Nuclear war: Hypothetical scenario

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
But I'm more interested in what the Americans think about what is right and wrong morally.

If you're aim to is kill our people the only right you have is to die first. It is also the duty of every American to ensure everything necessary is done to guarantee that outcome. You are free to surrender aggression at any time before you die. That is war.

When bloodshed begins it?s not about moral equivalency, it?s about ensuring victory ? the surrender or death of those who strive to kill you. It?s about whose side you are on and who you aim to support.

Lets suppose the Americans invaded Pakistani territory without their permission in an illegal act of war. The Pakistanis subsequently declared full scale war on them.

If we enter Pakistan, it is to deal with terrorist forces of Pakistan who Pakistan allows to wage war on Afghanistan and NATO forces. Not to mention the connection Al'qaeda and the Taliban have to September 11th. If we have to go in, it means Pakistan has either relinquished its sovereignty over that region to the terrorists and will let us kill our common enemy, or Pakistan claims sovereignty and responsibility for the terrorists and their acts of war by defending them.

Let me say this in another, but shorter way:

1: Pakistan denounces responsibility for the terrorist?s acts of war and allows us to kill the terrorists.
OR
2: Pakistan claims responsibility for the terrorist?s acts of war by defending them.

Either way the terrorists die, and Pakistan has a choice on if they want to join them or not. Which is in your best interests, defending the people at war killing Afghanistan and NATO forces or defending YOURSELF by letting us kill our enemy?

I take it from your previous posts and stances that you?d be happy to inject your entire nation into the war the terrorists are waging, on their side, but I could be wrong, you might have some sense of self preservation. For the sake of avoiding nuclear war, I do hope you do not consider yourself with Al'qaeda or the Taliban.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

If you're aim to is kill our people the only right you have is to die first. It is also the duty of every American to ensure everything necessary is done to guarantee that outcome. You are free to surrender aggression at any time before you die. That is war.

So now I'm your enemy? Ridiculous claim.

When bloodshed begins it?s not about moral equivalency, it?s about ensuring victory ? the surrender or death of those who strive to kill you. It?s about whose side you are on and who you aim to support.

So If I do not support the USA, I'm the enemy? More ridiculous.
Atleast you agree America's wars have no moral basis.

If we enter Pakistan, it is to deal with terrorist forces of Pakistan who Pakistan allows to wage war on Afghanistan and NATO forces. Not to mention the connection Al'qaeda and the Taliban have to September 11th. If we have to go in, it means Pakistan has either relinquished its sovereignty over that region to the terrorists and will let us kill our common enemy, or Pakistan claims sovereignty and responsibility for the terrorists and their acts of war by defending them.

Let me say this in another, but shorter way:

1: Pakistan denounces responsibility for the terrorist?s acts of war and allows us to kill the terrorists.
OR
2: Pakistan claims responsibility for the terrorist?s acts of war by defending them.

Either way the terrorists die, and Pakistan has a choice on if they want to join them or not. Which is in your best interests, defending the people at war killing Afghanistan and NATO forces or defending YOURSELF by letting us kill our enemy?

I take it from your previous posts and stances that you?d be happy to inject your entire nation into the war the terrorists are waging, on their side, but I could be wrong, you might have some sense of self preservation. For the sake of avoiding nuclear war, I do hope you do not consider yourself with Al'qaeda or the Taliban.

We are already fighting Alqaedda in our territory. We are doing whatever is possible. And for the sake of avoiding more terrorist attacks, I hope the US does not cross the border. You will only end up getting more people that want to kill the USA. You will not win this war by killing terrorists. The only way to win is by killing their hatred. All that America's wars have done is fueled it.

And while you are at killing terrorists, why don't you eliminate the uniformed terrorists abducting and killing Palestinians in Palestine?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It would be the same think as Israel going after Hezbollah in Lebanon, they were not going after the government of Lebanon, but after one particular group.

Your post makes sense. This bit however undermines it. Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon and that is an established fact.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Is there such thing as a legal act of war?

It is a known fact that Israel launches attacks on Gaza and the West Bank from their claimed territory. Would a Palestinian war against Israel be justified. I love the way when American's find no way out, they use the "I'm stronger than you that's why" argument.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

If you're aim to is kill our people the only right you have is to die first. It is also the duty of every American to ensure everything necessary is done to guarantee that outcome. You are free to surrender aggression at any time before you die. That is war.

So now I'm your enemy? Ridiculous claim.

It's your topic.

Topic Title: Nuclear war: Hypothetical scenario
Topic Summary: Invasion of Pakistan

If we're at war, I referred you to the morality behind such a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Andyb23]

Green Bean whats wrong yaar? What city are you from in Pakistan?

Talking about nuclear war and stuff just destabilizes the world further. Nuclear bombs should never be wished upon anyone.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
Pakistan has no way to deliver a nuke to north america

i don't think i understand this scenario you are proposing

i doubt Pakistan has tactical nukes, the small ones that could be used in a military theater vs. "deterant" type nukes that are big just to scare others (India? isn't that the reason Pakistan has nukes?), big nukes are for killing civilians/deterance, not for use on troops that are already inside your own country. that would be suicide

All that is correct. Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons against the USA even if their sovereignty depended on it. But I was just pointing out they would not be wrong morally if they used it.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon and that is an established fact.

i don't think everyone agrees on the definition of "civilians" anymore
"civilians" have always been killed in war, that is just part of the deal

it goes to your big poll about how much support a "civilian" needs to give to radical muslim/terrorists before they are culpable for what they support

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

If you're aim to is kill our people the only right you have is to die first. It is also the duty of every American to ensure everything necessary is done to guarantee that outcome. You are free to surrender aggression at any time before you die. That is war.

So now I'm your enemy? Ridiculous claim.

It's your topic.

Topic Title: Nuclear war: Hypothetical scenario
Topic Summary: Invasion of Pakistan

If we're at war, I referred you to the morality behind such a hypothetical scenario.

If you are at war with us, our aim will not be to kill your people. The aim would be to destroy your military causing as few deaths as possible. (If we have the capability of doing that is another matter.) We are a civilized people; home to one of the oldest civilizations in known history. Being a muslims republic we also have a moral basis. Unlike you it is not killing the maximum number of enemy elements we can, but to neutralize them causing the least possible damage.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
All that is correct. Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons against the USA even if their sovereignty depended on it. But I was just pointing out they would not be wrong morally if they used it.

We would have to consider Pakistan fallen to the Taliban before we'd attack your nation. The terrorists operating from within it however, need to be dealt with. I think the question is do you consider them and their land which you hardly control part of your sovereignty and responsibility?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

If you're aim to is kill our people the only right you have is to die first. It is also the duty of every American to ensure everything necessary is done to guarantee that outcome. You are free to surrender aggression at any time before you die. That is war.

So now I'm your enemy? Ridiculous claim.

It's your topic.

Topic Title: Nuclear war: Hypothetical scenario
Topic Summary: Invasion of Pakistan

If we're at war, I referred you to the morality behind such a hypothetical scenario.

If you are at war with us, our aim will not be to kill your people. The aim would be to destroy your military causing as few deaths as possible. (If we have the capability of doing that is another matter.) We are a civilized people; home to one of the oldest civilizations in known history. Being a muslims republic we also have a moral basis. Unlike you it is not killing the maximum number of enemy elements we can, but to neutralize them causing the least possible damage.

Um, I don't think that claiming that muslims are the most morally correct group out there is going to get you very far.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Andyb23
Green Bean whats wrong yaar? What city are you from in Pakistan?

Talking about nuclear war and stuff just destabilizes the world further. Nuclear bombs should never be wished upon anyone.

LOL @ yaar. I'm not wishing nuclear bombs on anyone. I think it's not much worse than an American threat attempt to invade a sovereign border. Besides, we would never do it.

Personally, I believe we should give up nuclear weapons in a deal with India and show the world the road towards a nuclear weapon free world. I believe nuclear weapons against civilians are illegal according to Islamic law.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon and that is an established fact.

i don't think everyone agrees on the definition of "civilians" anymore
"civilians" have always been killed in war, that is just part of the deal

it goes to your big poll about how much support a "civilian" needs to give to radical muslim/terrorists before they are culpable for what they support

There is a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and collateral damage.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

If you're aim to is kill our people the only right you have is to die first. It is also the duty of every American to ensure everything necessary is done to guarantee that outcome. You are free to surrender aggression at any time before you die. That is war.

So now I'm your enemy? Ridiculous claim.

It's your topic.

Topic Title: Nuclear war: Hypothetical scenario
Topic Summary: Invasion of Pakistan

If we're at war, I referred you to the morality behind such a hypothetical scenario.

If you are at war with us, our aim will not be to kill your people. The aim would be to destroy your military causing as few deaths as possible. (If we have the capability of doing that is another matter.) We are a civilized people; home to one of the oldest civilizations in known history. Being a muslims republic we also have a moral basis. Unlike you it is not killing the maximum number of enemy elements we can, but to neutralize them causing the least possible damage.

I'm talking about fighters. Not civilians. Of course, that?s a different story during nuclear war.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
All that is correct. Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons against the USA even if their sovereignty depended on it. But I was just pointing out they would not be wrong morally if they used it.

We would have to consider Pakistan fallen to the Taliban before we'd attack your nation. The terrorists operating from within it however, need to be dealt with. I think the question is do you consider them and their land which you hardly control part of your sovereignty and responsibility?

I consider them rebels. They must be dealt with. We will deal with them but it will take time.

 

[FoBoT]

if you want examples of what "western governments" are willing to do to civilian populations when they REALLY REALLY want to F*** up another country, read about the fire bombing of japanese and german cities at the end of WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...resden_in_World_War_II

The bombing of Dresden, led by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and followed by the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between February 13 and February 15, 1945, remains one of the more controversial Allied actions of World War II. The exact number of casualties is uncertain, but most historians agree that the firebombing resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Historian Frederick Taylor says:

? The destruction of Dresden has an epically tragic quality to it. It was a wonderfully beautiful city and a symbol of baroque humanism and all that was best in Germany. It also contained all of the worst from Germany during the Nazi period. In that sense it is an absolutely exemplary tragedy for the horrors of 20th Century warfare...[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..._Tokyo_in_World_War_II

After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads, and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. This was the worst disaster for Tokyo since the 1923 earthquake. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000.[4] This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden.

are you asking if the USA is willing to do this again?

if terrorists killed 100,000 by successfully detonating a nuke in an American city, i know most of the people in my part of the USA would say go for it

i dunno, how about the guy we support, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, take care of the situation

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
All that is correct. Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons against the USA even if their sovereignty depended on it. But I was just pointing out they would not be wrong morally if they used it.

We would have to consider Pakistan fallen to the Taliban before we'd attack your nation. The terrorists operating from within it however, need to be dealt with. I think the question is do you consider them and their land which you hardly control part of your sovereignty and responsibility?

I consider them rebels. They must be dealt with. We will deal with them but it will take time.

Then you and me have no quarrel Green Bean. I would consider you an ally against them, as our current Administration does. The details can get messy, or complicated should they continue to operate and carry out acts of war against Afghanistan and NATO or on our soil again, but that?s the general idea.

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Andyb23
Green Bean whats wrong yaar? What city are you from in Pakistan?

Talking about nuclear war and stuff just destabilizes the world further. Nuclear bombs should never be wished upon anyone.

LOL @ yaar. I'm not wishing nuclear bombs on anyone. I think it's not much worse than an American threat attempt to invade a sovereign border. Besides, we would never do it.

Personally, I believe we should give up nuclear weapons in a deal with India and show the world the road towards a nuclear weapon free world. I believe nuclear weapons against civilians are illegal according to Islamic law.

I agree, I am Hindu but in the Hindu and Sikh religion nuclear weapons are also considered immoral.

Are you from Peshawar or somewhere near there?

 

[The Green Bean]

are you asking if the USA is willing to do this again?

if terrorists killed 100,000 by successfully detonating a nuke in an American city, i know most of the people in my part of the USA would say go for it

i dunno, how about the guy we support, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, take care of the situation

I think you haven't read my OP. I was talking about a tactical nuclear bomb on the battlefield. I would not support it because of the destruction it would cause. I just want to discuss the morality of America and those they consider immoral.

About your post: If terrorists (without a nationality) somehow God forbid managed to kill 100,000 Americans, would they be right in flattening random cities from where they think these terrorists came from. Is it my fault that my neighbor is a terrorist? Is it my fault my government does not have the money to arrest them?

I think it is hypocritical the way Americans can so easily condone American possible actions that would lead to the of killing 100,000 civilians. Now, if a government was involved in the terrorist attack (like pearl harbour) it would be a different story.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Andyb23

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Andyb23
Green Bean whats wrong yaar? What city are you from in Pakistan?

Talking about nuclear war and stuff just destabilizes the world further. Nuclear bombs should never be wished upon anyone.

LOL @ yaar. I'm not wishing nuclear bombs on anyone. I think it's not much worse than an American threat attempt to invade a sovereign border. Besides, we would never do it.

Personally, I believe we should give up nuclear weapons in a deal with India and show the world the road towards a nuclear weapon free world. I believe nuclear weapons against civilians are illegal according to Islamic law.

I agree, I am Hindu but in the Hindu and Sikh religion nuclear weapons are also considered immoral.

Are you from Peshawar or somewhere near there?

Karachi. I wish the world had more people like you. Nuclear weapons are a far greater threat to civilization that global warming.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It would be the same think as Israel going after Hezbollah in Lebanon, they were not going after the government of Lebanon, but after one particular group.

Your post makes sense. This bit however undermines it. Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon and that is an established fact.

Established by WHOM? The terrorists?

Point me in the direction of an article that provides proof that Israel intentionally went after civilian targets just to go after civilian targets. And I am not talking about airport and bridges, I am talking about people. Airports and bridges have legitimate military value.

We have all seen the tapes of Hezbollah launching rockets at Israel from some residential street and then the Israeli counter attack which kills a few innocent people in the area. That is collateral damage and is a part of war and has been for centuries. But it is NOT ?targeting? civilians.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It would be the same think as Israel going after Hezbollah in Lebanon, they were not going after the government of Lebanon, but after one particular group.

Your post makes sense. This bit however undermines it. Israel targeted civilians in Lebanon and that is an established fact.

Established by WHOM? The terrorists?

Point me in the direction of an article that provides proof that Israel intentionally went after civilian targets just to go after civilian targets. And I am not talking about airport and bridges, I am talking about people. Airports and bridges have legitimate military value.

We have all seen the tapes of Hezbollah launching rockets at Israel from some residential street and then the Israeli counter attack which kills a few innocent people in the area. That is collateral damage and is a part of war and has been for centuries. But it is NOT ?targeting? civilians.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/new...ms/200607/s1696714.htm

http://www.news.com.au/heralds...918297-5005961,00.html

 

[Andyb23]

Green Bean with modern bombs sometimes civilians are killed, its unfortunate but if you go into the past many more civilians were killed. I don't think Israel wants to hurt any Muslim nation they are a very tiny country in a region mostly dominated by Muslims.

 

[Lemon law]

In the grand scheme of thing the neocons cannot come to grips with the fact that they can't fight ideas with myths or military might. And after having led us into two quagmires
while we hemorrhage money and lives, we can't accept the fact that we are denied the head of Ossama Bin Laden. And even after seeing Saddam hung and then discovering it had no impact on the Iraq war quagmire, we still demand the head of Ossama.

And as long as we perceive that Pakistan is somehow harboring Ossma, the neocons can say its why we are losing. And if we think for two seconds and start to be rational, we would realize having the head of Ossama Bin Laden would make no difference. But meanwhile its our psychosis and we are big enough to impose our Psychosis on the rest of the world. But Pakistan is too small to have the right to have their own psychoses. When the very definition of politics the world over is selling the most popular psychoses to the your own countrymen.

So the question is---if we get the head of Ossama---Preferably from Musharraf or from GWB---what new excuses will neocons come up with to explain why what we are still doing is totally counterproductive? And as Jimme Durante used to say---I got a million of em.

And all apologies to The Green Bean---but when Musharraf decided to walk with giants---he risked being stepped on. And no one will get all that excited of he does get stepped on. Should the rest of Pakistan interpose, they will share the same fate as the Taliban.

But Pakistan losing will have two likely revenges that will kill the neocons later.

a. When the rest of the world sees how the US treats an ally---the rest of the world will have no choice other than to ally against the US. And then the world not have to fire a shot to defeat the US when calling in the US debts would cripple us.

b. A dead Pakistani government may end up losing a few nukes to terrorists. And then those nukes will begin the slow journey to some US city where they are detonated. Leaving a stunned USA wondering who to nuke in return. Hopefully by then we will blame the neocons.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Is there such thing as a legal act of war?

It is a known fact that Israel launches attacks on Gaza and the West Bank from their claimed territory. Would a Palestinian war against Israel be justified. I love the way when American's find no way out, they use the "I'm stronger than you that's why" argument.

The Palestinians have been at war with Israel non-stop for years. There is a constant barrage of missiles into Israel from Palestinian areas.

You act as if the sweet little Palestinians are going about their everyday life and them ?bam!? Israel drops a bomb on them for a good laugh.

You can be sure that the day the Palestinians stop launching missiles and sending suicide bombers into Israel that Israel will be forced to stop its attacks against Gaza and the West Bank or else lose American financial support.