Bush Signs Papers For Nuclear Strikes

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Atlantean
George Bush is a moron... Nuclear Strikes are a bad idea.

Wonders if Atlantean would fight back if people tried to kill him. If he does than fight back than he's a hipicrite.
Nuclear strikes are a bad idea, hmmm. It would have been so much better if the projected 1 million americans would have died had we not used the nukes on japan? Is that what your saying. Oh and dont forget the millions of innocent japanese that WOULD have died from war without the nukes. So dont give me the sh!t about innocent civilians.
Now i wonder is Atlantean thinks before he talks. 😀

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Atlantean
George Bush is a moron... Nuclear Strikes are a bad idea.

good thing you're responding to a non-event.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: pyonir
I love how they call it a classified document. Yet the media knows all about it.

hehe that's the point, the document is the deterrant. I would like to believe they are barking louder than they'd bite because a large nuclear strike would be ugly.

 

[XZeroII]

This is an OPTION. This doesn't mean that if bio weapons are used, we are gonna nuke them. Some people just enjoy jumping to conclusions. Idiots...

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: notfred
If we shoot nuclear weapons at ANYONE, I think 1) the rest of the world will hate us, even significantly moreso than they do now. 2) Bush will have no chance of reelction in 04.

They would be small tactical nukes, not the ICBM's that you are thinking of..just move a nuclear sub into the Mediterranean and Bling Bling no more Saddam.




What's the difference in this and telling someone if you shoot at me with the gun I know you have but yet deny, I will shoot you back?

 

[Atlantean]

oops 😱

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Atlantean

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Atlantean
George Bush is a moron... Nuclear Strikes are a bad idea.

Wonders if Atlantean would fight back if people tried to kill him. If he does than fight back than he's a hipicrite.
Nuclear strikes are a bad idea, hmmm. It would have been so much better if the projected 1 million americans would have died had we not used the nukes on japan? Is that what your saying. Oh and dont forget the millions of innocent japanese that WOULD have died from war without the nukes. So dont give me the sh!t about innocent civilians.
Now i wonder is Atlantean thinks before he talks. 😀

You are a moron as well... Saddam hasn't even attacked the states yet. Bush is just doing his daddy's bidding. I am not talking about using nukes then, I am talking about using them now, and with most of the major powers having many nukes, nuking one country is a bad idea. Do you think that he will not strike back BigJelly? Are you truely that naive? In 1945 the States was the only country that actually had nukes, but now, one can buy a nuke for $40 million. I am not condemning using nukes in the past, using nukes then is fine, nobody else had them to retaliate with.

Had you read my previous posts, you would have learned that i would use them ONLY as a response to bio/chem weapons and also use them as a deterrent. So dont try to make me out as the war mongroal.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Atlantean

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Atlantean
George Bush is a moron... Nuclear Strikes are a bad idea.

Wonders if Atlantean would fight back if people tried to kill him. If he does than fight back than he's a hipicrite.
Nuclear strikes are a bad idea, hmmm. It would have been so much better if the projected 1 million americans would have died had we not used the nukes on japan? Is that what your saying. Oh and dont forget the millions of innocent japanese that WOULD have died from war without the nukes. So dont give me the sh!t about innocent civilians.
Now i wonder is Atlantean thinks before he talks. 😀

You are a moron as well... Saddam hasn't even attacked the states yet. Bush is just doing his daddy's bidding. I am not talking about using nukes then, I am talking about using them now, and with most of the major powers having many nukes, nuking one country is a bad idea. Do you think that he will not strike back BigJelly? Are you truely that naive? In 1945 the States was the only country that actually had nukes, but now, one can buy a nuke for $40 million. I am not condemning using nukes in the past, using nukes then is fine, nobody else had them to retaliate with.

did you even read the article?!? we would still have to have NBC weapons used on us first!

 

[Atlantean]

If weapons were used on us first then I would say go for it. No I didn't read the article, I kinda skimmed over it... I thought that it was just George wanted to go and nuke Iraq if we go to war. Oops 😕

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Jmman
Israel doesn't threaten nuclear retaliation, but I can guarantee that if any of those Scud missiles during the gulf war had carried biological or chemical weapons, Baghdad would be glowing right now and we wouldn't have this problem with Saddam. Israel doesn't need to say anything, because it is guaranteed what would happen......

It was not reported at the time, but it has since been revealed that a squadren of F-15s in Israel were armed with nuclear warheads during the Gulf War and were ready to take off with 15 minutes notice in case Saddam used bio or chem weapons against Israel.

Thankfully for the Iraqi people, none of the Scuds that hit Israel had WMD in them.

Yes, everyone knows full well that if WMD are used against Israel, whoever did it had better not leave a return address.

Hopper

What weapon can an f-15 carry that can be nuclear equipped?

Given that israel has never actually, officially held a press conference saying "guess what, motherfvckers, we've got the bomb, just try and invade", I cannot provide you with a model number or yield on the weapon. However, I can say that when Chuck Yeager was flying F-86 Sabres in Germany, his squadron was tasked with flying into the USSR and delivering a nuclear bomb each to their targets (though they also knew that their planes wouldn't have enough fuel to make it back) in case of nuclear war. The F-86 is a fighter. It was less powerful than a F-15. Its payload was rated at 2500 kgs. The F-15 is rated for 25,000 lbs of payload. Note that the Sabre is listed in kgs, and the Eagle in lbs.

 

[Huz]

Originally posted by: Atlantean

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Atlantean
George Bush is a moron... Nuclear Strikes are a bad idea.

Wonders if Atlantean would fight back if people tried to kill him. If he does than fight back than he's a hipicrite.
Nuclear strikes are a bad idea, hmmm. It would have been so much better if the projected 1 million americans would have died had we not used the nukes on japan? Is that what your saying. Oh and dont forget the millions of innocent japanese that WOULD have died from war without the nukes. So dont give me the sh!t about innocent civilians.
Now i wonder is Atlantean thinks before he talks. 😀

You are a moron as well... Saddam hasn't even attacked the states yet. Bush is just doing his daddy's bidding. I am not talking about using nukes then, I am talking about using them now, and with most of the major powers having many nukes, nuking one country is a bad idea. Do you think that he will not strike back BigJelly? Are you truely that naive? In 1945 the States was the only country that actually had nukes, but now, one can buy a nuke for $40 million. I am not condemning using nukes in the past, using nukes then is fine, nobody else had them to retaliate with.

Who's "he"? Saddam?

The only conceivable way Saddam could touch the States directly would be through a terrorist cell. He doesn't have anything long range enough, at least in terms of legitimate military hardware. Yes, he could unload some nasty gases on our troops in the region if that's what you mean, but I honestly hope he doesn't do that. The retaliation would be on a scale like no one's seen for quite some time.

I still don't get your argument about how if Saddam unleashes WMD's in the form of chemical and/or biological agents that retaliating with nukes is a bad idea. What would you recommend? A passive stance? That's not even realistic. Any leader who took that angle would be removed from power forcefully by his own people.

EDIT: jacked up ezcode

 

[JoeBaD]

Atlantean,

kinda showing your small-mindedness on this one hmmmm.

Perhaps Bush is smarter than you think, and you are not as smart as you think.

 

[SagaLore]

Good thing it's a classified document. You wouldn't want classified information leaking out into newspapers or internet forums, exposing that nuclear forces are the main detterrent.

*sigh of relief*

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
Atlantean,

kinda showing your small-mindedness on this one hmmmm.

Perhaps Bush is smarter than you think, and you are not as smart as you think.

He made his statement because he didnt read ALL the post and apoligized. You made the same mistake he did. Hint to everyone READ ALL THE POST before you judge someone.

 

[fluxquantum]

even if you had to use a nuke in retaliation, it would be bad not just for iraq but for neighboring countries as well. a nuke going off is a scary thought especially in the middle east when the situation is already intense. i pray it will not come to this.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Atlantean

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Atlantean
George Bush is a moron... Nuclear Strikes are a bad idea.

Wonders if Atlantean would fight back if people tried to kill him. If he does than fight back than he's a hipicrite.
Nuclear strikes are a bad idea, hmmm. It would have been so much better if the projected 1 million americans would have died had we not used the nukes on japan? Is that what your saying. Oh and dont forget the millions of innocent japanese that WOULD have died from war without the nukes. So dont give me the sh!t about innocent civilians.
Now i wonder is Atlantean thinks before he talks. 😀

You are a moron as well... Saddam hasn't even attacked the states yet. Bush is just doing his daddy's bidding.

You're the moron. What bidding exactly is that? Is Bush jr. focusing on Iraq because Bush sr. wants it destroyed out of spite? Don't you think this whole Iraq business is making Bush sr. look bad for not taking care of it himself?

 

[Electric Amish]

Are you sure it wasn't papers for a NUCULAR strike??

amish

 

[Dacalo]

Bush family = sux at politics

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: notfred
Saddam Heusein is not going to kill thousands of US soldiers. In 1991, Saddam had no restrictions on what type of weapons he could have. He did not have to conceal any manufacturing of anything. He was free to make anything he could figure out, and he had a much larger army than he does now. Less than 400 americans died in the gulf war, and I think we could take saddam down even faster this time.

Saddam didn't use bio or chem weapons last time either. This time, he has no reason not to because if we invade it is to kill him and he knows it.

We're trying to get his commanders to refuse to use them, using the direct threat of a nuclear responce if they do.

Saddam may not care about his people, but we hope some of the field commanders do and will refuse his orders to use bio or chem weapons.

Hopper

I'm sorry but what about 'Gulf War Syndrom'? 400 people may have died from fire fights but the actual number has to be much higher. I personally knew 2 people within my family who died from unexplainable cancers in their early 40s, they served in desert storm..