It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by stumason
So what if your "constitution" forbids it!!! I'm sure other countries forbid it also, but international law supercedes domestic law, so if a resolution was passed (i know it wont as you have the right of veto, but as an example) the US would be expected to abide by that decision, regardless of what their constitution said.
Originally posted by TACHYON
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.
Here's a list of nuclear countries, just so you don't get confused.
Russia
France
China
Israel
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Originally posted by IndyDo you realize what you are saying in this quote? The deliberate targeting of civilians to influence a government is acceptable. This is absolutely what terrorism is. This is just about the dictionary definition. Also that having WMD is a very reasonable measure of self defense. So then WTF is the US complaining about when it comes to everyone else?
Originally posted by TACHYON
Indy that is not what I said, where did i say to use them to influence government. They are a deterrent, only to be used as a last resort. Reread what I wrote.
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]
America doesn't bully other nations with there nukes! We will only use our nukes if were nuked apon first.
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Guess what the Bush Administration wants to change...
Originally posted by taibunsuu
America doesn't bully other nations with there nukes! We will only use our nukes if were nuked apon first.
Guess what the Bush Administration wants to change...
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]
Originally posted by namehere
but thats not what anyone even said about using nukes indy, what i saw you reply to with what you said is what i was talking about, if a civilian area is nuked and that strike was needed for a military objective like ending a costly war then its perfectly legal to do.
[edit on 24-7-2004 by namehere]