So, does the US have nukes as well?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:48 AM
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.


This is an important distinction IMHO. The US form of government is currently the longest lasting amongst the nations of the world. No the longest ever mind you. At some level, there has to end to proliferation of the weapons. The weapons served thier purpose during the cold war, but we are slowly disarming them bit by bit. Why not encourage other countries not to develop them? Can you imagine the problems if every two bit dictator possesed one? One bomb may or may not have a huge global effect. Start lobbing them back and forth and we all will feel the effects.


[edit on 24-7-2004 by FredT]




posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
right...you want war on equal footing? you want nuclear war? its not like china or russia who are stable,... iran, north korea or others would use such weapons, its not hypocritical to try to prevent belligerant nations from becoming a threat.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

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.


no, our constitution is our supreme law, we dont go by a dictoral body of foreign nations, we do not have to go by what foreign nations want, especially not an un-democratic body like the UN, much of what our constitution is based on is anti-foreign control, hell our nation was formed to escape foreign dictatorship.

international law can go up the UN's nose for all i care, it supercedes nothing.

ps: im for disbanding the legal and military arms of the UN and leaving everyone alone and to their own laws, the UN as it is will only lead to dictatoorship, equality is one thing and freedom is another thing entirely.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by namehere]



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   

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.


Do 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?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Slayer says


Here's a list of nuclear countries, just so you don't get confused.

Russia
France
China
Israel
India
Pakistan
North Korea


You left out Great Britain, or, if you prefer, the United Kingdom.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   

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?


whoa you twist what they said there, we are complaining because who do you think nukes will be made to threaten? which side has been threatening which with nuclear war or destruction? hmm certaintly not the us.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   

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.


It doesn't matter what the reason is. Deliberate targeting of civilians is terrorism. Pure and simple. People make excuses because it was the US. There is NO justification for targeting civilians. If you are losing the war then pull out. If you can't handle the war then pull out. You don't target civilians. Only a terrorist targets civilians.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
actually indy there is(its not terrorism either), in the geneva convention:

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

(c) For other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.

1. The protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and mat‚riel are entitled shall not cease unless they commit or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by namehere]



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I don't see how any of these could possibly apply to a nuclear weapon. Especially for a time when such a thing was unheard of. Again none of that stuff matters when you deliberately attack civilians to influence a government. Thats terrorism.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:56 AM
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]


Ok how can ours be stable? We have a president who can't recall his life before 1974, can't pronounce words, does outright invasion of other countries, says we are invading Iraq because of 'weapons of mass destruction, I mean plans for weapons of mass destruction, I mean we invaded to free Iraqis, I mean I invaded because of bad intelligence.'

And our vice tells people to go # themselves right in the Senate. He also says we will likely be in a war in the middle east for generations. He is also still recieving money from the company he was CEO of while it is a no-bid contractor to help the military.

"He tried to kill my father!"

lol.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Wow, Stumason you are one dumb mother!

First of all I would like to know where your from?

Ok, The Daisy cutter is a 12,000 lb bomb, no nuke, no radiation, Only nukes and chemical (dirty Bombs) are to be considered WMD, Terrorists crashed planes into buildings and and killed thousands we don't consider planes WMD.

The US doesn't even have any low yield nuclear weapons (mini nukes). The Military wanted them but Congress didn't like the idea so they cancelled it. That why they created the MOAB, which is 20,000 lb bomb, but that can't penetrate deep baried bunkers so that why now they are developing a 30,000 lb bomb.

Ok, you say that If America gets rid of there nukes everyone else will
, wow your stupidity astounds me.

America doesn't bully other nations with there nukes! We will only use our nukes if were nuked apon first.

Stumason i've read alot of your posts and you should not get on this website till about 2 years after you have learned enough where you actually know what the hell ur talkin about.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   



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...



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I for one will vote for Bush (again).

Cause when he gets pushed he doesn't back down he steps up to the plate and pushes back.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Guess what the Bush Administration wants to change...


since when? the president doesnt control military policy, he only says where we go to war, when and what to do during wars, the military creates the way it operates.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   

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...


huh, WHAT THE HELL KIND OF STATEMENT IS THAT! You explained nothing, you just typed a cliff hangar of a sentence, (finish it)



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:22 AM
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]




If you say so...
bush is stable and he never threatens anyone.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   

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]


That is not an acceptable reason. That is terrorism. Any war is costly. So are you going to nuke someone every time you get in a war because you don't like the way its going? Then bin Laden was justified in attacking thw WTC like he did because of the cost of the war and the number of Arab lives lost. Sorry but that simply doesn't hold water. There is no difference at all with bin Laden attacking the WTC and us nuking Japan. Terrorism is terrorism. You can spin it any way you want. There is absolutely no excuse for targeting civilians. I don't care who you are or what you think your reasoning is.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join