Sarah Palin: stop Putin with nukes

reply to post by proteus33


Six pages in and you still do not see that she did not threaten the use of nukes. You have to have them in this situation. You do not bring a knife to a gunfight...

The ME will never be quiet. If you nuked Mecca you would see retaliation all over the globe. The Japanese in WW2 were smacked and no one had ever seen that technology. You can bet you ass the world was scared they were next.

It is not like that now. Every war since then has been conventional and guerrilla warfare. They will be like that. The use of a nuke in this century would bring about a world that has never been seen.

matafuchs
reply to post by proteus33

 

Six pages in and you still do not see that she did not threaten the use of nukes. You have to have them in this situation. You do not bring a knife to a gunfight...

The ME will never be quiet. If you nuked Mecca you would see retaliation all over the globe. The Japanese in WW2 were smacked and no one had ever seen that technology. You can bet you ass the world was scared they were next.

It is not like that now. Every war since then has been conventional and guerrilla warfare. They will be like that. The use of a nuke in this century would bring about a world that has never been seen.

I am afraid you are mistaken.America is on the moral high ground.We also have the upper hand.Anyone who dare attacks us and they will obliterated.We are all powerful.we see everything.we hear everything.we can destroy anyone upsets who the democratic principles of the founding fathers which nurture our society against the barbarians of the east.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by championoftruth

 

Wasn't everybody killing, fighting & waring in WW2...
The fact that you feel it was just to annihilate 100s of thousands of innocent civilians because of few over zealous Kamikaze pilots is unfathomable!!!
Not to mention the 100s of thousands of innocent civilians who died in the aftermath of such a radioactive display of genocide!
However a false sense of self worth is astonishing among some nationals, maybe I shouldn't be surprised when I read such intolerant diatribes!!!

I'd say the Middle East need a few Nukes as well...
Not for your reasoning though...
To actually defend themselves from constant civilian bombardment from Allied Forces!!!



Maybe Mr.Obama needs a few Phosphorus tipped Drones or Depleted Uranium filled Mortars to fly through the White House windows when his children are asleep...

We have to be cruel to be kind!!!

Obnoxiousness...
Foolishness...
Narcissism...
Delusions of grandeur...
Traits you showed in 1 post...

I'm just being cruel to be kind!!!

the ongoing war would have killed more in ww2 if it had dragged out if we had not used nukes and those innocents were making weapons.

you forgot peral harbour? they started it and we finished it with a sucker punch.
since then they have been behaving.that is how it should be.same with putin and all the other trouble spots.the cow cowardly cowering obama is a spineless mama's boy disgrace.

reply to post by championoftruth


This is as obnoxious as your previous post...

However I now sense a hint of sarcasm being added for dramatic affect!!!

You are relatively new, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say this is your sense of humour!

Peace!

reply to post by championoftruth


That idea that more would have been killed if the nukes hadn't been dropped is debatable...
It could easily have been stopped by other means... At worst even 1 nuke, and a smaller version...
2 nukes was excessive!!!

Those innocents were building weapons?
I had no idea that military bases and weapons manufacturers were the targets...
As far as we all know 60 years later is that they were unscrupulous attacks... not targeted towards weaponisation!


I didn't forget Pearl Harbour either!!!
The word "Kamikaze" was a reference to PH!!!


I don't like Mr.Obama or Mr.Putin...

But nukes are stupid, to put it simply & delicately!!!

Peace!

reply to post by daaskapital


I remember reading somewhere about naval officers watching a pacific nuclear test back in the 50s. They said when the bomb went off they could feel the intense heat on their faces from the fireball forty miles away. The problem is, there are very few living human beings who have seen one go of and have even the slightest comprehension of the destructive power of a nuclear weapon. Something that has the power to VAPORIZE you. She does not know of what she speaks. Carl Sagan once wrote that 200 nukes would be enough to effectively destroy the United States, and Russia no doubt has several thousand aimed at us. I am sure Sarah isnt worried because she probably believes she will be raptured. If you think nukes are an option, I suggest you watch this movie all the way through and then see if you still feel the same way. It was made at the end of the cold war and by all accounts a real nuclear war would be far worse than this portrayal. Someone who obviously is as underinformed as Sarah Palin is, can be very dangerous.




Lastly, if you think it CANT happen, think again. It almost did in 1983, during the heat of the cold war.

championoftruth


russia needs to be slapped down.

sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

W...........T.................F

ONLY excuse to use nuclear weapons against civilians now days is if your nuked first.

Nuclear weapons should NEVER be used lightly. EVER.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were firecrackers compared to the ones we have to day.

Killing millions just to prove a point to Putin would be a war crime.


Any one that supports using nuclear weapons in a first strike is a disgusting and abhorrent person.

CharlieSpeirs


That idea that more would have been killed if the nukes hadn't been dropped is debatable...
It could easily have been stopped by other means... At worst even 1 nuke, and a smaller version...
2 nukes was excessive!!!
Peace!

I don't even think there is much debate about the use of the atomic weapon at that time, and at that time it was the same attempt at genocide on a grand scale as was Hitler's actions. courtesy of Edward Teller/Dr Strangelove and Co.

So Sarah Palin, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke” that's the same as some guy said before or after..I forget, except substitute 'Nuke' for 'Gun' Could anyone believe this stuff? Is my 'Nuke' bigger than yours is the cry?
Yeah man, you have the right thinking, however at the time no nukes were needed, no nukes would ever be needed.

reply to post by daaskapital


Palins definition of MAD is Mostly Aberrant Descendant!
Thank God she wasn't elected!
Cassandra effect anyone?

matafuchs
reply to post by proteus33

 

Six pages in and you still do not see that she did not threaten the use of nukes. You have to have them in this situation. You do not bring a knife to a gunfight...

The ME will never be quiet. If you nuked Mecca you would see retaliation all over the globe. The Japanese in WW2 were smacked and no one had ever seen that technology. You can bet you ass the world was scared they were next.

It is not like that now. Every war since then has been conventional and guerrilla warfare. They will be like that. The use of a nuke in this century would bring about a world that has never been seen.

I agree. Just the creation of the nuke has created a world none have ever seen!
Though eventually someone will use this weapon and then after that all deals
will be off the table! Which will lead us into a world of pain! I have never been
a fan of war and don't feel it is a necessary means but only a means to our end!

Why would the press even bother to put such retarded comments in their newspapers ?

crazyewok

championoftruth


russia needs to be slapped down.

sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

W...........T.................F

ONLY excuse to use nuclear weapons against civilians now days is if your nuked first.

Nuclear weapons should NEVER be used lightly. EVER.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They were firecrackers compared to the ones we have to day.

Killing millions just to prove a point to Putin would be a war crime.


Any one that supports using nuclear weapons in a first strike is a disgusting and abhorrent person.

nowadays weapons are small and smart.direct one at putin and his cohorts.i never said anything about killing random people in random cities.

i believe evil leaders should always be targeted personally.this would make the world safer.

reply to post by smurfy


I guess that is the implication of the warning...
If I was to guess, I'd say since Russia had the Tsar bomb (which was reduced to half it's power for testing), I'd also be inclined to say that Russia's is the biggest!

But you make some excellent points, the ony thing I would ask is "why Japan, why not Nazi Germany?"!


Peace S!

I guess Idiocracy was in fact a documentary.

championoftruth


nowadays weapons are small and smart.direct one at putin and his cohorts.i never said anything about killing random people in random cities.

i believe evil leaders should always be targeted personally.this would make the world safer.

Hi Becky

No your wrong the average size of a Nuke is 100Kt- 1.2 Mt Hiroshima was about 15 Kt

You drop that on the Kremlin it will destroy half of Moscow.

Her statement is not a threat, it is a warning to us as a nation. A wake up call. As we continue to scale back they(and the rest of the world) are ramping up. Iran, China, Pakistan...

All Palin is stating is that you cannot let someone who we have 'competed' against in the past get the upper hand because once they do it is not an easy thing to get back to the top or even be an equal. The Russian never went away. They are just a large sleeping bear and if you think otherwise you are deluded. They have their hands in so much and have in the last 10 years, many times in situations where we have been, that it has all been intel collection. How, when and why we move troops. Supply lines...tactical incursions...you name it they have watched as we have shown the world how we operate.

Now, they are not afraid. They have spent years finding our weakness. Read the 'Art of War'. It is really an A B C process. Wait...learn...move...

To me, in a perfect world, there would be no nukes. I wish there were no nukes. I do not want my children growing up after a Holocaust. However, if I had a neighbor who I saw bringing home loads and loads of ammo and large guns to his home...putting them on the roof and aiming them at me, I would do the same thing. A deterrent.

Our POTUS is a wimp. Sarah has more balls than he does and she has none(that we know of anyway )

As far as not nuking Germany, I think it was more of a logical choice not to eradicate an area where we were embedded as well as the fact that we had interests in place in Europe. Also, I do not think it was ready till after VE day...Japan was the lesser of two evils...

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs

the ony thing I would ask is "why Japan, why not Nazi Germany?"!

Nuke Germany in WW2 ?

Germany surrendered before the U.S. A-Bomb was assembled ?

And the "casualties" would have been large if the U.S. would have done a conventional invasion of Japan.

That's my conclusion.

xuenchen


Nuke Germany in WW2 ?

Germany surrendered before the U.S. A-Bomb was assembled ?

And the "casualties" would have been large if the U.S. would have done a conventional invasion of Japan.

That's my conclusion.

Exactly. Germany had already surrendered.

With the A bombing of japan?

Well the USA and Britain (once they showed up) by that point were already firebombing Japans major citys. And the firebombing were doing more damage than the nukes. The nukes were basically saying look we can do with 1 bomb what he can do with a few thousand. even if the two nukes hadn't been dropped Hiroshima and Nagasaki would likely have ended up firebombed anyway.

No don't get me wrong im 100% against "strategic" indiscriminate bombing of civilians be it by conventional means or nuclear and thing such things should never be repeated. BUT that was normal for the time and be it a single Nuke or 100,000 fire bombs it would have happened anyway. And everyone was guilty in WW2 Britain, Canada, America, Japan, Germany, Russia all did it.

reply to post by xuenchen


reply to post by crazyewok


I'd say those deaths via invasion would have been many more Military than civilian!

& I feel if last resort (still wouldn't agree) that 1 nuke would have sufficed...


We can say a lot with hindsight...
The only thing that doesn't change from foresight to hindsight is our Morals...

I'll never think it was the right option personally, and nothing would ever change that!


Peace.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I'd say those deaths via invasion would have been many more Military than civilian!

& I feel if last resort (still wouldn't agree) that 1 nuke would have sufficed...


We can say a lot with hindsight...
The only thing that doesn't change from foresight to hindsight is our Morals...

I'll never think it was the right option personally, and nothing would ever change that!


Peace.

I think there was a lot of factors and no the 2 nuke probably were not the main thing.

what a lot fail to see was a lot of Japans top Generals and Admirals knew the war was lost and there was alot that where already thinking surrender. The 2 nukes pushed support for them over the edge. But to be honest if they had not used the nukes the allies would have used firebombs to the same effect with the same death total and same result. Maybe 1 nuke would have done?

Either way surrender was at least 1 destroyed city's away be it by nuke or firebombs.

Japan was a very odd and unpredictable case.