATO did not think so, when the Warsaw Pact and allied armies were squared off across the plains of Germany during the Cold War. If the Soviets had then rushed our defensive lines, their numerical superiority was such that after a few days of conventional combat, our only way to avoid catastrophic defeat would have been to initiate first strike nuke attacks. Was this a morally justifiable position?
     
  8. trobinett
    Offline

    trobinett Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,832
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arkansas, The Ozarks
    Ratings:
    +162
    Under those circumstances, and with the knowledge we had about what would follow such a defeat of NATO forces-YES.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I would have to say no. It doesn't seem to make sense that with the ready ability to use nukes, that a country should set them off just because they fear a conventional war and its necessary losses. Not at a point like the border between East and West Germany, not with intercontinental missiles.

    It's the situation Israel lives with daily.
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I'm following your thinking, but I have to disagree. We might as well dismantle all our nukes now if we do not have the resolve to use them. Sending a conventional army to certain doom when we have the means at our disposal to preserve that army, minimize our own casualties and achieve victory on the battlefield is irresponsible at it's highest level.

    Moral justification should not even be an issue in this scenario. If it is, how morally justifiable is it to send one's army to certain death?
     

Share This Page