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

If we all realized that we are one mankind, we wouldn't be killing ourselves. We're not bombing others, we are bombing ourselves. Allies, enemies, good guys, bad guys.... there is only we.

Originally posted by 29INFDIV
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

have it your way. one 5.56 and one 7.62 at a time. Take 12 yrs doing it and have your hundreds of thousands of casualties. Its you war have it as you wish. You don't like mine, have it your way. Rest assured after they make up their minds it will be one way or the other.

added: we now have proof that anybody can be president of the United States,,,Its not a matter of if I could profit from war, its that I personally have not pursued it

BTW I think your own signature says very well what I am trying to say.

Originally posted by Frankel
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.

It does not matter what kind of nuke people are talking about. People should not be threatening other nations with nuclear attack. Its a cold uncompassionate stance on life. They have been used in the past with deadly affect and are not matters to be taken lightly.

Originally posted by Sahabi
If we all realized that we are one mankind, we wouldn't be killing ourselves. We're not bombing others, we are bombing ourselves. Allies, enemies, good guys, bad guys.... there is only we.

edit on 2/6/12 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

Humanity isn't the vehicle to war its something else. Power Greed and pure Evil are to blame. Why would the Japanese war with China? What was that beef? What made the Japanese military so inhumane? The Nazi's why?

I am sure only good wholesome people come together in thought and question why. Clearly, we wouldn't have the discussion if we were all corrupt.

Sometimes there is no answer. Sometimes somebody will always object.
Humans have a choice. Do or not do.

reply to post by rebellender


A good plan is not the nuclear option in response to your BTW. The mission of US Military is to destroy the enemy by means of fire & maneuver. The problem most of us see is our Military operating with it's hands tied around it's back. Iraq/Afghanistan, easy targets one would say. Some would call it an invasion force. Some would have been happy and upset to unleash 700,000 troops, would have been done within two years, but bureaucrats say no, and now we have timetables. At all costs; Nuclear is not the answer.

29INFDIV

To launch any sort of nuclear weapon in this day and age would assure the entire obliteration of mankind (E.L.E. style). I'm reminded of the movie "Independence Day" where Jeff Goldblum's character talks about nuclear war. I think his stance is right on: once someone launches a nuke, everybody else that has nukes would launch them, and we would all be dead in a few days. There are no winners once these weapons come in to play. Like another poster mentioned, they would be weapons of last resort, when you know that you won't win, and you don't want the other side to win either.

I mentioned this in another thread about a "prophecy" concerning China invading the U.S. I stated that nukes are the ultimate deterrent, and if we ever needed to use them, we would assure that any invading force wouldn't be able to use the land they are overtaking for at least 500 years.

With that being said, I don't believe that these weapons would ever be used. Just the threat of having them would be enough. I honestly don't think Iran (which is the current "scare" in the MSM) would dare launch a weapon of this magnitude and range of destruction, just because they would ensure their own demise. The MAD scenario is very humbling, and I don't think even the craziest of religious extremists would ever dare use a nuclear device.


My $.02.


-TS

Originally posted by 29INFDIV
reply to post by rebellender

 

A good plan is not the nuclear option in response to your BTW. The mission of US Military is to destroy the enemy by means of fire & maneuver. The problem most of us see is our Military operating with it's hands tied around it's back. Iraq/Afghanistan, easy targets one would say. Some would call it an invasion force. Some would have been happy and upset to unleash 700,000 troops, would have been done within two years, but bureaucrats say no, and now we have timetables. At all costs; Nuclear is not the answer.

29INFDIV

thank you for letting me share my opinion on your thread.
E-5 Sgt sep. also Lt Inf.

reply to post by 29INFDIV


I just want to make clear i am in no way supporting nuclear weapons or the trigger happy use of them....but sorry look it up there are such things as tatical nukes that can be used by the military with as little capability as 1 kiloton nuclear artillery shells that could be used in battlefield situations to the 15 kiloton Balistic missile that has a length of only a couple of feet, 'tactical nuclear weapon' means a weapon that has been designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations not where the weapon is dropped, just thought I would point that out but it is completely irrelevant because even one of these 'tatical' weapons being used would escalate very quickly into a full scale nuclear war. To come back the the original question I think the reason people use these terms so easily without thinking or realising what it would mean if there threats were carried out and what it would mean to them and there family is from the MSM and stuff they here on TV, Films and games like Duke Nukem lol

Dear OP,

Decimate doesn't mean what you think it means.

reply to post by khimbar


Ok, then what does decimate mean? The dictionary clearly states "a : to reduce drastically especially in number cholera decimated the population.
b : to cause great destruction or harm to; firebombs decimated the city, an industry decimated by recession"

Straight out of the dictionary. Do you wish to continue?

29INFDIV

Originally posted by 29INFDIV
reply to post by khimbar

 

Ok, then what does decimate mean? The dictionary clearly states "a : to reduce drastically especially in number cholera decimated the population.
b : to cause great destruction or harm to; firebombs decimated the city, an industry decimated by recession"

Straight out of the dictionary. Do you wish to continue?

29INFDIV

edit on 7-2-2012 by 29INFDIV because: Grammatical Error

Love to.

A unit selected for punishment by decimation was divided into groups of ten; each group drew lots (Sortition), and the soldier on whom the lot fell was executed by his nine comrades, often by stoning or clubbing.[citation needed] The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat and forced to sleep outside the Roman encampment.

Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction. The leadership was usually executed independently of the one in ten deaths of the rank and file.

Plutarch describes the process in his life of Antony. After a defeat in Media:

"Antony was furious and employed the punishment known as 'decimation' on those who had lost their nerve. What he did was divide the whole lot of them into groups of ten, and then he killed one from each group, who was chosen by lot; the rest, on his orders were given barley rations instead of wheat."

The word decimation is often used to refer to an extreme reduction in the number of a population or force, much greater than the one tenth defined by the "deci" root. It is often inaccurately used as a synonym for the word "annihilate" which the OED lists as meaning "to reduce to non-existence, blot out of existence"[11]

In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses "decimate" to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the "pedigree" of this "rare" meaning.[12][13] This is inaccurate or misleading. The Oxford English Dictionary cites in the second subset of the fourth verb form entry a "rhetorically or loosely" meaning as "to destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.

shadowtwin.com...

Decimate
It's hard to believe that such a simple word hides such a horrific history. The original definition of "decimate" was "to kill one in ten." The brutal practice was used by the Roman army beginning around the 5th century B.C. and was implemented as a way to inspire fear and loyalty. Lots were drawn, and one out of every 10 soldiers would be killed - by their own comrades. If one member of a squad acted up, anybody could pay the ultimate price. Captured armies often fell victim to this practice as well. Today, "decimate" has lost that meaning, but some grammarians still like to preserve it ... at least in the sense of "to reduce by 10 percent." The "dec" prefix means "ten" - it's the same Latin root that gives us decade, for example. So to use "decimate" to mean just "destroy" contradicts the meaning of that prefix. (Note: Language snobs really get up in arms when someone says "totally decimate." Totally reduce by ten? We don't get it, either.)

Decimation was a Roman punishment where one in ten men was killed. So when something is decimated, it implies that ten percent of it is destroyed. “Devastate” is almost certainly a better word for most usages and yet: “New York City budget will decimate libraries”.

1. Decimate

The literal meaning of this word, as all you lovers of Latin (not to be confused with Latin lovers) know all too well, is “to reduce by one-tenth,” supposedly from the punitive custom of selecting one out of ten captives by lot and killing those so selected.

decimate Look up decimate at Dictionary.com
c.1600, in reference to the practice of punishing mutinous military units by capital execution of one in every 10, by lot; from L. decimatus, pp. of decimare (see decimation). Killing one in ten, chosen by lots, from a rebellious city or a mutinous army was a common punishment in classical times. The word has been used (incorrectly, to the irritation of pedants) since 1660s for "destroy a large portion of." Related: Decimated; decimating.

No idea which dictionary you used but it's incorrect. It means to lose one in ten.

Do you wish to continue?

Actually I have military experience, and I authored the thread the OP mentioned! www.abovetopsecret.com...
It’s the people who fear nuclear weapons most (when they haven’t killed anyone in 67 years) who are the real arm chair generals, probably educated by a combination of Hollywood Terminator 2, sensationalist press, and left wing politics, a politics of fear people with various mental illnesses are well know to obsess about (this because when the human mind isn't operating properly, it's well known for it to create "end of the world type fears" -probably as evolved attempt for it to warn its host body of everyday fears.

It’s left wing politics which would have caused a real nuclear war in the past, will cause Iran to be invaded &killed (if like Iraq they too don't have them) and BTW: The OP is already showing themselves to be of cowardly, and of as defeatist mentality, by not taking their complaints directly to my thread!!!

Any political leader who uses nukes (especially in a way that deliberately does not kill people) could be many things, but “cowardly” is not one of them! After all if they loose after using them, defeat will be far worse for themselves; but they will first face the united opposition from the left wing, in their own country-politics.

I know it will be a turning moment of human civilisation, when we ape men (some more ape than others) go from detonating weapons over a city that deliberately kills as many people as possible, to using expensive smart weapons, to using weapons that are detonated over a city so to delibretely not kill ANYBODY.

Any UFO, observing the human races weapons detonate too high to kill, would conclude that our humans evolved consciousness had just taken a massive leap “forward” (by pursuing its warfare in a way consciously designed not to kill people). Any left wing mind-set (like the OP) would just freak out, and say “we’re all going to die”. Who’s the coward?
OP: If the Cold War had been a conventional war, chances are non of alive today would be the same people, as half our parents would be dead, and so the ones they married would be very different people. In this way, me & yourself are all (indirect) products of the invention of nuclear weapons. And then you do this thread asking “why people are fascinated by mind kinds most powerful weapon?” I don’t know where to begin…
Honestly do you and your sheeple-followers really need an answer? If you can’t think, read something else, don’t bother your mind with why male psychologically exists –you’ll never understand and probably think it’s sexist!

reply to post by 29INFDIV

The origin of people using such ignorant phrasing regarding nuclear weapons date back to the 1950's. Back in that time, it was thought that we would no longer have a regular conflict. It was felt that we could just drop a nuclear weapon against an enemy and they would give up or face complete decimation.
My deceased grandfather used to guard weapons like that in the 60's and would be pissed if he heard people saying stuff like that today.

Why oh why does everyone think we stopped making stronger weapons after we figured out how to crack the atom?Why do you think most advanced countries wouldn't DARE detonate a nuke.we all have worse weapons than those old toys.