Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?

Question

What Ullman, Powell and other Bushites see now is their vision for high-tech war, “rapid dominance,” or “shock and awe” , the ability to impose complete and total destruction." When it came to Iraq, Ullman liked the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reported that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.
“The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Ullman was sure it would work as well in 2003 as it did in 1945: “You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes."

Answer 1

If things continue getting better, then I don't think that Baghdad will become the next Hiroshima. Also, if we were to use nuclear weapons, we would be breaking the agreement that no country is to use nuclear power. Also if we were to use it, then I think that it would give North Korea a right to use their, and I don't think that we want North Korea using a missile that can reach the USA. To tell the truth, no one has a clue as to what George Bush will do under pressure.

Answer 2

Heck No! An atomic bomb is NOT a precision weapon, but rather one of mass destruction. That many cruise missles can and will do a lot of damage, but compare the civilian casualty rates of this war (estimated to be around 10,000 I believe) versus in excess of 140,000 for Hiroshima. Not to mention the fact that it left a large part of the city burning and in rubble. Our targets were military targets and not civilian. There will always be some collateral damage, but civilians were not our goal. Had it been, there would be any iraqi's left in Iraq.

Answer 3

Are you a idiot, conventional weapons would not make the place unlivable. It would make the city into ruins, but the environment effects would be nowhere as bad as Hiroshima. In Hiroshima one bomb killed thousands instantly. At least in this people would have a little time to get out.

Answer 4

No, it was Hiroshima that confirmed our, the U.S., stance on limiting this knowledge. Why would the U.S. drop a nuclear boom on Baghdad when we are in talks with Iran and N. Korea? What type of example would that show. Do as I say not as I do.

Answer 5

Obviously, this, and all your previous posts, you are very much against the USA.

Heres 4 words for you...


GET THE FU*C*K OUT!

Islam didnt make this country. God did. We dont want, or need you here.

Answer 6

I was thinking more like Nagasaki. Bigger bomb.

Answer 7

i hope so