Originally posted by: Nebor
It's a silly question and I don't give any weight to anyone's response. Nuclear weapons aren't even being considered in the WOT.
Nor should they be used, lest our opponent ups the anti. Then it becomes our responsibility to respond to force with force.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who exactly are we nuking again?
Response in war is situational, not an absolute. If it were Iran?s Hezbollah, the answer should be obvious. If it were AQ, there are tribal regions no one but they control. In such cases we know where to strike.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Jpeyton, your argument is that Mutual Assured Destruction no longer works. If so, how do you argue in FAVOR of nuclear proliferation with countries like Iran if you believe MAD no longer exists to ensure those nukes are only protective?
MAD exists with nations and governments, not small groups of highly trained terrorists who act independently of the said nations and governments. If we have proof there was cooperation, that's a different story.
A people, a group, a region, a society may also come to understand that the eradication of others can and will bring about their own. That can only work under the threat of such a reality. When you break it down and offer comforting assurances that we will not respond, when they call your bluff then MAD no longer exists.
I do not rule out the possibility that we will one day face an intelligent opponent who does not leave their fingerprint and return address on such acts of war. I wonder again, you argue vigorously against stopping nuclear proliferation among hostile terrorist sponsoring nations, such as Iran. Do you not also see the outcome of suggesting to them war is a one way street? They might take such an invitation seriously.
I am happy at least that we can come to agreement that ?if we have proof?. That is a start.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
According to Bin Laden Americans are evil so for him it's OK to kill our children.
According to Jakalas Bin Laden is evil so it's OK to kill the children of those who might support him.
Both Bin Laden and Jakalas are insane and there's not a dimes worth of difference, morally speaking, between them.
Remember Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If you think war must never be met with war, your insane detachment from reality is suicidal by definition. The point is we are alive today because our forefathers would not go quietly into the night, as you preach. Can you say the same for your children?
Originally posted by: dahunan
Get back to us when we stop killing innocent brown people in Iraq
I see you?ve graduated to the worst of the lot. Is the world of color and racism to you? Islam is not racist as you, it converts everyone equally and the Islamists are only defined by their zealotry to their religion and their bloodlust towards infidels. If you cannot see beyond calling them brown then it?s truly a wonder if you could see them at all.
In the end gentlemen, an appearance of strength is the
only reason MAD exists and nuclear weapons are not lobbed at other nations (like us) today. If you hastily seek to dissolve that appearance by assurance to others that MAD does not exist, then I hope I do not live in a dense population when you reap your reward. If Moonbeam wants to speak of insanity, why does he not speak of you?
Facebook
Twitter