Does anyone else have a moral issue with nuking Afghanistan?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mrCide

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
6,187
0
76


<< no

neutron nukes place in the mountains where the morons are hiding and away from the occupied cities would be fine. I think that is pretty generous since many of the civilians in the cities hate us and find happiness in our suffering.
>>



wow more ignorance from unclemo, there's a surprise.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126


<< It's against international laws and treaties to use weapons of mass destruction (Gas/Bio/Nuke) first. >>

Actually, the U.S. has never signed a thing preventing us from using nukes at a time of our own choosing - only bio/chem. All we did was sign-off on some symbolic statement of "exercising restraint" or some such wording. Purely symbolic. So, we are in the clear as far as treaties and international laws go. International law is really just 'rules' the U.N. tries to foist upon other countries, most of whom don't take them too seriously (including the US).
 

cipher00

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2001
1,295
0
76
No moral problem, but it's not necessary, nor would it be desirable. We want bin Laden, and perhaps the Taliban if they're harboring him. Nukes are city-killing weapons, and our objective is not killing cities.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,825
13,865
146


<<

<< It's against international laws and treaties to use weapons of mass destruction (Gas/Bio/Nuke) first. >>

Actually, the U.S. has never signed a thing preventing us from using nukes at a time of our own choosing - only bio/chem. All we did was sign-off on some symbolic statement of "exercising restraint" or some such wording. Purely symbolic. So, we are in the clear as far as treaties and international laws go. International law is really just 'rules' the U.N. tries to foist upon other countries, most of whom don't take them too seriously (including the US).
>>



Whether or not that is true, the US would not shred the coalition and world support it now has.
 

beat mania

Platinum Member
Jan 23, 2000
2,451
0
76


<< We've all heard of the concept of mutually assured destruction, right? We nuke them, and somebody is going to nuke us. >>



Fortunately, MAD only works when both sides have nukes...
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
Tactical nuclear weapons are designed to stop a large assault from the Soviet Union, not against a small group of terrorists who are dispersed among the civilians and caves.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Okay, I am relieved that almost all the respones have been against using nukes. Though, I wonder about the mention of using the neutron bomb.
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
I have an issue. We cant' seem to contain that damn radiation. If we only knew how to contain it...then MAYBE a Nuke could suffice. But regarding the current situation...I dont' think we should nuke them. We dont' want radiation floating around everywhere. And Japan was different because it was an Island! This country is next to many others. We dont' want the radiation to spread to neighboring countries and harm their citizens! NUKES are NOT the way to SOLVE the PROBLEM!
 

RedRooster

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
6,596
0
76
Nukes are no good for this situation because the enemy isn't limited to one area. There's terrorists all over the world, and bombing one little pitiful country isn't going to deter the rest of the crazies around the world. When the bombs fell on Japan, the enemy was known, and once they were stopped the war was over. But dropping a nuke on Afganistan is dumb, at least from an effectiveness standpoint, if not a moral one.
 

iamshady

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,907
0
0
Kruschev's son spoke at my college earlier this week and when asked, he told us that if the U.S. nuked Afghanistan, the kill per nuke would probably be around 30 people. Nuking Afghanistan is probably the stupidest idea ever...
 

Kanalua

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
4,860
2
0
Carpet bomb the major portion of it with nukes....hey Syria got rid of it Islamic fundamentalist problem when it simply just leveled their islamic fundamentalist city of Hama.
 

MustPost

Golden Member
May 30, 2001
1,923
0
0
Most countries even US allies don't even want to go against Iraq and Iraq was developing all sorts of weapons of mass destruction.