Bush Admin. wants to use nukes in preemptive strikes.

Made a great point on page one. Quit butting heads and work together, trust me it's much easier and more fun. Or should I say less stressful on us all, the use of nukes is not good no matter how one looks at it or tries to put it forth. Media and propaganda go hand in hand, and a lie goes a long way with a little truth.

Omniscient.......its either us or them who first? i would like it to be them! with Counter-Intel and other means of Intel. we gather to see if N.K is in the mists of trying to sell or Pre-Emptive attack us thats why we need a Per-Emptive Strike/Nuke Option i wouln't wait and have N.K or Iran or some other non-intergrating state devlope or sell Nuclear arms to the thousands of Terrorist's that would love to bring a nuke or another kind of WMD into America or even into one of ower Allies "why wait"

The only reason to wait, is to stall. What that reason is for, varies for all the different choices. Often the best defence is a better offence.

That's still doing that before knowing that they are going to do it. I didn't even think we were their target, but one of their neighboring countries?

Omniscient.

From On High

Originally posted by Lurker
Quit butting heads and work together, trust me it's much easier and more fun.

Thanks for decloaking and sharing your advice.

For a while I used to "troll" the WoT forum, then I got tired of it and started lurking, then stopped lurking when it became obvious that WoT had almost nothing to do with the actual War on Terrorism, and instead became a ghetto for radicals and nation-bashers.

Looks like nothing's changed, unfortunately, and I'm apparently wasting my time here, so I guess it's time for me to re-engage my WoT cloaking device and head off to more worthwhile pursuits.

Word up to all you lurkers out there.

Majic, your theoretic scenario isnt pleasant, however a solution is at hand.
There is an old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
The answer to that scenario comes back to what I said about leading by example. The only solution is for that scenario never to be possible in the first place. Those with nuclear weaponry Must dissasemble and destroy them, no nukes in my hands and I am no longer a threat to you, and vice versa. The question is, which of us has the moral fortitude, and beleives enough in his own convictions to disarm first and lead the way?
courage born of faith in weaponry and military superiority, is one thing. Courage born of conviction of righteousness and the will to practice what you preach, is quite another.
Someone must be the first to lead the way, paranoia must be overcome.
A jouney of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Let's say you are the President of the United States and you have just been informed that North Korea is in the process of preparing to launch a nuclear attack from hardened silos on Japan -- target Tokyo -- that you have five minutes to decide what to do, and that no conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal will be able to take out the silos.

the above scenerio is not worth arguing because it's NEVER going to happen. NK knows launching a nuclear attack against japan would provoke a nuclear strike by the US and turn their country into a radioactive parking lot....if you can come up with a convincing argument why NK would possibly nuke japan, i'll be happy to discuss it further.

on the other hand...you have the US who has used an atomic bomb on another country and has recently invaded a country just on the suspicion that they had WMD and were going to use them...and guess what, they were wrong....and guess what else...the people who screwed up to begin with are still on the job.

One More For The Road

Originally posted by instar
Someone must be the first to lead the way, paranoia must be overcome.
A jouney of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I really shouldn't be here, but I just wanted to comment before I move on.

I hear you. Totally. I wish it were that easy.

The truth is that the genie is out of the bottle, and we can't put it back. We might as well try to eliminate the discovery and knowledge of fire or the wheel.

Nuclear weapons are real, and nuclear weapons technology cannot be unlearned, no matter how much we might want it to go away. Even Al Qaeda knows how to build nukes.

We can't go back.

When the U.S. developed the atomic bomb, it was during a vicious and brutal world war in which millions of people died, most of them civilians.

At the time, we were in an arms race against Nazi Germany, which was also working on a nuclear weapon. We know this because after the war, their scientists came over and helped our scientists.

After Nazi Germany, we were up against Stalin's Soviet Union, which also got the bomb. While Soviet tanks rolled through eastern Europe, they labeled us “imperialists”.

Meanwhile, many western Europeans protested the U.S. presence and resistance to Soviet expansion, condemning our strategies while apparently unconcerned about what would have happened if we would have listened to them.

The Cold War was a very real war, and I challenge critics of the U.S. to claim that they would have preferred the Soviet Union to have won instead, and what life would have been like if that had happened.

Now several nations have nuclear weapons, despite our best efforts to prevent that. People blame us for trying to prevent the spread of weapons, and for not trying -- sometimes the same people.

And we are now at war. Not just the “War on Terrorism”, but a much bigger war, just as real as the Cold War, and with the potential to be even more deadly, if we can imagine that. If for no other reason, it is potentially more deadly because there are now more people to kill.

And this new war is not like any other war. It is undeclared even though it is global in scope -- reaching even into space -- and very few people know its extent and seriousness. The price of defeat in this war is extinction, and the threat is very real.

Let's be honest about the situation. If the U.S. unilaterally disarmed, do you really think the world would be a better place?

And what would happen to the U.S.? Do you really think we would be left alone? And what about our allies? Would they be safe and secure without us?

To understand the reasons for our answers, you must understand what you're asking.

What you're asking is something we simply cannot do.

Originally posted by jsobecky
If our military did not have a plan to cover almost any conceivable threat to the US, they would be shirking their duties.

Were duties shirked in 2001 then?

I hear you. Totally. I wish it were that easy.

It IS that easy, men must desire it so, thats all it takes! Not just America but all nations! What if folk told kennedy ,when he declared we go to the moon, "I wish it were that easy" ? We would never have gone!

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Were duties shirked in 2001 then?

Yes, and more importantly, in the eight years preceding 2000.

Come on people I would hope that most of you people would understand that the US just like every other major country has plans for every type of situation and many for each situation, and if something does occur then they go to the play book and pick from one of several types of plans that will best aid their situation. A pre-emptive strike with nukes would cause an outrage among the international community and the U.S. would not want that.

Yes, demosthenes. But this is not 'occuring'. This is an action made BEFORE it occurs. BIG difference.

Omniscient.

Ok now wouldn't it be better to have a contigency plan already in place in case something might happen. To were we would need a pre-emptive strike.

Here we go, going into the what "IFS".

What if good intelligence comes and the signs are there that the North Koreans are planning to invade South Korea and in their initial attack they plan on taking out the U.S. base on the Border of the DMZ with a tactical nuke. Wouldn't that call for a pre-emptive strike. And wouldn't it be better to have and not need then need and not have.

Yes, but you are trying to say we should have plans if something MIGHT happen, but this isn't saying it's going to happen, it's an attack BEFORE anything happens, which wouldn't be a plan for something happening.

Omniscient.

Of course,

Better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

Right. I mean its better to have a raincoat with you when the weatherman says there's a 50% chance of raining then not to have it and get wet.
RIGHT.

"RIGHT" People just don't understand that this war is a war on everyone America and its Allies arn't totaly safe N.K Iran could easly sell "if they haven't yet" to a Terrorist cell and easly have them bring it to one of the many country's that America has in Cooperation in the War On Terror..........N.K is suspected of already having 6Nukes so whats to say if they soldone to some Korean or diffrent Terror Cell to infiltrate Japan one of N.K's Top Enemy's and setit off? War On Terror is no War to mess around with N.K is already talking about Pre-Emptive strikes!!

So, according to you Majic I can go out and kill anyone I like because they might be a threat at some point in the future? So I can go to a nursery and kill every baby legally and morally because hey, you don't know, one of them may have been the next Ted Bundy, the next Hitler, the next Bush. Hey, I like this.

I can finally go out and kill all the people who pissed me off without the wisdom to have a place to hide the bodies cause according to republicans it is perfectly legal to kill anyone if they might could maybe be a threat at some point in the future, maybe.

Wow James,

You really took that and twisted it in an evil way. Killing babies is way different than killing a person out of self defense. First there are several differences from killing a baby than from killing someone with a knife(nuke).

Ok scenario, a person with a knife is creeping up behind one of your friends with the intent to kill your friend, you know this and you also know that he is planning on turning the knife on you after he kills your friend. You have the opportunity to beat the living crap out of him before he does any harm to you or your friend. Would you not kick the crap out of him and take the knife away or in the case you have a knife to use your knife on him to save your life and your friends.

James: So, according to you Majic I can go out and kill anyone I like because they might be a threat at some point in the future? So I can go to a nursery and kill every baby legally and morally because hey, you don't know, one of them may have been the next Ted Bundy, the next Hitler, the next Bush. Hey, I like this.

I can finally go out and kill all the people who pissed me off without the wisdom to have a place to hide the bodies cause according to republicans it is perfectly legal to kill anyone if they might could maybe be a threat at some point in the future, maybe.


signature
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will only send me on a psychopathic rampage.
Do not mess with the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Religon is a superstition. People need it to keep them from eating their young.
If Guns Kill People, Then Spoons Made Rosie O'Donnel Fat.
"I may not agree with what you say , but I will have Iraqis killed for your right to say only Republican-think phrases." Bush



Gotta love how people compare like that..... killing babies wtf?!