Under the Dempcratic congress...will the congress ok the use of nuclear weapons on Al Quaida?
2006-11-14 07:58:36 · 10 answers · asked by landro z 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It won't be necessary, after Israel nukes Iran All Qaeda will too ascared to come out of their caves.
2006-11-14 08:08:49 · answer #1 · answered by Mario Savio 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, we have no need to use a weapon of mass destruction. Not on Al-Queda, or anyone else.
The US military is the best equipped, best trained fighting force ever concieved, and can get the job(s) handed to it just the way it is now.
What we need is a cohesive battle plan at the onset of every engagement. All or nothing is the way to go, I would say.
Nuclear weaponry injures and kills too many innocent bystanders and civilians. We learned that lesson in 1945. While it was necessary to bring the war to an end then, there is no place in the world for a nuclear attack today. Today, it is the weapon of a coward or a terrorist.
2006-11-14 08:09:31 · answer #2 · answered by crazyotto65 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear weapons are obsolete. They are only used as sabers to be rattled. The USA and every country that has a significant arsenal of Nuclear weapons knows that to drop one would end the world. The fallout will come back to hurt the ones who launched it. Or their allies. The Democrats will not ever use Nuclear weapons unless the USA was attacked with nuclear weapons. Now what nation as crazy as North Korea is would do that? None. It would mean the complete annihilation of that country.
Where we have to be careful is that they do not end up in the hands of terrorists who have no logic and no interest in life.
2006-11-14 08:06:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question makes no sense. A)We have had the weapons since 1945.b) We have a always had a policy to use nuclear weapons if attacked by them first. c) Congress does not make that call. The president does.
2006-11-14 08:28:06 · answer #4 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, when did America's Military quit being a "nuclear" army? I miss some important piece of the news?
No, Al Queda, is a terrorist organization, it is a basis of belief that because America supports Israel, and Israel is control of the holy lands...(Yes, people the Muslims claim the same holy lands.) That we are infidels. Not all Muslims believe this rhetoric though. Similar to "westerners" not believing in the same type of govt ideals.
2006-11-14 08:09:26 · answer #5 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean over and above the nukes already deployed in artillery shells, SLBMs, ICBMs, and strategic air forces? With the forces stretched so thin, it has always been the policy in the Fulda Gap, below the 38th Parallel and in defense of Japan to have a nuclear tactical arsenal in the bullpen to counter the massed tank and infantry divisions of the soviets (back in the day) and the NorKors/Chinese.
2006-11-14 08:25:26 · answer #6 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the u . s . a . could win palms down in a nuclear conflict. In a non nuclear conflict the U. S. could nevertheless win with the aid of its airforce and military being the main progressed and deadly interior the international with out making use of nuclear weapons. China purely has one hundred thirty nuclear weapons while in comparison with the u . s . a .'s 5000+
2016-10-03 23:17:36 · answer #7 · answered by spies 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is not a country with the name Al Quaidia; captial city Bin Ladenville. These people are staying in countries we know have open relations with, so no they won't.
2006-11-14 08:01:33 · answer #8 · answered by billy d 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
not at all likely ..
the republicans have been pushing the war . .the democrats tend to be against it . . .
a republican congress would be more likely to authorize the strategic use of nukes for a first strike . . .
2006-11-14 08:06:51 · answer #9 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, only in retaliation for a stike by an enemy
2006-11-14 08:06:23 · answer #10 · answered by michael m 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋