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.

 

Enough. Time for Mushroom fields?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I was just thinking, with all this talk of nuking them can you really blame Arab nations for wanting WMD. They currently don't really fall under any alliance that would protect them by using the MAD deterrent theory. I think the world would be a lot safer if only 3 or 4 countries had nukes and divided the world up into areas they were deticated to respond on behalf of if attacked by nukes (like NATO and the WARSAW pact countries of past). It would sure be better than everyone and their dog having nukes even if it the suggested system would have some serious flaws and be hard to set up.


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Trent]




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kollapse
You guys are not that educated, right? And I bet you are religous too?

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Kollapse]


Well, I am talking to you. I am "religious" (A devout Christian), and I am educated, at least if you figure 6 years of "higher" education being educated. That is probably your barometer for education. Thankfully, I have much more education than that. Now, you got a problem? I have a problem, so why don't you, in just as few words as you used to be insultive, explain why you made that statement?

This thread has spawned manya responses, most ranging from stupid to outlandish to the arrogant and hateful calling us arrogant and hateful. To all those people, thank you.

Now, to answer the question, why this is a bad idea. I think it's very simple, and had all the rest of you not been so ready to take the opportunity to turn yet another thread into an America Bash, maybe you could have come up with the answer.

We don't go around nuking groups of countries just because some idiot was on a militant propaganda machine making claims of having nukes by the dozens and small pox by the drums in the States, ready for usage. We never have, we never will.

As far as you people who do nothing but bash America with blind hatred and illogic, you are just as ignorant. Difference is, you are playing ignorant because your country has been hit and you know it'll be hit again. You are playing ignorant because this is your chance to stick your finger in our open wound.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
We don't go around nuking groups of countries just because some idiot was on a militant propaganda machine making claims of having nukes by the dozens and small pox by the drums in the States, ready for usage. We never have, we never will.


Read PNAC, they are stipulating preventive nuclear strikes.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Thomas Crowne - Go get 'em. Very well stated.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Thankfully, I have much more education than that. Now, you got a problem? I have a problem, so why don't you, in just as few words as you used to be insultive, explain why you made that statement?


Yes, I got a problem, With religous warmongers like you (that applies to all religions and all killers), I simply dont like your bloodthirst and I cant understand your blind faith in fairytales like the bible.


And by the way, 6 years of "higher" education does not make people wiser..apparently.




[edit on 19-11-2004 by Kollapse]

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Kollapse]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Read PNAC, they are stipulating preventive nuclear strikes.


OK, I read part of PNAC, I also read part of Al Jazeera. Guess which one had more demands for violence. Which one called most often for the total elimination of an entire people, culture and way of life? Got another link to show how the US is more bloodthirsty than others???



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
OK, I read part of PNAC, I also read part of Al Jazeera. Guess which one had more demands for violence. Which one called most often for the total elimination of an entire people, culture and way of life? Got another link to show how the US is more bloodthirsty than others???



Agreed, both sides are nuts



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice


I agree completely that a nuclear attack requires unconventional repsponses, but not genocide



I didn't say we would commit genocide. I said the Arab world would cease to exist. I posit that 5-10 Arab cities would be vaporized and that almost all Arab / Persian governments would be forcibly overthrown and replaced with western proxies. That does means millions would die but its not genocide.

There would be zero tolerance of any kind of anti-western sentiment in the remaining populace. It would be brutal, draconian, and not something to be proud ofbut it would happen.


Killing people generally isn't the best way to make friends. I think it would be more likely that anti-west sentiment would be higher if they were nuked. It's not like they would have much to loose after the devistation of nuclear attacks on their cities. Heck the way most of their countries are a lot of people that live there don't have much to loose right now. This is perhaps the core of the terrorist problem and hopefully something that can be remedied before things really get out of hand.

I agree that the use of nuclear weapons would be brutal and draconian though



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
mushroom fields is the last resort, theres nothing we can do if they have one to use on us except pray. as men we must live peacfully or we maintain our current level of infancy. a unified world will be the greatest achievment in the history of man kind

FUDGE WAR














[edit on 20-11-2004 by sturod84]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Moku, PNAC is a conservative think tank, nothing more. Regardless, first strike is NOT the same thing as what the originator of this thread said. A little different from an idiot on a propaganda machine spewing out garbage.

Speaking of which, the U.S. did not give Hussein WMD's. But I am nuking you at this time. (Not you, Moku, you know who I'm referring to).



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   


Moku, PNAC is a conservative think tank, nothing more. Regardless, first strike is NOT the same thing as what the originator of this thread said. A little different from an idiot on a propaganda machine spewing out garbage.


sturod84 - The images you posted are horrifying. There is nothing even remotely beautiful about them. THANK YOU. Because I grew up in a military family, I truly understand war. There is nothing romantic about it. I want nothing more than world peace. As I stated when I opened this thread, I am not a wide eyed war monger saying let's just nuke everybody because we can. Quite the contrary. I pray that a nuke never is used. EVER. However if an enemy goes on record with a major news correspondence, even if it is nothing more than the one sided, not quite honest (and I'm being kind here - most of the world simply calls them liars) claiming that they have nukes, and small pox already in place within the 7 largest cities in the USA, and will ABSOLUTELY use them no matter what, what is the USA to do? Roll over and wait? If a bully in the neighborhood threatened to burn down your home with your family in it, no matter what you did what would you do? People of all nations you must police your own. The loud mouths who spout their hate and rhetoric must be stopped - regardless of nationality or religous beliefs. It is NOT TOO LATE. It will be too late soon though. Of the 5 Billion people on the planet there are perhaps 1 million who make this hatred smolder and may ruin it for all. I state again that I DO NOT any way agree with the nuclear option. However, do not EVER threaten me ultimately. If so, we must do what we must do - as you threaten to do every day.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Mecca. You hit 'em where it really hurts.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BANGINCOLOR
Mecca. You hit 'em where it really hurts.



That would be interesting to watch. It's like punching a hornet's nest. You may kill some of them, but undoubtedly, you will be stung.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I have to disagree; they are truly beautiful. Many deadly things are beautiful.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I think we should hook up the Japanese Earth Simulator with virtual reality helmets and have an all out virtual war. The loser has to find a new planet.

As for the the nuclear weapons, I'll use one to blow up that silly face on mars then shoot the rest in the general direction of Orion.

As for mushroom fields; not unless they were filled with cow paties.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Superdude,

LOL
are you for real?

If you want to nuke all possible places where these terrorists are hiding, you must probably nuke half of the globe.

What victory is there to gain if the world is destroyed (radio-active fallout, nuclear winters) ?

Blobber



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Blobber - Didin't say i wanted to. in fact made it clear I DID NOT want to. Was simply a question. Same as if to say if a gang in your neighborhood threatened to burn down your house with your family inside it, no matter what you did, what would you do?



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
Blobber - Didin't say i wanted to. in fact made it clear I DID NOT want to. Was simply a question. Same as if to say if a gang in your neighborhood threatened to burn down your house with your family inside it, no matter what you did, what would you do?

Oh ok, sorry I didn't read the whole thread -glad you are still sane enough not to nuke half of the globe


Well regarding that gang, I will probably ask why they want to burn my house.

Blobber



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I'd go and get the gang, I wouldn't go and burn down the neighbourhood.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I understand that kollapse is banned, but I think this conversation is something of a group effort anyway, so why not respond right?


Originally posted by Kollapse

Well, Turkey for example is a Muslim country, but not fundamentalist and no suicidebombings, what makes the difference between the more extreme Afghans and the moderate Turks?

Turkey has been massively interfered with tho, true, it wasn't invaded by the soviets, like afghanistan, but that might've had something to do with western ICBM's pointing at them across the euxine. Also, keep in mind that the turks were, well, invaded and forced to take up a democracy, not unlike iraq, a country that they had to abandon in that other unpopular global war.

US invaded Iraq beacuse of the WMD's US gave them?

Doh. Touche.


mrnice
I said the Arab world would cease to exist. I posit that 5-10 Arab cities would be vaporized and that almost all Arab / Persian governments would be forcibly overthrown and replaced with western proxies.

You hadn't said that there should be a strike on strategic cities, you had said that the arab world be destroyed. Why would western democracies pop up after nuking multiple cities full of innocent people in the mid east? It would demonstrate that the west is dangerous and homocidal and not to be trusted, not force that part of the world into submission. Also, are you prepared for an occupation of the entire muslim world, from morrocco to malaysia?




There would be zero tolerance of any kind of anti-western sentiment in the remaining populace.

How is this supposed to be accomplished? Totalitarian rule of north africa, east africa, the persian gulf, iran, central asia, pakistan, indonesia and the phillipines? And the rest of the world is just going to sit by mute when US forces swell up on their borders? China and Russia aren't going to be interested at a massive american land pressence in marching distance of their cities?


It would be brutal, draconian, and not something to be proud ofbut it would happen.

And if it did it would result in absolutely nothing. The black market that supplies nukes wouldn't be shut down and more nukes woud go off in the US. Nukes aren't good weapons, and they most certainly aren't conventional. They are best as a detterent force. The possibility of soviet cities being nuked was enough to keep the soviets from nuking american cities, or even invading europe. What do you think nuking tehran will do? Besides killing off the more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and reform minded portions of the population? Not only does bin ladin or any of these other terrorists care about muslim cities being annhilated, but even some of the governments over there don't care. I recall reading about a speech given by one of the iranian mullahs, he siad sommethign like 'what do we care if a nuke goes off in our city and kills millions? We have millions more'. They have disposable populations. They don't care about running cities, they are regressive, pre-modern, 'luddite like' extremists. Taking their cities away is not a problem for them. Besides, the cities aren't whats the problems. Why destroy islamabad when its the pastoral tribesmen in the mountains of waziristan that are the problem?

Lots of cultures have had to deal with these regions, even before they were muslim dominated, all of them had the ability to invade, kill millions, destroy cities, and dominate, and its never worked. Look at the Hindu Kush mountains. Know why they are called that? It means "Hindu Killing' Mountains. Its not terrain non natives can be effective on, and no one can prevent natives from rallying, preparing, and leaving there. Not the hindus, not the greeks, not the persians or brits or anyone.

trent
with all this talk of nuking them can you really blame Arab nations for wanting WMD

No, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't destroy the regimes and structures that are trying to acquire them.

I think the world would be a lot safer if only 3 or 4 countries had nukes and divided the world up into areas they were deticated to respond on behalf of if attacked by nukes

Some have predicted that the pakistani-indian situation will not erupt into war again because of this detterence concern. But why give other powers massive nuke arsenals? The US isn't going to use it 'kill all dem der a rabes'. If the US is attacked with nukes, then there will be a 'non-conventional' response and it will not allow itself to be bound by any previous international treaties or standards. There really is no choice on that matter. Regardless, better that than, say, a saudi-egyptian controlled nuclear strike force.


Thomas Crowne
playing ignorant because this is your chance to stick your finger in our open wound.
,
Useful Idiots as the international communists used to say, no?

Speaking of which, the U.S. did not give Hussein WMD's.

I suppose its rather debatle as to whether they got their VX gas from the US or the UK, but surely you don't think that they developed it on their own, no?


superdude
claiming that they have nukes, and small pox already in place within the 7 largest cities in the USA, and will ABSOLUTELY use them no matter what, what is the USA to do?

Lets just think about the situation for a moment. What does al qaida, specifically, want? I think every one agrees that their ultimate goal is the re-establishment of the Caliphate, a pan-islamic theocratic empire. How do, effectively, powerless people accomplish this? They can't defeat the US on the field, so they engineer a situation where the US and the West in general becomes more involved in middle easter affairs, invades and destroys the old regimes (also an obstacle to the caliphate), and then waits for the inevitable softening of resolve on the part of the western public and pressure from the international community (governmental and non) to eventually result in the west pulling out of the middle east. SO now what? I mean, the west must've left someone in charge no? But look at it now, karzai isn't in charge of afghanistan, and there was only a lack of violence and a generally decent election becuase the local warlords would, well, benefit from peace.
Or look at iraq. The national police are out and about, heck the coalition is there in force, and stil cities and sections of the country are open to the various terrorists. So an even 'weaker' structure is going to be in power once the west 'pulls out' of the middle east, and then the terrorists will, literally, come down from the mountains, wrathfully calling the people, who had been nuked, beaten, imprisoned, betrayed, and nearly exterminated by the west and the lackeys now in power, to rise up against the current set of tyrants. And they most certainly will do it, they'll see peolpe like bin ladin in an intensification of the way they see him now, as someone, "the only one" willing to stand up against the 'decadent, immoral, hypocritical, depraved west' that by then had literally shown up promising democracy peace and prosperity and had ended up absoltely brutalizing them.
So i bring that up because thats the kind of involvement that nuclear retaliation will require, and everyone has to be absolutely commited to it. The west and the US simply can not be that commited, especially in a post wmd intelligence debacle world. IE, if the cia can't tell that iraq, with its permanent structures, facilities, and defectors, does or does not have wmd, or worse, insists that it does and they practically know that amounts and how long they've had them, and is completely wrong, then how the hell can anyone know that these terrorists have anything? I strongly suspect that they do. Heck, they must either have them or be very close. But, goddamnit, iraq must've had it too no? And they didn't. Crap.



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join