So, does the US have nukes as well?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Actually you are wrong. We did consider the use of the aircraft the use of a WMD.


Originally posted by Murcielago
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 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Nuclear weapons are strategic period. You can't use them for idle threats. Bullying does not work as well. Would Sadam invaded Kuwait if we said "cross that line or we nuc you"???? No, the whole idea of tactical nuclear weapons is over. Yes there are still nuclear torpedos etc, but thier utility in a conventional war is useless. The whole purpose of the is "if you take me out, your going down with me" The cold war was built on the MAD theory



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Agreed. The cold war should be called the mad war. The idea of nukes is nuts. As a weapon it is simply overkill. Its like going squirrel hunting with napalm. Of course people feel the need to invent these weapons because they think they are smart enough then they turn out too stupid to keep them a secret and next thing you know everyone has them. What are they supposed to prevent? Those who would use them already have the means to survive the attack so they have nothing to lose. Its the civilians that would pay the price while the criminals that used them were far away from harm in their bunkers. Or you have the terrorists which don't care if they die so a nuke doesn't stop them either.

Shifting gears...

What are we going to do WHEN a terrorist sets off a nuke in our country. Then what?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   


There is no difference at all with bin Laden attacking the WTC and us nuking Japan.



Indy, with ignorant statements like this you shouldn't bother typing. Your just wasting our time and your time.

The US had a blockade on Japan and it wasn't enough to make them settle down, so we used are "Ace in the hole". We didn't want to bomb the Japanese but they left us with no choice, we had to put an end to the war. Your forgetting at the time that the Japanese thought that they were invinsible, we had to wake em up.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   
We had to wake them up by murdering their civilians. Nice. Sorry but that doesn't fly. It is simply making an excuse for WHO did the killing. What you are describing sounds exactly like the position the US is in today. We think we are invincible and someone will put us in our place. But you will certainly call it terrorism. If an Arab nation did it to us or even a group of fundamentalists did it to us it would be the exact same thing as we did to Japan. But I promise you we'd treat it completely different because its us. Its the typical double standard that the rest of the world is starting to hate us for.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Agreed. The cold war should be called the mad war. The idea of nukes is nuts. As a weapon it is simply overkill. Its like going squirrel hunting with napalm. Of course people feel the need to invent these weapons because they think they are smart enough then they turn out too stupid to keep them a secret and next thing you know everyone has them. What are they supposed to prevent? Those who would use them already have the means to survive the attack so they have nothing to lose. Its the civilians that would pay the price while the criminals that used them were far away from harm in their bunkers. Or you have the terrorists which don't care if they die so a nuke doesn't stop them either.

Shifting gears...

What are we going to do WHEN a terrorist sets off a nuke in our country. Then what?



Nukes at the time were more appealing because they didn't have satelites(GPS). Are if they new there was a military base in the middle of the city they could use a nuke to destroy it but these days we have smart bombs, so we can target military or terrorist installation only. and try our hardest to keep civilian casualties down.

As for your other question, Only time will tell.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
We had to wake them up by murdering their civilians. Nice. Sorry but that doesn't fly. It is simply making an excuse for WHO did the killing. What you are describing sounds exactly like the position the US is in today. We think we are invincible and someone will put us in our place. But you will certainly call it terrorism. If an Arab nation did it to us or even a group of fundamentalists did it to us it would be the exact same thing as we did to Japan. But I promise you we'd treat it completely different because its us. Its the typical double standard that the rest of the world is starting to hate us for.



OMG, how dense are you?

I'm also curious how old are you? You sound like a 12 year old.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   
You can't possibly compare the US to a terrorost group, yes they both have their own agenda's but a US soldier doesn't strap a bomb on his chest and blow them selves up in a crowd of inoccent people. All they want to do is interfere with the economy. They can praise Allah all they want but there fighting a up hill battle that they can't possibly win.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago



There is no difference at all with bin Laden attacking the WTC and us nuking Japan.



Indy, with ignorant statements like this you shouldn't bother typing. Your just wasting our time and your time.

The US had a blockade on Japan and it wasn't enough to make them settle down, so we used are "Ace in the hole". We didn't want to bomb the Japanese but they left us with no choice, we had to put an end to the war. Your forgetting at the time that the Japanese thought that they were invinsible, we had to wake em up.


So with that kind of logic why don't you Nuke Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea and put an end to all your threats. The US applies a double standard to everything it does. Whether trade, foreign policy you name it. The rest of the world is just getting sick of having to bend over and take it from the US because you're the only remaining superpower and have shown that you are willing to use that military for unfounded wars. This last war in Iraq was launched with the flimsiest of evidence and some of the poorest planning. I think it was a case of it looked good on paper so run with it. The real world doesn't always work out that way.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 05:08 AM
link   
If the US has WMD, then any other nation can have them too, period. Or better, if other nations can't have them, the US can't have them either.

Any other reasoning about this matter is about keeping the US in a superior position, and is only supported by Americans. While it may seem logical to Americans, it is highly hypocritical and not very credible at all.

The very reason the US (and other nations which "legally" possess WMD) don't want the rest of the world to have nukes is because they don't want other nations to do the things they would be able to do, regardless of the likelyness that they would actually do it. WMD are about potential dangers, not about actual use, since normally, these devices are not meant to be used.

It is always more confortable to have WMD while others don't, let's face it.

The Cold War is over, and we should try to improve and not make the same same mistakes over and over again. In order to do this, every country that has WMD will have to forgo them. Well that sounds like a very difficult goal...



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
What we did in Japan was a last resort, but it was a form of genocide, and we as the US are still the only country to have unleashed nukes. Its quite odd that the only country that has used them now tells others not to!

So, if WWIII ever did break out, do you think we would be the first to drop them, especially considering the fact that we would be the only ones that had them? Who would be able to stop us from becoming, as they say, "The Great Satan"?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman
What we did in Japan was a last resort, but it was a form of genocide, and we as the US are still the only country to have unleashed nukes. Its quite odd that the only country that has used them now tells others not to!

So, if WWIII ever did break out, do you think we would be the first to drop them, especially considering the fact that we would be the only ones that had them? Who would be able to stop us from becoming, as they say, "The Great Satan"?


Dropping nukes on Japan wasn't a last resort, it was a way to save more lives and end the war quickly. By dropping those bombs, the US and Japan are the only countries who have seen how powerful and deadly these weapons are, which made us less prone to use them in the future.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
What? The nuclear tests that were done by and in the United States before dropping them on Japan showed them just how powerful it was. Remember the pictures and video of people watching the bombs being dropped? We knew exactly what we were doing....



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer

Dropping nukes on Japan wasn't a last resort, it was a way to save more lives and end the war quickly. By dropping those bombs, the US and Japan are the only countries who have seen how powerful and deadly these weapons are, which made us less prone to use them in the future.


Yes, having seen how deadly they are should make the US and the others want to get rid of them. There is really no point in possessing and producing weapons you don't want to use anyway, especially if they are insanely expensive. And what's the point in having enough to destroy the whole planet a dozen times or more? Once should be enough! This is just a childish "I have more of 'em than you" behaviour. Humanity has got to grow up! Huge amounts of money have been lost due to this nonsense.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman
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.



he he he you are funny. no offence. but the US currently has 523 ICBMs armed with one warhead apice, and that down from 3 war heads apice. we also have numerous Ohio class SSBMs with 24 SLBMs armed with i think 5-8 warheads apice. the only way we will get rid of ours is that everyone has to get rid of theirs first. were tieeling countries (like Iran) to disarm because they are islamic extreamist running the country and they could easily give their weapons to terrorist then bye bye major western city. as long as countries like Iran, China, and north korea exist the US will never totally disarm. our Nukes are for defence only and will only be launched in responce to a smiliar attack on the US or her allies. take it from a missile man for the USAF, i know what im talking about.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
KrazyIvan...I have no clue what those missiles are your talking about, I will be perfectly honest with that. I mean no harm if you thought my original post meant anything more that a simple question. I do wonder just how many "secret" nukes we have though that maybe only a select few know about. If you have any info on this I would much appreciate it!

I've never been good with missile names, jet/airplane/etc. names so I dont want to come off that I think I "know everything". I just wonder what they are keeping from us, including our own military men?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:19 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.


There is no such thing as international law. It's a catchy buzz phrase, but it has no meaning. "International law" is nothing more than a series of tentative agreements between nations, almost always by unelected, self-indulgent bureaucrats. There is no superpowerful international body fairly elected by the people of all countries to impose any dictates on individual soveriegn nations. There is no representative world government; there can't be as long as dictatorships and theocracies exist. Government can only legitimately exist by the consent of the people, the electorate. Can anyone tell me who their international legistlator is? Which world executive officer signed all the legistlation into international law? Are any of the world politicians accountable to the populace?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This is interesting..

The point to which stumason replied was that the US had a paragraph in the constitution which says other nations cannot interfere with what the US does.

Iraq certainly has something similar in the constitution, however, the UN managed to force Saddam to cooperate with the inspectors. And in the end, the US and its allies interfered with what other countries did.

What would happen if the US had to be inspected for some reason?


Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Are any of the world politicians accountable to the populace?


I thought Saddam was being tried for his war crimes..?
I think the UN would be the only instance which is superimposed to the law of each nation. However, there is a backdoor called veto.

[edit on 7/24/2004 by SocialistOrder]



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Quote by Socialist Order "What would happen if the US had to be inspected for some reason?"

This is exactly what I was thinking? If the UN came knocking at Washington and ordered us to show them our weapons, what would we do? I think we all know the answer to this...and its not pretty!



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
sound like brats.

Facts: the USA is signatory to the Nuclear nonproliferation Treaty and abides by its regulations, many of which concern the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste to make sure it does not get reprocessed into plutonium. The USA has been very good for the most part about keeping civilian and military nuclear efforts separate.

And yes, the US nuclear weapons have been inspected, by the USSR under the negotiated provisions of arms control treaties.

But what would they learn? The US officially declares its active and inactive nuclear weapons programs to Congress. You can pretty much figure out just about how many weapons of each type are located.

Upon dismantlement the parts go to known sites: the thermonuclear secondaries go to Y-12, which also stores the enriched uranium. The original weapon is dismantled at Pantex, and the plutonium stored in holes and bunkers there. I don't know where the electronics go, but Sandia is the most likely site, as thats where they're made.

Since the 1990's the US navy has no nuclear weapons fleet wide (by presidential order by Bush I), except the warheads on the submarine ballistic missiles.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons now has just about no useful legitimate warfighting use and huge disadvantages. Colin Powell (a number of years ago) was talking about Gulf War I. He said that in fact use of tactical nuclear weapons against the Iraqi military was an allowed option, but given the circumstances and the missile capability of the USAF and Army, there was no sensible military utility at all. Remember that it can be very harsh and make things difficult for your own troops as well.

Nearly all tactical weapons are being dismantled.

The only logical things left for the USA in any conceivable missoin are the "doomsday" strategic weapons (deter Russia and China), and the development of the underground super bunker buster. And that's what they have.

What is not declared, for the obvious reason, is the specific storage location and deployment location of actual warheads. That's good, not bad, for safety.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join