Originally posted by: Dudd
There is no way Bush would use nukes unprovoked. Perhaps in response to a gas attack, but otherwise no. He just wants Saddam to sh!t himself.
Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!
Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Of what?Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Of what?Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
They make the mistake of using chemical weapons against our soldiers, they may well kill a few thousand.
We'll then turn Bagdad into a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot.
Hopper
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Of what?Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
They make the mistake of using chemical weapons against our soldiers, they may well kill a few thousand.
We'll then turn Bagdad into a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot.
Hopper
Judging from what has been said so far i wouldn't be surprised if Bush wanted to use nukes if Saddam won't show evidence that he will not harm any american soldiers...
Imagine that. A country in an armed conflict not taking one of its options off the table. Who woulda thought?Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Of what?Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
They make the mistake of using chemical weapons against our soldiers, they may well kill a few thousand.
We'll then turn Bagdad into a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot.
Hopper
Originally posted by: etech
So much pure BS.
It's a contigency plan. The US has a contingency plan on every possible scenario they can come up with up to and including Canada firing up their tank and coming south.
The possibility of it being implenmented is about the same as Saddam being nominated and making Sainthood in the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by: Zakath15
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Of what?Originally posted by: her209
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
They make the mistake of using chemical weapons against our soldiers, they may well kill a few thousand.
We'll then turn Bagdad into a glass-floored, self-lighting parking lot.
Hopper
![]()
Nice to know you're thinking of all the consequences, hopper.
Bush is not going to use a nuke in Iraq. This would
A. Expose our troops to radiation, since they are going to be occupying Iraq.
B. Send a message to all signatories of the non-proliferation treaty that US will use a nuke on a non-nuclear state.
C. Cause US to lose support in both the WOT and nuclear non-proliferation.
D. Give justification to terrorists to use nukes on US. (Not like they are waiting for that, but still)
E. Send message to Russia, China, etc that using nuclear weapons not in response to a nuclear attack is legit.
And so on.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush is not going to use a nuke in Iraq. This would
A. Expose our troops to radiation, since they are going to be occupying Iraq.
B. Send a message to all signatories of the non-proliferation treaty that US will use a nuke on a non-nuclear state.
C. Cause US to lose support in both the WOT and nuclear non-proliferation.
D. Give justification to terrorists to use nukes on US. (Not like they are waiting for that, but still)
E. Send message to Russia, China, etc that using nuclear weapons not in response to a nuclear attack is legit.
And so on.
True, true . . . I wouldn't be surprised if we used a few depleted uranium shells around Baghdad. Call it Nuke-Lite if you like.