I do not advocate use of nuclear weapons . .

Post #8,359 by Andrew Grygus 9/11/01 3:15:00 PM Reply	I do not advocate use of nuclear weapons . . . . unless there really isn't a reasonable alternative. It should be avoided if at all possible. I think the bombs dropped on Japan should not have been dropped, at least not on cities. I don't think it was necessary to cause that much destruction at that point. Same with Dresden (non-nuclear but just as bad). I do think the threat should be on the table. In the extreme, I suspect a "demonstration" might get people to take the possibility a bit more seriously. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,363 by bluke 9/11/01 3:19:07 PM Reply	How is a nuclear weapon ever a reasonable alternative? A nuclear weapon dropped on any country will kill hundreds of thousands of people, poisin the area around for miles cause fallout who know where, etc. If that is not a war crime then what is?
Post #8,407 by addison 9/11/01 4:14:58 PM Reply	You've got to stop thinking with your emotions. A nuclear weapon dropped on any country will kill hundreds of thousands of people, poisin the area around for miles cause fallout who know where, etc. Nope, nope, and nope. It might, I grant you. But the effect of an atomic explosion differ wildly based on lots of things. Target, height of explosion, makeup of surrounding area, make of weapon, all sorts of things. But if you're killed or mortally wounded by ANYTHING it Really Doesn't Matter That Much What By. If that is not a war crime then what is? [trolling trolling trolling] Blowing up old guys with 5 anti-tank rockets as they putter home in a VW Bug?[/trolling trolling trolling] Addison
Post #8,466 by bluke 9/11/01 10:32:58 PM Reply	So tell me ... Why are chemical weapons outlawed, does it matter if you die from a bullet or poison gas? How about dum-dum bullets? The fact is that even war has rules, and 1 of the rules these days is that you don't indiscrimanately kill hundreds of thousands of people, men women and children.
Post #8,468 by Steve Lowe 9/11/01 10:59:23 PM Reply	Re: So tell me ... So how many of the people killed today were innocent civilians? Men, Women, Children. Obviously, terrorists do not follow the "rules of war". There's also a long-standing suspicion of chemical weapons development in countries such as Iraq. Why should a response follow them? While I don't think lowering ourselves to the same level is either warranted or necessary, sometimes fire must be fought with fire. Not that I at all support using nuclear weapons...but you're kinda going off the deep end here. People here are in shock and afraid. The first reaction is retaliation, massive retaliation. Immediate and swift revenge. Primal even. It's a knee-jerk reflex, just like when some whacko shoots someone in a school, there is a knee-jerk call for massive gun controls. Living where you do, I'm sure you see and feel that frequently. In fact, I'll bet that there are similar discussions on Israeli forums, chat rooms, etc. regarding Palestinian terrorist attacks. And, what's said here, in no way reflects what the US is planning, or even likely to do. ----- Steve
Post #8,469 by addison 9/11/01 11:31:37 PM Reply	So you tell me... you don't indiscrimanately kill hundreds of thousands of people, men women and children. Who said anything about that? Other than you, with your misunderstanding of the use of atomic weapons. And just for the record, (and for effect) right now, you might want to check who's shooting innocent people, men, women, and children.... Addison
Post #8,496 by bluke 9/12/01 2:59:01 AM Reply	Do you seriously believ that the US can drop a nuclear ... weapon and not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have you ever read the Geneva Convention particularly the article relating to civilians? Here is 1 quote: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: C. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Post #8,524 by addison 9/12/01 9:09:20 AM Reply	Yes. Because I am not an idiot. However, I believe that you are. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have you ever read the Geneva Convention particularly the article relating to civilians? Here is 1 quote: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. What's the DATE on that? You dumbass, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were CITIES that were targetting. I'd tell you to learn to read, but its obvious you can't LEARN. THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 800 ATOMIC WEAPONS DETONATED IN THE OPEN AIR. 2 KILLED CIVILLIANS. Not that facts have ever deterred you from your idiocy. Addison
Post #8,651 by bluke 9/12/01 3:23:24 PM Reply	Really What does the fact that nuclear weapons were TESTED in the open air have to do with actually using against them a real target? Any target that a nuclear weapon is used against will invariably have civilians nearby.
Post #8,663 by addison 9/12/01 3:59:20 PM Reply	Really???? Any target that a nuclear weapon is used against will invariably have civilians nearby. There are no military bases anymore? Please discuss the blast range, deployment, effect and radius of the atomic weaponry in the US arsenal. Or the Israeli arsenal, if you prefer. Addison
Post #8,666 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 4:05:23 PM Reply	Lets' give 'im a break After all, it doesn't seem that he has any military experience and only knows what is on the kiddie books, the big ICBMs. Tactical nuclear weapons? Wazzz dat? [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #8,804 by bluke 9/13/01 3:24:09 AM Reply	And what do you know about tactical nukes??? The US shelved most of their tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1990's . The US only deploys 2 tactical nuclear weapons types today the Tomahawk TLAM-N SLCM (BGM-109A) which has a yield of 200 kilotons and B61 Mod-3,-4,-10 gravity bomb (tactical) which has a yeild from .3 to 170 kilotons. Considering that these are gravity bombs they will most probably not be used. Therefore we are taking about a 200 kiloton warhead. All this info is from here: [link\|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef\|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef]&f/database/usnukes.html#nonstrat here is 1 quote: "The U.S. once deployed the entire panoply of tactical nuclear weapons (from nuclear artillery and demolition mines to short-range rockets and even air-to-air missiles). However, nearly all have been removed and are slated for destruction, largely as a result of President Bush's unilateral initiative of September 27, 1991. Indeed, the only operational non-strategic forces are currently the B61 tactical bombs, largely allocated for use in Europe (and perhaps the TLAM-N SLCMs, though these could arguably be considered strategic, and are in storage in any case.)"
Post #8,847 by addison 9/13/01 10:05:18 AM Reply	Far more than you. Trust me, that site is wrong. Well, no, sorry. Not wrong. Very very very incomplete. Just to make a point: the "Davy Crockett" isn't there. So are you petitioning Israel to shed themselves of their nukes? Addison
Post #8,936 by bluke 9/13/01 3:38:05 PM Reply	Of course, you are right and everyone is wrong
Post #8,941 by addison 9/13/01 4:05:30 PM Reply	Run Away! Run Away! At least in your case, yes. I know a HELL OF A LOT more about atomics than you. I just told you of a SPECIFIC weapon completely ignored on that page. So its hardly complete. There's 2 man-portable devices I know of. Unmentioned. The common thing to do when you're shown to be wrong is apologise - or at least fess up. But I wasn't expecting better from you. Addison
Post #8,751 by marlowe 9/12/01 9:47:35 PM Reply	I don't think Bin Laden has his bases in the South Pacific And that's the only conceivable place on earth where Bluke's point would fail to be valid, and your objection would have any weight whatsoever. Well, let me modify that. Antarctica would also be okay, but only if we evacuate the scientists. And the northern part of Greenland might be civilian-safe as well, if we forcibly remove the Inuits from those latitudes. Addison, if you keep detonating gems like this, you're going to have to expect to catch a lot of fallout. The prevailing wind of logic keeps carrying your toxic crap back around to you. The real trouble with idiots is they're all aboslutely positive that they're not idiots. A lot of the time Bluke doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but his track record is still better than yours. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,777 by addison 9/12/01 10:50:09 PM Reply	Just shorten that to "I don't think" and you'll be right. And that's the only conceivable place on earth where Bluke's point would fail to be valid, and your objection would have any weight whatsoever. Then answer the question posed to him. Or shut up, because you're wrong. Addison, if you keep detonating gems like this, you're going to have to expect to catch a lot of fallout. The prevailing wind of logic keeps carrying your toxic crap back around to you. Logic? I'd tell you to give me a break, but you're so stupid you can't realise HOW stupid you are. Want to snipe at me? Fine. But you now have 2 questions outstanding that you're running from. Either answer them, or shut the fuck up. The real trouble with idiots is they're all aboslutely positive that they're not idiots. A lot of the time Bluke doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but his track record is still better than yours. Then answer the questions posed to you. Addison
Post #8,487 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:39:35 AM Reply	War has rules? Rather an ironic thing to say of the ultimate breakdown of civility between two parties. Total war has no rules. A war with rules is less than a total war. Not that that's a bad thing. But it's an unsustainable thing. War is hell, and only demons really want it. Best to get it over with quickly. Let's completely neutralize the threat in as prompt a fashion as we can manage, and then get on with our lives. And if the terrorists don't like it, well, they shouldn't have started it. So there. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,494 by bluke 9/12/01 2:55:14 AM Reply	It certainly does Read the Geneva Convention ([link\|http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm\|http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm]) there is a whole section dealing with the treatment of civilians during war.
Post #8,488 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:43:09 AM Reply	What does it matter where you lie when you're dead... in a marble palace on a hill, or a pile of smoking rubble downtown? You're dead, you're sleeping the big sleep. You're beyond caring about things like rules. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,497 by bluke 9/12/01 3:01:46 AM Reply	So tell me why are chemical weapons outlawed ... after all according to your theory the person is dead either way.
Post #8,511 by jbrabeck 9/12/01 8:13:21 AM Reply	Were you ever in the military? Chemical weapons may be "outlawed", but we sure did spend a lot of time on preparing for chemical attacks.... yes, the book of Hoyle may say the it's not nice to use chemicals or cause collateral damage, but guess what... [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]

Welcome to IWETHEY!