The Military Tactic Of Strategic Limited Nuclear Attack ?

Question

We Have These Psychotic Nations That Want To Be Terrorist Havens,Support These Activities,I Say The USA Cannot Support Baby Sitting Missions Abroad,To Become Targets For These Idiots,While The Politicians Want To Try To Fight The Wars Without Casualties On Either Side?We Can Not Continue To Send Our Young Soldiers To Die In These Places Where They Don't Understand Freedom?Yes Innocent PPL Will Die?The Question Is Whose Innocent PPL? Should They Be Used Immediatly???

Yeah, We Live With The Threat Of Nuclear Holocaust Every Day My Friends,And Yes The Threat Of Use Is A Political Tool.However The Stategic Use Of These Weapons Are The Proper Response To These Outlaw Regimes Without Going To More,And More Of Expense Of Trying To Make These Idiots Realize The USA Is Not Playing Or Intending To Live With Terrorist States They Will Understand The Fruits Of This Behavior

Answer 1

Dats Right, They Need A Good Ole Blast,Or Two, Or Three To Set Em Straight,On The Real Deal..Don't Worry China And Russia Will Get The News Homey,They'll Take The News Just FINE!!! LOL

Answer 2

The problem with your theory is that nuclear weapons are not seen by major governments as a war-fighting weapon so much as a political tool. The threat of the possible use of nukes is more than enough to keep the lesser powers from getting too far out of line. Realistically a country such as the USA or China is only going to use nuclear weapons if they are in serious danger of losing a major war.

There is also great reluctance to actually use nukes as, if the use of nuclear weapons was ever to be seen as a normal means of fighting a war, it would make the use of such weapons more likely and greatly increase the probability of widespread nuclear warfare. The USA might be tempted to nuke Damascus (for example) in order to stop Syria from funding terrorist groups but if they do so they greatly increase the likelihood of having New York obliterated in revenge.

Answer 3

Of course you are kidding, strategic nukes, at least a dozen of them in the 500 kiloton range would take out the middle east and vaporize around 190 million (3% of the world). Another 200 million in nearby countries would die from radioactive poisoning, and their only crime would be living next door to the Middle East.

Carl Sagan estimated a very low threshold for nuclear winter, a 100 kiloton blast would ignite fires that would cause a nuclear winter....ie, the sun would be blotted out due to the dust and ash from the fires and all plant life would cease to exist....followed shortly thereafter by animal life.

So the option of eliminating the middle east by nukes is global suicide....which is why nukes have been a deterrent to total war for the past 60 years....

Answer 4

Are you asking a quesiton, or trying to support your desire to breath nuclear dust and kill everyone on the planet?

Granted, such places as Iran and Syria should be turned into a sea of moltlen liquid glass. However, this is a bit extreem.

I think a more prosaic answer might be better- such as invite the leadership from every nation on this planet, with their support staff, and fire off a "baby nuke" so they can actually see what would happen to their country.

Answer 5

You just don't understand the power and reach of nukes. If you use nukes in Korea you will guarantee nuke fallout in japan and south Korea. If you hit Iran you have just contaminated a large chunk if not most of the worlds oil supply smooth. Not to mention a world wide jihad for contaminating mecca the center of the Islamic universe. This guarantees a massive response not only from terrorist but from our allies who will drop us like a hot potato and charge the prez for war crimes and possibly for attempted genocide.

Answer 6

You will always hear Sec of State Condi Rice say very seriously that the nuclear option is always an option.

I for one believe her and I agree with you. I think both N. Korrea and Iran are just asking for it. The problem is however that China and whats left of the USSR. If we strike, than they might strike at us. China and Russia are on their side, not ours. I hate commies. I really do but we have to be very careful. And if we do strike, we have to work things out with these other two Superpower (in China's case) and the third world nation with nukes (Russia).

Answer 7

Many people are behind setting off a nuclear weapon on Hezzbalah.
The radio is filled with callers say just nuke them.
I believe that this will occure on or before Sept. 12, 2006

Answer 8

I thought we established a decade or so back that the policy of Strategic Limited Nuclear Attack was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Answer 9

I say we clean out these hellholes IMMEDIATELY. Let the casualties be THEIRS! If the people who are here from other countries (notice I did not say citizens) do not like it, then they need to go back to the great big crater that once was their country. I do not refer to them as citizens because they are only here long enough to criticize our way of life and to escape the danger in their "homelands" until we restore peace. BLOW THEM TO HELL.

Answer 10

Once one fool pushes that red button,everyone else will follow suit,so don't worry,they'll be plenty of death to go around for everybody.