Here's a scary one for ya . . . - Page 4 - The Firearms Forum

kutaho · 05-16-2009, 05:28 PM

Why should the hate that man kind has for himself give him the right to destroy all other life that has been here before, and would have been here after.
The arrogance... nothing personnel, just one mans opinion.

TomsMustangGT · 05-21-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickenup

With the proliferation of countries getting their hands on nukes, an major exchange is going to happen, sooner or later. Even a preemptive strike could start the beginning of the end.

Something else that would or might trigger a preemptive strike: a small comet or meteorite hitting a city.

PharmrJohn · 07-03-2009, 03:42 AM

My vote is to avoid at all costs. If attacked, attack back. Otherwise, stick with conventional arms. Not worth taking the chance. I am not looking at strict loss of life in my arguement. Nuclear winter is not something we need or want, and it doesn't take that many nukes to ruin a perfectly good planet. That's what worries me. Humans can reproduce and rebuild structures. But we only have one very large ecosystem to claim as habitable.....and nowhere else to go.

Southern Boy · 07-03-2009, 11:46 AM

Drop the bombs! While they rebuild Mecca, we can close the borders, stop sending aid, and for National security, disban the UN. Sounds cold, but what the hell are we doing helping/feeding/and proping up nations that dont like us or our Constitution? Cut-em off, if they cause us grief, drop a nuke or two, and let them clean up the mess. my dady told me when I was a kid. "I dont care if you love me, You WILL respect me". Words to live by. we've tried the nice, Worlds police way, I't did not work. Time to clean up the mess and build and protect our own .

Mouton · 07-03-2009, 12:54 PM

First of all, we have used nukes twice in the past, both against Japan and they were not a nuclear threat. We did it to end the war and mitigate a loss of US life. Sounds good to me. Today, it would be suicide to use these weapons unless attacked for a couple of reasons. First of all, the damage from today's weapons is on a far greater scale. One submarine load of missiles can virtually wipe any of the countries off the map today. Second is what would happen in such a massive release of radiation...in effect, you may end up killing everyone if not by radiation perhaps by a nuclear winter if there were a counter strike and so on. So, as long as anyone believes we intend to take them with us if we are attacked by nukes, or chemicals or bio weapons, I think we will never use them again. I hope that is right.

Teejay9 · 07-19-2009, 06:33 PM

Nukes have turned out to be one of the worst weapons ever developed. We are all running around trying to STOP the spread of them. They are the last ditch weapon of an insane world. The collateral damage is too uncertain. If nukes started raining down, say between Pakistan and India, no one really knows what the effect would be for the rest of the world, let alone those in close proximity. They are a danger to everyone. It wouldn't solve anything, but create more problems than we could ever imagine. Far too risky, and it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. I say no, never use them, but that's just me. TJ

ski9393 · 08-04-2009, 01:43 AM

I figure that Obama will just sit the bad boys down for a pancake dinner, sing'em kumbaya while holding hands and we can all get back to loving one another.

In the rare case that this dose not work, we should not forget that we have nukes, but try to avoid using them.

I think we can avoid using our nukes by building a bigger better more dedicated antiterrorist agency to find out were our targets (terrorist cells,etc) are. and give our silent warriors, (delta, seal, marine recon, etc) liscense to kill these targets, acuratly and expediantly.

How we do that is a good question,our guys are pretty darn good I think.

After that, we should not hesitate to destroy every terrorist and terrorist cell we find. I think that if we send enough of them to hell, it will be less atractive for other would be terrorists to take up arms.

Now we run into a repeat of the Mcarthy witch hunts, and a whole heap of other problems. Problems that I just don't have the capacity to foresee.

Hope Obama can make some hella good pancakes.

USMC-03 · 08-04-2009, 12:32 PM

There is no way that the mothers of the west could produce enough sons to meet the hoards of the east bayonet to bayonet. Make no mistake, there are entire cultures and take offense to the very existence of free peoples. It is the threat of nuclear weapons that has kept the big wolves away from our doorstep and preserved Western Civilization. While I, along with everyone else, am loath to see cities vaporized, but when our backs are against the wall, empty threats won't save our people and way of life.

user · 10-25-2009, 08:45 AM

We have the technology now to detect nuclear threats in other countries. Iran for example. The problem is that we lack the moral will to disable these threats with "conventional" (i.e., non-nuclear) weapons. But shooting off nukes is idiotic; we've got to be able to keep living on this planet ourselves, and the effects of nukes aren't all that localized. That's like, "I'm so mad at what you did that I'm going to shoot myself in the foot."

Dresden demonstrated that Hiroshima-like effects can be accomplished without nukes. Oh, and by the way, I believe in the Joshua theory of war. When Joshua was poised to attack the Philistines, God sent him the message to kill every last man, woman, dog, and child of them, and if they neglected their duty in that respect the Israelites would have problems. Sure enough, 2000 years later, David's still fighting the Philistines. There are no civilians in a war. Either get into the war and destroy the enemy ruthlessly or live in peace and take what they dish out without complaint. There is no acceptable middle ground.

RemingtonVa · 01-25-2010, 08:13 AM

HAHAHAHA Im mad how all of us just bout voted for , Ahh the heck with it BLOW EM UP!!!! An Im pushing THE BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!

new308handloader · 02-24-2010, 09:15 PM

Use them only if we have to....just that fact that we have them kind of keeps things in check with "mutualy assured destruction".

However, I don't buy into the to world will have a nuclear winter if they are used....haven't we, the Russians, and others shot off thousands of these things? I don't see a nuclear winter, actually the opposite, Global Warming...just ask Al Gore!

Gun Geezer · 03-28-2010, 11:03 AM

I say to have them and not use them is like taking an aspirin to treat cancer. I would readily blow up every country in the world before I would sacrifice ONE young American life in a land fight we will never win. You don't agree with me. Tell it to the parents who lost sons and daughters in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan. Their sacrifice changed nothing, I repeat NOTHING. But the lives are lost forever. If you believe those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the conflicts I mentioned did it to save or protect or country, keep drinking the kool-aid but don't ask my son or daughter's to risk their lives while we sit on the tools to get the job done without putting them in harms way!

Hunting Man · 03-28-2010, 06:07 PM

I have no problem in an attempt to save the USA to use whatever we got. We'll sort out the remaining problems afterword.

wpage · 03-29-2010, 05:15 AM

Certainly a thought provoking and provocative subject. Current Nukes being much more potent then the 2 used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Fallout and destruction would be catastrophic to say the least.
Long term chaos and aftermath hard to imagine. DOD has doomsday assessment algorithm based on numbers and types of nukes used. However, if you looked at the Chernobyl problem and set a blast under it to get it up into the atmosphere and round the world. You get the picture of a thumbnail sketch of a post nuke world might look.
A world somewhere between the Apocalypse and Dantes inferno.
These weapons are best kept as a deterrent and like Reagans Star Wars plan which
proved a excellent tactic. Succeeded in bringing down many walls. Even though Nukes are very real in comparison. Extremely dangerous.
Lets pray we never loose them.

ofitg · 04-04-2010, 12:08 AM

Scrolling through this thread, I did not see anybody mention the possibility of launching a first strike with biological agents.

I'm presuming we still have bio capability?

And I wonder if it could be done covertly? Since bio agents are within reach of almost every government in the world, a mysterious outbreak of Anthrax in Tehran might never be explained.

View Poll Results: Should nukes ever be used tactically?
No, we should not use them unless directly attacked with nukes.	20	13.16%
No, we should not use them even if attacked with ABC weapons.	8	5.26%
Yes, use them if we have a verified ABC threat against our citizens.	50	32.89%
Yes, do not hesitate to use them if the job cannot be done conventionally.	74	48.68%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

05-16-2009, 05:28 PM	#76
kutaho Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,852	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . Why should the hate that man kind has for himself give him the right to destroy all other life that has been here before, and would have been here after. The arrogance... nothing personnel, just one mans opinion. __________________ No man stands in the same river twice If all else fails grab a rock Mi Taku oyasin Last edited by kutaho; 05-16-2009 at 05:31 PM..

07-03-2009, 03:42 AM	#78
PharmrJohn Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Western Washington Posts: 975	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . My vote is to avoid at all costs. If attacked, attack back. Otherwise, stick with conventional arms. Not worth taking the chance. I am not looking at strict loss of life in my arguement. Nuclear winter is not something we need or want, and it doesn't take that many nukes to ruin a perfectly good planet. That's what worries me. Humans can reproduce and rebuild structures. But we only have one very large ecosystem to claim as habitable.....and nowhere else to go.

07-03-2009, 11:46 AM	#79
Southern Boy V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 110	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . Drop the bombs! While they rebuild Mecca, we can close the borders, stop sending aid, and for National security, disban the UN. Sounds cold, but what the hell are we doing helping/feeding/and proping up nations that dont like us or our Constitution? Cut-em off, if they cause us grief, drop a nuke or two, and let them clean up the mess. my dady told me when I was a kid. "I dont care if you love me, You WILL respect me". Words to live by. we've tried the nice, Worlds police way, I't did not work. Time to clean up the mess and build and protect our own . __________________ "The 2nd Amendment is my "concealed carry permit"" Ted Nugent

07-03-2009, 12:54 PM	#80
Mouton V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Amelia Island, Florida Posts: 64	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . First of all, we have used nukes twice in the past, both against Japan and they were not a nuclear threat. We did it to end the war and mitigate a loss of US life. Sounds good to me. Today, it would be suicide to use these weapons unless attacked for a couple of reasons. First of all, the damage from today's weapons is on a far greater scale. One submarine load of missiles can virtually wipe any of the countries off the map today. Second is what would happen in such a massive release of radiation...in effect, you may end up killing everyone if not by radiation perhaps by a nuclear winter if there were a counter strike and so on. So, as long as anyone believes we intend to take them with us if we are attacked by nukes, or chemicals or bio weapons, I think we will never use them again. I hope that is right.

07-19-2009, 06:33 PM	#81
Teejay9 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fence will stop us!!" Posts: 1,257	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . Nukes have turned out to be one of the worst weapons ever developed. We are all running around trying to STOP the spread of them. They are the last ditch weapon of an insane world. The collateral damage is too uncertain. If nukes started raining down, say between Pakistan and India, no one really knows what the effect would be for the rest of the world, let alone those in close proximity. They are a danger to everyone. It wouldn't solve anything, but create more problems than we could ever imagine. Far too risky, and it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. I say no, never use them, but that's just me. TJ __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Thomas Jefferson

08-04-2009, 01:43 AM	#82
ski9393 V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Lynchburg,Va Posts: 116	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . I figure that Obama will just sit the bad boys down for a pancake dinner, sing'em kumbaya while holding hands and we can all get back to loving one another. In the rare case that this dose not work, we should not forget that we have nukes, but try to avoid using them. I think we can avoid using our nukes by building a bigger better more dedicated antiterrorist agency to find out were our targets (terrorist cells,etc) are. and give our silent warriors, (delta, seal, marine recon, etc) liscense to kill these targets, acuratly and expediantly. How we do that is a good question,our guys are pretty darn good I think. After that, we should not hesitate to destroy every terrorist and terrorist cell we find. I think that if we send enough of them to hell, it will be less atractive for other would be terrorists to take up arms. Now we run into a repeat of the Mcarthy witch hunts, and a whole heap of other problems. Problems that I just don't have the capacity to foresee. Hope Obama can make some hella good pancakes.

08-04-2009, 12:32 PM	#83
USMC-03 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,825	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . There is no way that the mothers of the west could produce enough sons to meet the hoards of the east bayonet to bayonet. Make no mistake, there are entire cultures and take offense to the very existence of free peoples. It is the threat of nuclear weapons that has kept the big wolves away from our doorstep and preserved Western Civilization. While I, along with everyone else, am loath to see cities vaporized, but when our backs are against the wall, empty threats won't save our people and way of life. __________________ Let not the rifles of good and free men be reforged into plowshares, but may they rest in a place of honor; ready, well oiled and God willing unused. For if the price of peace becomes licking the boots of tyrants, then "To Arms!" I say, and may the fortunes of war smile upon patriots. - Fortes Fortuna Javat - Last edited by USMC-03; 08-04-2009 at 12:33 PM..

10-25-2009, 08:45 AM	#84
user Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, West Virginia Posts: 1,013	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . We have the technology now to detect nuclear threats in other countries. Iran for example. The problem is that we lack the moral will to disable these threats with "conventional" (i.e., non-nuclear) weapons. But shooting off nukes is idiotic; we've got to be able to keep living on this planet ourselves, and the effects of nukes aren't all that localized. That's like, "I'm so mad at what you did that I'm going to shoot myself in the foot." Dresden demonstrated that Hiroshima-like effects can be accomplished without nukes. Oh, and by the way, I believe in the Joshua theory of war. When Joshua was poised to attack the Philistines, God sent him the message to kill every last man, woman, dog, and child of them, and if they neglected their duty in that respect the Israelites would have problems. Sure enough, 2000 years later, David's still fighting the Philistines. There are no civilians in a war. Either get into the war and destroy the enemy ruthlessly or live in peace and take what they dish out without complaint. There is no acceptable middle ground. __________________ ===== Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

01-25-2010, 08:13 AM	#85
RemingtonVa Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 8	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . HAHAHAHA Im mad how all of us just bout voted for , Ahh the heck with it BLOW EM UP!!!! An Im pushing THE BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!

02-24-2010, 09:15 PM	#86
new308handloader Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Maryville, TN Posts: 535	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . Use them only if we have to....just that fact that we have them kind of keeps things in check with "mutualy assured destruction". However, I don't buy into the to world will have a nuclear winter if they are used....haven't we, the Russians, and others shot off thousands of these things? I don't see a nuclear winter, actually the opposite, Global Warming...just ask Al Gore! __________________ "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." D. D. Eisenhower

03-28-2010, 11:03 AM	#87
Gun Geezer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,716	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . I say to have them and not use them is like taking an aspirin to treat cancer. I would readily blow up every country in the world before I would sacrifice ONE young American life in a land fight we will never win. You don't agree with me. Tell it to the parents who lost sons and daughters in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan. Their sacrifice changed nothing, I repeat NOTHING. But the lives are lost forever. If you believe those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the conflicts I mentioned did it to save or protect or country, keep drinking the kool-aid but don't ask my son or daughter's to risk their lives while we sit on the tools to get the job done without putting them in harms way!

03-28-2010, 06:07 PM	#88
Hunting Man Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: NW ohio Posts: 49	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . I have no problem in an attempt to save the USA to use whatever we got. We'll sort out the remaining problems afterword.

03-29-2010, 05:15 AM	#89
wpage Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,471	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . Certainly a thought provoking and provocative subject. Current Nukes being much more potent then the 2 used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Fallout and destruction would be catastrophic to say the least. Long term chaos and aftermath hard to imagine. DOD has doomsday assessment algorithm based on numbers and types of nukes used. However, if you looked at the Chernobyl problem and set a blast under it to get it up into the atmosphere and round the world. You get the picture of a thumbnail sketch of a post nuke world might look. A world somewhere between the Apocalypse and Dantes inferno. These weapons are best kept as a deterrent and like Reagans Star Wars plan which proved a excellent tactic. Succeeded in bringing down many walls. Even though Nukes are very real in comparison. Extremely dangerous. Lets pray we never loose them. __________________ "You shall recieve power" Acts 1:8 W

04-04-2010, 12:08 AM	#90
ofitg Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Contributor Posts: 1,447	Re: Here's a scary one for ya . . . Scrolling through this thread, I did not see anybody mention the possibility of launching a first strike with biological agents. I'm presuming we still have bio capability? And I wonder if it could be done covertly? Since bio agents are within reach of almost every government in the world, a mysterious outbreak of Anthrax in Tehran might never be explained.