So, does the US have nukes as well?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Im just curious. If we are telling every country to disarm their weapons, and they end up doing so, shouldn't the US get rid of ours as well. Please dont tell me we haven't any, because anyone with some intelligence knows we do.

What does everyone think? If everyone else disarms isn't it only fair we should. Afterall, if we are the lone one's left with the weapons, who will stand up against us if we tried to take over the world.




posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I'm just waiting for the day when the US turns round to the UK or France,a s everyone else has disarmed, and threaten us with regime change.

I feel it is highly hypocritical for us to tell everyone else they can't have weapons, when we have large stockpiles and are developing more too.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The difference between us and them is we have leaders who are stable, and they have dictators who have something wrong in their head. There is more of a risk involved if a crazy dictator has nukes and acually threatens us, than if we have nukes and don't threaten everyone.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Slayer]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
You dont use yours????? Say what??? You are the only country in the world to actually have used them!!!!

Also, I would hardly describe your rigged, two party system as democratic, it isnt representative of the people (at least i hope not, for your sake)



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Plus the US is developing new "bunker buster" low yield nukes, which they have indicated they would be happy to use at any moment.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
i do remember reading that the u.s. in fact IS lowering it's number of nukes. so as we tell others to get rid of, or at least lower the number of, their nukes, we are doing the same.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
The US is one of the few countries which has shown absolutely NO restraint when it comes to WMD. We have traded secrets to obtain more WMD. We have used them on city centers. We have even given them to very questionable leaders. WE are the ones that need to disarm. Not everyone else.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
FYI.. the Daisy Cutter is a WMD and we have used it simply for psychological reasons. Isnt that itself borderline terrorism?



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
The difference between us and them is we have leaders who are stable, and they have dictators who have something wrong in their head. There is more of a risk involved if a crazy dictator has nukes and acually threatens us, than if we have nukes and don't threaten everyone.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Slayer]


I assume this is meant as a humorous, sarcastic post. We have leaders who are stable??? Like George Bush??? The warmongering lunatic who has scared hell out of most of the world, including many Americans? The George Bush who is rambling and incoherent in any unscripted situation, like a press conference or TV interview?

Don't make me laugh.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
You dont use yours????? Say what??? You are the only country in the world to actually have used them!!!!

Also, I would hardly describe your rigged, two party system as democratic, it isnt representative of the people (at least i hope not, for your sake)


It was necessary at the time, many more would have been killed if it had not been stopped. We have them as a deterrent. The only thing stopping the US from being invaded is our nukes. Do you think any country in the right mind would try to invade us, we have MAD capability. The invading force would lose everything.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   


It was necessary at the time, many more would have been killed if it had not been stopped


So you willingly sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of japanese civiliansbecause you would have lost 10,000 troops invading (this is the estimated number of casualties for the planned invasion of Japan)? Are you implying that American lives are worth more than Japanese?

Japan could have been defeated purely by blockading them. They have very little natural resources themselves, which was the reason for them expanding the Japanese Empire.

And in a reply to the above statement about the US reducing its nukes:
Yes, America is reducing its STRATEGIC nuclear stockpile, but at the same time it is expanding and developing its tactical nuclear weapons capability, and is willing to use them in a battlefield situation, like in the caves of Afghanistan for example, where they previously used daisycutters.

As previously stated, America is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, is actively developing them now, has one of the worlds largest stockpiles of biological weapons (which are illegal under international law) and is currently under the control of religious fanatics who wish to expand the American sphere of influence. And i ask again, why is it that the US is allowed such monstrous weapons, but other countries (who they are threatening) are not??



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Stumason are you a military stategist? Were you actually involved in the decision making to drop the bomb? Im sure there were people at the time who objected, but the right decision was made. When in a state of war winning is the objective, such is "the face of war." With Hitler closing in on Stalingrad, and Japan pressuring the Western US it was very necessary.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by TACHYON]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
No I am not a "stategist", nor am i strategist. I am however a fairly competant student of the events of WW2, and I am confident about what I speak.

I am not here to debate about the reasons behind the decision, the fact is that the decision was made to nuke 2 civilian population centres, with no strategic/military value. They where nuked to force the Japanese into submission, plain and simple.

My point is this; the US is bullying and threatening nations around the globe to stop doing that which itself is taking part in. It is the hypocrosy of the situation which disgusts me. I raised the issue of Hiroshima as an example, because the US is the only country to actually have used nukes, but takes the moral high ground on who it deams fit to have them.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   


With Hitler closing in on Stalingrad, and Japan pressuring the Western US it was very necessary.


What????? In august 1945 (when the bombs where dropped) Germany had been defeated already, and Japan had been foced back to the homeland and where no threat! It was merely a matter of time, but the Allies decided to shorten the war by forcing a surrender through nuclear attacks.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Yes you finally get it, they shortened the war, which saved many lives, than if we had not used it.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Yes it shortened the war. but at the cost of 100's of thousands of Japanese civilians. It was a war crime. Are you advocating genocide, just because it suits your own needs? My own country is guilty of it as well, we fire bombed dresden killing 50,000 people. Now if the Germans had done that to us, and to some extent they did, we would be pissed. In fact Goering, the Luftwaffe chief, was tried for war crimes because of the bombing of britain, but no one on our side got prosecuted for the things we did. You seem to fail to understand my point (which is pretty usual for Americans, as long as it serves them, then it is ok) which is that it is hypocritical for us to lecture the world on weapons of mass destruction, when we oursleves possess such weapons, and have used them.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
It was not genocide. It just happned that the enemy was all the same race in Japan. No surprise.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
What??? In any meaning of the word, killing hundreds of thousands of ANY people, is genocide!! But if you are going to be fussy, then lets just call it mass murder.

In any stretch of the imagination, it was still a war crime, and I challenge you to dispute that.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Just in case you don't believe me :

Article 48.-Basic rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Geneva Conventions



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
FYI.. the Daisy Cutter is a WMD and we have used it simply for psychological reasons. Isnt that itself borderline terrorism?


umm no it isnt, and no it wasnt, daisy cutters were used to clear jungle or other dense areas that was hard to see in, not to scare or whatever, napalm was used to wipe groups of enemy troops out, and other similar explosives that replaced daisy cutters are used on caves and bunkers too, such weapon is not a WMD since its never used to cause massive damage or massive causalties and never has.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join