Rumsfeld and Nuclear Weapons

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Four years and two months does not a century make. Also you may notice there were several other countries in the Coalition not just the US. Lastly, please show ANYTHING proving the US "openly want to intiate the use of nuclear weapons".

I'm thinking Jaakko is the new Fez of BAM.

When did I say that a century had passed? I said "in the 21st century", which is only natural given that this whole hooplah more or less started with 9/11. This kind of misrepresentation of my posts is really annoying.

As for initiation of nuke use, are you on crack? These are being marketed as anti-terrorist weapons, which makes no sense whatsoever unless you're prepared to use them first yourself.
Furthermore, any effective deterrent relies on the willingness of the country in question to use the deterrent. If somebody calls the US' bluff on these bunker busters, you think the US'll just pack up and go home?

[child of Thor]

At one point i may have had bigger objections to these issues. But i dont think it really matters now. The people running the USA seem determined to self-destruct her in the eyes of pretty much the rest of the world.

I expect the damage already done will come home to roost in the not to distant future, probably via the economy.

If the same people continue being in charge in the US, which seems likely with the successful fear card they are playing, then they may well even be able to persude their own people that they need to use all these types of weapons.

Its not an exact or equal comparison, but it was amazing the sort of mass-phycosis that sort of swept through the german people during WW2 and what that government was able to get away with in the eyes of its own people.

It had to end of course, as all these things do thankgod.

[Ted Striker]

I like the idea of bunker busting nukes as a weapon

I just think from a pragmatic perspective the political cost isn't worth it

And from a moral perspective we are hypocrites for asking other nations to give up nukes

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Again, who cares if they spend their money building bunkers- stuff in bunkers is hardly of use.

And if a terrorist sponsoring state is constructing nukes in these bunkers?

The capability is the key. Oerdin is correct. Future rouge states (or present ones, for that matter) would be less likely to concentrate efforts in large underground bunker complexes. or do we suppose that they would risk a nuclear attack if they presented that large a threat?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by PLATO


And if a terrorist sponsoring state is constructing nukes in these bunkers?

Maybe you could contract them out.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Still beats plenty of radioactive fallout over a large area.

You're forgetting that underground water contamination spreads.

[chequita guevara]

Bunker busters work now, they just need to be accurate. A nuke allows you to miss by a wide margin and still destroy the bunker.

[Nubclear]

wait, i thought rumsfeld resigned??!! lol why r u posting bout him? lol

[DinoDoc]

Bored Tacc?

[Nubclear]

What ever do you mean?

[Dinner]

You people suck.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by VJ
Nukes
Hippies and terrorists opposing this

Two years on, my answer still stays the same.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Mahmud Ahmedinejad

Nukes
Zionists and capitalists opposing this

Next.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by VJ

Two years on, my answer still stays the same.

So the ability of original thought disappeared more than two years ago...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
VJ is a dick.

Two years on, my answer still stays the same.