2007-01-31 18:49:23 · 12 answers · asked by Just trying to help 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Nukes have not been released in anger for over 60 years, and changing that will set a dangerous precedent with more and more players in the nuclear club.
If you press the button you'd better be talking about a whole lot of American lives being saved . . .
This question came up during the siege of Khe Sanh in Vietnam, and the American military strategists concluded "no nukes."
2007-01-31 18:56:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most people in the administration would chose to nuke while our soldiers are there in the theater of action... how about let's fight the fights that need fighting instead of globetrotting trying to find the easiest prey/enemy. Now that we're bogged down in Iraq, North Korea has the nuke, Iran will have it very soon, all on the watch of King George.
2007-02-01 13:02:50 · answer #2 · answered by Bodhi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The nuke option would bring about serious consequences. For one, it would make the US look too cruel in the world theater. This would be bad for diplomacy and could lead to other countries taking sides against the US. Not only this, but other countries that are already against the US could use this as an excuse to launch their own nuclear attack on US soil. In essence, it would start a global nuclear war in which billions of lives would be lost.
2007-01-31 19:10:22 · answer #3 · answered by Mighell 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given the status Communism, the Soviet Union and Stalin had on the time, any attack on the U.S. ought to easly have brought about riots and communist takeover contained in the West. In 1945 each body contained in the international knew it grow to be the U.S. who knocked up Hitler, and the U. S. were telling each man or woman what a fabulous guy Uncle Joe grow to be for 4 years. the country had to partake a tremendous mindwipping operation and a tremendous witch hunt to regulate that perception and "evilize" the Soviet Union. Plus, the Soviet Union had a tremendous benefit in military over the western allies. Any agression from the West ought to have brought some quickly overtaking of all continental Europe via the Soviet Union The tactical fee of nukes grow to be small. Strategically speaking, ICBMs were nonetheless not stepped ahead (btw the U.S. grow to be the first u . s . a . to have a nuke-able ICBM, contained in the 50's) so the nukes ought to in hardship-free words be dropped via Strategic Bombers, that signifies that any correct strategic objective for the nukes grow to be off limits - no probability an american bomber can make it to Moscow or the middle of the soviet business area contained in the Urals.
2016-12-03 07:41:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a old solder that helped in the occupation of Japan. Talking with them ,they all agreed that the use of the nuke in Japan saved lives on both sides.
2007-02-01 07:53:46 · answer #5 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should just nuke them. Its the only way to get rid of them. The US could be over there for 20 years and plenty of terrorist are still going to be around. Nuke them and it should take care of it for awhile.
Ring around the rosie
pocket full of posies
ashes ashes we all fall down.
Did you know that the kids in Hiroshima sung this song after the bomb? The ring is that big ring that goes up after a atomic bomb. the posie is this deodorant type flower that they kept in their pockets because the radiation was eating them alive and it made their flesh stink. So they carried the posie with them to mask the smell. and I'm sure you can imagine what the ashes ashes we all fall down means.
That's where that song came from.
Kind of sick we teach it to our kids.
2007-01-31 19:23:26 · answer #6 · answered by Andria S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nuke of course. any american life is worth approximately 250 nonamericans. so we need feel bad about collateral damage. we just need to do what we did to the japanese to stop the WW11. let's pull out the soldiers and nuke iraq first. then afghanistan and iran. then pakistan `cos they're harboring osama. then whoever crosses us. how dare they? to criticize us americans?!
2007-01-31 19:07:45 · answer #7 · answered by irumporayar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fighting side by side with soldiers. Their lives are worth more than gold, but throwing down nuclear bombs isn't really an answer to any problem.
2007-01-31 18:58:22 · answer #8 · answered by Ammie 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not to fight but to save human lives in planet of apes.
If you are good in the field be there to help out in the fields.
If you are good in cracking coconuts then crack the coconuts and try to save human lives living in misery at loss and stranded in planet of apes.
2007-01-31 19:05:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
reading this i was wondering how many American soldiers 55,000 dies in Vietnam and how many military strategists died in vietnam ?
seems to me we still have these jerks making the same ignorant decisions.
2007-01-31 19:42:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋