I can see the use for smaller, tactical nukes whose purpose is to strike a military target, and does not decimate civilian populations or endanger the planet to any great extent.
I do not see the use for having a very large "total annihilation" nuclear weapons system. What is the point?
Are we trying to frighten everyone in the world? Doesn't that just make them want to build nukes of their own? This isn't the cold war, Mutually assured destruction doesn't work with terrorist states, they want to die.
Meanwhile, we are just scaring people with these things. What were we going to do with them? Nuke enemy cities, where the civilian populace is not a threat to us?
So what about China and the European Union, are we afraid of these people, so much so that we must be prepared to obliterate them?
I say it's completely nuts. And I am a conservative "hawk" who is pro-strong defense and border security.
2007-08-19
13:19:56
·
11 answers
·
asked by
askthepizzaguy
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
I would ask for total worldwide WMD disarmament, starting with nukes and pathogens and chemical agents.
I would encourage beefy border security, offer aid to our allies, support UN troops for peacekeeping, and build strong missile defense systems in our nation and encourage our allies to do the same.
Conventional weapons will do for peacekeeping and thwarting terrorism. And disarming these things which I would hope we have no intention to use should be a priority, and it would encourage other nations to disarm as well.
I'm not a pacifist when it comes to defense. I believe in strong defense, and some offensive capability where needed. But WMD is something we should NEVER use.
What if China were able to nuke the United States, most major cities? Would nuking Chinese cities bring those people back? Or would it create the destruction of all mankind?
Vengence is not worth a billion lives.
2007-08-19
13:23:37 ·
update #1
I would appreciate your thoughts on my question. (It's at the top of the page, please don't give me the "what was the question" lecture)
Whether you agree or disagree, please state your reasons, keep it civil, and dont use personal attacks, thank you.
2007-08-19
13:25:51 ·
update #2
If it came down to this, and several US cities have been nuked by a foreign government, my first concern is for the surviving American lives. I would do anything to spare their lives. Come on, let's face it, what is the point of "winning the war" when we're in danger of losing every American life?
I'd counterstrike, of course, against military targets. But no nukes, certainly not against civilians. The survival of the biosphere and the human race, as well as American lives are hanging in the balance. I would not launch nukes, ever.
2007-08-19
13:28:15 ·
update #3
Erehwon-
Deterrence doesn't work. Other nations are arming for nuclear conflict, and placing more American lives in danger in the process.
No, I wouldn't do it if other nations didn't do it as well, but the nuclear standoff is pointless. Someone has to make the first move.
Deterrence isn't a deterrence to terrorist states, either. And I still wouldn't nuke Iran, those people are not anti-USA their government is.
Point is, civilians don't need to be in fear of nuclear attacks. That's idiotic.
2007-08-19
13:30:52 ·
update #4
Tuugalik- If you seriously believe "nuking our enemies back" will do anything to spare American lives, and will not affect the survival of the human SPECIES, then you my friend are the one that is drunk.
Nuclear retaliation does what? What does it do? If it's just there as a BLUFF then why have nuclear material inside?
What would nuking the civilian population accomplish?
If you don't have reasons for disagreeing, don't bother posting.
2007-08-19
13:32:56 ·
update #5
Miss Manners-
What is the point?
I didn't say I would lay down and die. I said counterstrike against military targets.
And by the way, in the unlikely scenario that the entire world would attempt to nuke us at once, what would be the f---ing point in nuking everyone back?
Do you want to see the end of the human race?
IF we were unable to stop those missiles from striking us, nothing we do will protect our civilians anyway. So what is the point of hitting back? To cause more innocent people to die?
I'd aim for every missile, silo, submarine, aircraft, etc. But I would not aim for civilian people who did nothing to harm the United States.
I do thank you for your answer, you did at least state your reasoning. I strongly disagree.
2007-08-19
13:43:57 ·
update #6
I'm more than willing to debate this in a civil fashion, just message me or send an email.
Civil comments only, please.
2007-08-19
13:45:27 ·
update #7
Since they are reality, not having them would be quite stupid unless somehow all other countries would do away with them and the means to prevent them being remade was workable. Since that has not happened and is as likely to happen as trees rooted in the air and growing into solid rock, the USA must possess them to deter their use against us and our friends.
2007-08-19 14:07:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Caninelegion 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You`re dreaming ! "If the Chinese nuked us , would it bring those people back ?"
No it wouldn`t , but you`re saying because a number of people are now dead , the USA should just lay down and die , right ?
Or counterstrike with conventional weapons ? ......... LOL ! If we did , it would take 15 minutes to obliterate us ... completely ! What if we were attacked by Russia , China , and several Muslim countries like Iran , at the same time ??
You`d soon be praying for the US to use these nuclear weapons in it`s arsenal !
2007-08-19 13:36:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I hope everyone reads this. Ok, first i would like to know your background. How old are you, are you going to college, etc etc. Since you requested to be civil, i will. My background: I am a missile technician in the USN aboard the SSBN Rhode Island. I work directly with ballistic missiles. For five years ive been doing this. I know my job like anyone else knows there's so i hope you understand that i have vast accurate knowledge of this subject, and keep in mind that i have a security clearence so you must understand that i know exactly what im talking about. First i agree with disarmament, But you know that will never happen. Second, nuclear detterence does work, whens the last time anyone's used one in a act of war. Third, tthe US does not use continent killers, most are small yield tact warheads designs to take out its intended target without collateral damage. No one targets cities, meaning no collateral damage.
Remember that almost anyone has nuclear capabiltiy and that i spend six months of the year under water to prevent others from launching at us through nuclear detterence. Remember that Nuclear weapons are not first strike weapons. But rest assured that i lay my life on the line along with others to defend the way of life for everyone, including you. We all regret violence and war but as long as their are countries with WMD pointing at us i will still have a job...
2007-08-19 16:10:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by Alexander S 1
·
3⤊
0⤋
Ok, I will take this question in parts and give you my honest answer. First off, are you aware of something that was called the Cuban Missle Crisis? The Soviet Union was building bases on Cuban soil to launch missles at the United States. These were not conventional missles either. In case you are unaware, Cuba is only 90 miles from the American coastline.
When the US used atomic weapons in WW2, the use of those bombs ultimatly saved more lives than they cost. The invasion of Japan would have been a bloody and deadly conflict on both sides. With the advent of atomic bombs as a weapon, it put a new spin on America's position in global policy.
You say that deterrants do not work, but you are mistaken. The knowledge that America has these weapons and will use them if they are used against her has in my mind kept a rather uneasy peace throughout the years. (Hence the cold war) It is a well known military policy that if biological agents are used against our military, we will retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons. Since that policy was agreed upon, our military has not been attacked with either biological or small scale nuclear weapons.
Are the weapons pointed at cities, yes they are. Civilians do live in these cities, as well as industries and military targets. The Russians had no qualms about publishing a list of cities that they had on their attack list. Many of these cities were majority civilian in population, but they still made the list. Take for example, Norfolk VA. It is home to a huge Navy base, but the civilians outnumber the service personel and yet its still on the list.
Civilians have and will always suffer the brunt of warfare. This is proven time and again by history and unfort. civilian deaths are considered part of the accepted price of warfare. One reasoning behind targeting cities is not only destroying the targets industrial capabilites, but depriving that country of troops and people to work towards their war effort. To look at cities as just that, a happy peice of utopia where nothing bad is going on or that they are incapable of working towards endangering us is naive. Look at any city in the US. Take a glance at its industries and tell us that the factories could not be used to create war material. (If you are in doubt, take a look at the US in WW2 at how easily the factories then converted to make materials and goods for the war effort)
I dont think we in the United States fears the countries of the European Union. We may not agree with their policies and they not agree with ours, but I dont think its fear. The Middle East however is not an attitude of fear, but of cautious wariness. It has been shown that a few radicals can and will do anything possible to bring down what they call the Land of Satan, to include detonating a nuclear device if they could get their hands on one.
The upside of nuclear weapons is 1) they are expensive and time consuming to build and 2) the country has to have considerable technological advancements to enrich the plutoniom needed as well as the deivce itself. Hence the reason why they are not available at the local corner store.
China has America worried. We know the governement has considerable bad ideas of America and is continually improving their armed forces. Even though they as a military force are 20 years or so behind America, it can not be counted out that they outnumber our troops 50 to 1.
Part of the deterrant effect of nuclear weapons is the knowledge that if used againt us, we will retaliate in kind. While many leaders would love to win a war against the US, they are unwilling to sacrifice their own populace to do so. Its very much like FDR spoke: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Simply put it means that we have a big stick and will use it if provoked.
As a 7 year Army vet, I have been to many parts of the world where strife and conflict existed. I pray that in my lifetime and in many lifetimes to come, that the use of nuclear weapons is not used, convential warfare is terrorizing enough.
2007-08-19 14:21:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by sixtymm 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
I agree with the premise of the arguement. Everyone is proliferating most countries with a chance for nukes are going for them. Only one country thus far has had one and gotten rid of them. I think in truth they are fiscally and enviromentally untennable. I think they are a weapon of last resort. But when Clinton goes brandishing them vs Pakistan I got a big issue with that. We all know they are out there. Active threatening is a bad proposition. It says not only would we repeat Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a larger scale but basically we have no real respect for living beings. I dont see a difference between that and the WTC.
I firmly believe the next country to use one will basically have the biggest embargo of all time brought against them. There arent countries on this planet that are completely self sufficient. The container ships will turn around in mid sail. That country will be broken quick.
2007-08-19 13:43:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
i assume the question is, what's incorrect with u.s. being on top of issues? that's the very factor for which the founding fathers created our united states. They needed a rustic that had a countless ceiling that could desire to enable for low taxes, small government, and unfastened markets with unfastened non secular expression. what's incorrect with being a superpower? to not excuse each and all of the strikes of the rustic, yet whilst it wasn't us, it could have been somebody. we won't be able to forget approximately that fact. So, that's extra advantageous that it replaced right into a unfastened republic particularly than China, Cuba, or the U.S.. If we're not looking out for our very own pastimes, then somebody it particularly is looking out for their very own pastimes will sweep us to the area. u.s. will grow to be purely a mediocre area notice on the worldwide point. there's no altruistic worldwide relationship that makes the U. S. this sort of undesirable guy. We merely take place to be the single on top of issues. If it wasn't us, the worldwide could be a plenty worse place!
2016-10-16 04:16:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
nuclear weapons of mass defense.
The deterrent factor is that your enemy knows that if he launches on you, his country will be wiped out by counter strike, so there is nothing to win.
This strategy kept the Communist Russians in their box from the 1950 to the mid 1990s.
If you are going to be attacked with Nukes, you don't care about the EU or China (probably China will launch at the US and who ever the other combatants is, as well).
The whole idea is to keep everybody scared.
2007-08-19 20:35:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by conranger1 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Nuclear weapons are more of a "Dont mess with us or you will take this" Sort of thing.
Most countries wont mess with us if we have Nuclear Weapons. some might. That is why if worst comes to worst and we are being hit by a Nuke we can take the enemy with us if it should ever come to that.
2007-08-19 14:51:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Proud Michigander 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
One word. Deterrence
EDIT:
"Deterrence doesn't work."
-Who was the last country to launch a nuclear attack against us?
"Someone has to make the first move."
-Exactly, who is going to make the first move knowing that you will meet certain destruction when the US launches back.
"Point is, civilians don't need to be in fear of nuclear attacks. That's idiotic."
-Tell that to the Japanese citizens that were living in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and in the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945
2007-08-19 13:26:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by erehwon 4
·
5⤊
2⤋
Not bad. It's still just laying down the biggest gun because you don't think you can use it. Personally, I could.
I think 60mm just said it all, it just takes someone with first hand experience to shed light on these topics.
2007-08-19 15:55:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by relaxed 4
·
0⤊
0⤋