Here's a scary one for ya . . .

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Pistolenschutze, Jan 28, 2007.

?

Should nukes ever be used tactically?

  1. No, we should not use them unless directly attacked with nukes.

    20 vote(s)
    13.4%
  2. No, we should not use them even if attacked with ABC weapons.

    8 vote(s)
    5.4%
  3. Yes, use them if we have a verified ABC threat against our citizens.

    48 vote(s)
    32.2%
  4. Yes, do not hesitate to use them if the job cannot be done conventionally.

    73 vote(s)
    49.0%
  1. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    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
  2. ski9393

    ski9393 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    116
    Location:
    Lynchburg,Va
    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.
  3. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    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.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2009
  4. user

    user New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Northern piedmont of Va. and Middle of Nowhere, We
    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.
  5. RemingtonVa

    RemingtonVa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, Virginia
    HAHAHAHA Im mad how all of us just bout voted for , Ahh the heck with it BLOW EM UP!!!! An Im pushing THE BUTTON!!!!!!!!!!!
  6. new308handloader

    new308handloader New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    535
    Location:
    Maryville, TN
    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! :D
  7. Gun Geezer

    Gun Geezer Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,856
    Location:
    Central Florida
    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!
  8. Hunting Man

    Hunting Man New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    NW ohio
    I have no problem in an attempt to save the USA to use whatever we got. We'll sort out the remaining problems afterword.
  9. wpage

    wpage New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,481
    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.
  10. ofitg

    ofitg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,447
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum FW 190 Where's the love ? Jun 11, 2008
General Military Arms & History Forum War with Iran. Here's what it would look like... Apr 2, 2007