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 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.
There is no difference at all with bin Laden attacking the WTC and us nuking Japan.
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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 Eastern_Diamondback
Are any of the world politicians accountable to the populace?