Nuke 'em til they glow..........

Nuke 'em til they glow, then shoot them in the dark. I've heard this statement a lot, and I have read vast amounts of threads with people with the perversion of using nuclear weapons. I do not understand what is wrong with people, if the United States were to use ONLY 1 nuclear weapon the chain reaction of nuclear events is unfathomable. I mean seriously........ Everyone knows we can decimate a population by simply carpet bombing. Many people simply respond Nuke 'em, non-americans too. It is purely a deterrent at this point. Save for me using coarse language but someone suggested using a Nuke against Argentina over the Falkland Islands. It surely has to be an impotence of intelligence. For God's sake I am Republican and I don't even think of that. What is your take ATS'ers? Why are people perverts for the Nuclear Option? (Side note 'ATS'ers' sounds like a bad word.)

29INFDIV

I believe the thread you are talking about the OP was suggesting using a 'tactical nuke' which could be used to take out the size of a couple of football fields if the argies continue to threaten the people of the Falklands with invasion, the OP was not talking about nuking them into oblivion.

I think gore and warfare should be streamed 24/7 on national TV, let's see how badly the people want war when they see civilians been torn apart by shrapnel, crushed by debris, or dismembered by bombs, or better yet, when they see our troops get blown up by IEDs.

Vicarious people want vicarious treats; they want to see the destruction of an entire country so they can spout their "ooh"s and "aah"s. They don't care.

reply to post by 29INFDIV

Why are people perverts for the Nuclear Option?

It's a way for cowards to hope their "opponents" will just dissapear. People who use the "nuke 'em" talk are veteran armchair warriors, they would never think of picking up a weapon to go and fight for themselves, so the logic of the armchair comes into play.

Using a nuclear weapon is a cowardly act, and to be proud that a nuke could be fired regardless of the reason is inhumane. To me it's a sign that these people know they can't win and that their methods are completely wrong so they just want to silence their "enemies" for being truthful to the fact.

The nuke rhetoric could just as well have been replaced with "they're not allowed to talk, so we will silence them", nice example of freedoms huh.

reply to post by 29INFDIV


I wouldnt pay too much attention to the individual who proposed using nukes. There are still far more people out there who are against it than for it. The concern should be, are the leaders of the west like minded?

I sure hope not...

Originally posted by 29INFDIV
Nuke 'em til they glow, then shoot them in the dark. I've heard this statement a lot, and I have read vast amounts of threads with people with the perversion of using nuclear weapons.

The reason you have heard it around is because it's an old military saying. When I was in the Army back in the 1980s we used to say it. It didn't mean anything except to give the enemy hell and kill THEM instead of letting them kill us. It doesn't necessarily really mean 'use nukes'.

forgive me but I have to look at it like this.
1 well placed Nuke will remove the necessity of millions of 5.56 and 7.62 ball ammo wounding hundreds of thousands of people and spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on war profiteering

reply to post by FlyersFan


First and foremost I'm sorry to say I am a Caps fan. To say it's an old military saying is like telling your 13 year veteran of the Army (Me) it's a new saying. For what it's worth I am Infantry (Light.) I can understand that old timers will say it, but the Monday morning quarterbacks whom have no idea what war is like. I just don't think they get the severity of what they say.

29INFDIV

reply to post by 29INFDIV

Sorry to hear you are a Caps fan.
Seriously ... when I was in during the 1980s we said it all the time.
It didn't mean anything. It was 'just a thing' (to use another old Army expression from that time).

Ain't nothin' but a thing .... nuke 'em till they glow ...
Lots of old sayings. During my time they didn't mean anything serious.

(There were others, but I forget. I was actually invited to go airborne ... and being a girl that was a big thing back in 1981 ... but I didn't get to go .... If I had, I'm sure I would have picked up a bunch of other sayings as well ... )

reply to post by Frankel


First & foremost there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Tactical only means it is dropped precisely where you aimed it. I for one agree with the bombs we dropped on Japan, but in the long term, you effectively lay waste to the ground. FYI look at the building standards of Nagasaki & Hiroshima, it's to protect from ground radiation. It is absolutely a collateral damage weapon that has never been aimed at a military target. To say it's a threat is for the US to tell the radical Islamist to knock it off or we take out Mecca with a Nuke.

29INFDIV

I think most of that rhetoric comes from juvenile mindsets obsessed with video games such as Call Of Duty. I doubt many who issue and support such statements have even been in a fist fight let alone posess the mental capacity to fathom the horrors of war..

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


I think it should be mandatory to serve in the US, like all other nations with a 2 year service system. Put's things into perspective. No need to have a channel just turn on the MSM and you get to see the tragedies of war. But to live them is the experience.

29INFDIV

reply to post by InsideYourMind


Akin to the "veterans" I see all the time who were HR clerks, Cooks, Supply Clerks, Admins. Necessary I know, but they don't know about combat & the severity of it. These armchair politics need to see the bigger picture. I agree with you.

29INFDIV

We haven't used weapons of that magnitude on anyone since Japan, so the generations after that just don't know the destruction and misery that ONE can cause. People wondering around in agony with half their skin burned off is just pictures in an old magazine.

reply to post by rebellender


To say that is pretty much saying after we nuke you we aren't going to send our companies over there to rehabilitate your infrastructure. There will always be profiteers of a war, you would if you could.

29INFDIV

reply to post by jrmcleod


I am more concerned for countries that have it; in destabilizing regions. I am confident that the US' deterrent is exactly what it sounds like a deterrent.

29INFDIV

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
I think gore and warfare should be streamed 24/7 on national TV, let's see how badly the people want war when they see civilians been torn apart by shrapnel, crushed by debris, or dismembered by bombs, or better yet, when they see our troops get blown up by IEDs.

Vicarious people want vicarious treats; they want to see the destruction of an entire country so they can spout their "ooh"s and "aah"s. They don't care.

Actually, I agree with you. News after 9pm should be uncensored in its entirety. If the soldiers have to see it so should the public that sends them there.

In a way censorship of the horror of war is deeply immoral.

If it not important enough for the public to deal with seeing it, its not important enough to need doing.

reply to post by FlyersFan


To quote an Airborne chant "Stand Up, Buckle Up, Shuffle to the Door, Jump Right Out, Then Count to Four."

One wildly used today is BOHICA, Bend Over Here It Comes Again. With a nuke it comes and there ain't no more.

29INFDIV

reply to post by 29INFDIV


I agree with FlyersFan. I believe “nuke’em till they glow” it is just an expression with no intent; just something to say. I remember a cadence in the Marine Corps that used that term. It’s just some gung-ho speak!! Nothing to take seriously (depending on who is saying it I guess ).

There are those who do advocate some form of nuke attack on enemies but the US nuclear arsenal is, as you pointed out, mainly a deterrent. It has been and should remain a weapon of LAST resort. You’re right about the possible chain reaction a nuclear strike of any size could cause. There is no need for it and the people who advocate this are obviously not thinking of the long term implications of such action

Originally posted by 29INFDIV
reply to post by Frankel

 

First & foremost there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Tactical only means it is dropped precisely where you aimed it. I for one agree with the bombs we dropped on Japan, but in the long term, you effectively lay waste to the ground. FYI look at the building standards of Nagasaki & Hiroshima, it's to protect from ground radiation. It is absolutely a collateral damage weapon that has never been aimed at a military target. To say it's a threat is for the US to tell the radical Islamist to knock it off or we take out Mecca with a Nuke.

29INFDIV

The US does have an inventory of Tactical Nuclear weapons; however, the classification is usually based on delivery range (think cruise missile vs Trident missile)not explosive yield like it was back in the days of cast iron nukes and steam powered airplanes. Then the smallest battlefield nuke was the Davy Crockett Tactical Nuclear Recoilless Rifle, 10 or 20 tons yield, 1 or 2.5 miles range (I swear I am not making this up). Largest was Atomic Annie, a towed 280mm artillery piece with a 7 mile range and a 15 kiloton yield. The US removed all artillery nukes in '91, the Soviets followed in '92.

Davy Crockett


As for the use of NUKE 'EM, I think many use it just for the shock value or to see what kind of response post it will generate. The number of people who truly want nukes to be used is quite a bit smaller than the number calling for it. I hope this is the case.