User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 8:41:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. Okay, I see that. However, I don't think he would retaliate in any way except harsh words, written or spoken, and am not even sure he would do that. I agree with you 100% |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 8:42:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:36:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:49:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:50:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. What about ours? They don't matter? Hell, why even HAVE nukes then? Remember, I'm talking about the use of them against us and potential American civilian casualties. That is unprecedented. We're not talking about a terrorist bombing of a school or mall. We're talking about a NUKE on an American city. If we did NOT reply in kind then there would be NOTHING stopping anyone from considering it, as they would never get nuked back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:52:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Nope. Never happen. Obama will never allow his name be associated with Nuclear strike. Unless WWIII kicks off and Russia throws everything at us, and only after a few nukes go off in US soil, only then would the Messiah allow us to Retaliate. Millions of American dead, on American soil. Then he would think about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:54:34 AM EDT
[#7]
obama? you mean that faggot with the chinup desease? no but i hope the joint chiefs would lock obama in a closet with rahmbo and hellary and do it themselves. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:55:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Although it would ultimately cost him the presidency, I do not think Obongo would order a retaliatory nuclear strike if the NORKS popped one off on us or our allies. He would have some BS about "Being better than our enemies". Of course some here would too....... "No" Because he doesn't have the stones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 9:55:46 AM EDT
[#9]
We just need to go over there and give lil' Kim a Reset button.
Then everything will be great, and they won't even overcharge us! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:03:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
He would announce that he needs "special powers" during this "unfortunate time of man made disasters" . I believe this is VERY close to the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:04:25 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Really big boom with delayed consequences. Lots of drama.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:04:41 AM EDT
[#12]
Obama would have to consult his bosses George Sorros, Michael Moore, the UAW, and Sierra Club before he announces our surrender to North Korea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:06:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:09:15 AM EDT
[#14]
The only thing the god Obama will do to North Korea is to apologize for George Bush's whiteness.
Obama and his administration don't have the courage necessary to lead us into WWIII. Obama is going to get a lot of us killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:10:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing huh? That and the whole conventional response being soooooo successful at obliterating an enemy (at least compared to nukes). Think "Shock and Awe". We're still there––-albeit in a better position––-six years later slugging it out. ETA––-"Shock and Awe" type retaliation has it's place no doubt, just not in response to a nuclear attack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:20:10 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. In general I agree with the part in the red, that has been the way modern warfare has been trending. The minute another country goes go nuclear or chemical or biological for that matter all bets are off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:23:33 AM EDT
[#17]
I think that would almost be grounds for removal from office.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:25:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Although it would ultimately cost him the presidency, I do not think Obongo would order a retaliatory nuclear strike if the NORKS popped one off on us or our allies. He would have some BS about "Being better than our enemies". Of course some here would too....... No, he'd push the button... He likes being President too much not to.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:26:05 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing huh? He said LEGITIMATE targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:26:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Although it would ultimately cost him the presidency, I do not think Obongo would order a retaliatory nuclear strike if the NORKS popped one off on us or our allies. He would have some BS about "Being better than our enemies". Of course some here would too....... No, he'd push the button... He likes being President too much not to.... Holy hell, I agree with you. ETA - I also believe we'd be paying billions of dollars to rebuild North Korea after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:26:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. What about ours? They don't matter? Hell, why even HAVE nukes then? Remember, I'm talking about the use of them against us and potential American civilian casualties. That is unprecedented. We're not talking about a terrorist bombing of a school or mall. We're talking about a NUKE on an American city. If we did NOT reply in kind then there would be NOTHING stopping anyone from considering it, as they would never get nuked back. There are OTHER things one can nuke besides cities... Especially in North Korea... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:27:27 AM EDT
[#22]
Yes. Obama is a narcissist. He would view an attack on the U.S. as an attack on him personally and his presidency, and would destroy NK. It reminds me of Kennedy's famous quote when he found out about the missiles in Cuba. "How could he do that to me?" He viewed it as a personal insult.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:36:55 AM EDT
[#23]
Are Norks Muslim? Are they Black? No? Then Obama would happily kill a hundred million without batting an eye.
Obama is a Narcissist. As such, he doesn't face any moral dilemma in killing people. In truth, I don't even think Blacks or Muslims are safe from him. He would sacrifice a couple million if he thought it might benefit him politically. He may be a sorry pussy, and he may be "insane" by our definition, but don't underestimate his callousness, ruthlessness, or determination. I just read all the replies, and I have to say I'm surprised how many people are confusing Obama's carefully crafted public personae with his actual personality. I hope that today's world leaders don't make the same mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:42:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing huh? I was talking about civilians as targets of the US, and it sounds like you're saying 9/11 was a legitimate attack rather than an act of terrorism. Is that what you're saying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:48:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. What about ours? They don't matter? Hell, why even HAVE nukes then? Remember, I'm talking about the use of them against us and potential American civilian casualties. That is unprecedented. We're not talking about a terrorist bombing of a school or mall. We're talking about a NUKE on an American city. If we did NOT reply in kind then there would be NOTHING stopping anyone from considering it, as they would never get nuked back. There are OTHER things one can nuke besides cities... Especially in North Korea... This is true, and in which case he might use one. I don't think he'd nuke a city though, nor do I think he should nuke a city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:00:33 AM EDT
[#26]
I suppose it would depend. If they nuked US soil? Yeah, they'd probably get some low yield canned sunshine on military sites, like their launch complex, navel bases etc. At the very least their ICBM launch complex would be leveled.
I figure more likely is that they would go after the South Koreans. They know their long range missiles suck balls and we could probably intercept them if we needed to. They don't have warheads that would fit on them anyways. They do have short range missiles capable of lifting those big warheads across the DMZ however. They might invade south with conventional forces and hold the nukes as a deterrent against the US or Japan interfering. Of course the Norks aren't stupid, just crazy. They know the nukes are far more valuable as a bargaining chip then as a weapon. They are desperate for any kind of foreign aide they can get, hence the journalists being held hostage, nukes that can't be delivered and a standing army that's out of gas. It's all about extorting money and food out of the UN. Kim Jong-il wants to hold onto the power he has, not expand an empire. He's a threat to no one but the North Koreans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:01:03 AM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:10:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing huh? He said LEGITIMATE targets. I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda considers us (the civilian population) legitimate targets. If you insist in framing the argument in some noe-marxist, moral relativism, socio- psychoanalysis bullshit that only limit your options (and not the other guys) by being for the undefined 'greater good' you are being insane. The idea that there are areas that are off limits in warfare is just some moralistic idealist bullshit dreamed up by some wishful thinking bureaucrat for a kinder, gentler form of warfare. I can appreciate taking considerations into account for long term goals, but there are some fuckers that are so delusional (like Kim Il-jong) that this insistence on taking the moral high road will give him the abiltiy to humble and humiliate (read own) us if there is not a real threat to retaliate in kind. There was a legitimate argument for Dresden (economic base and legitimate military targets) as well as Hiroshima/ Nagasaki (millions of military lives saved by not going the traditional military invasion route). The whole argument against the 'eye for an eye' morality is flawed. It says that with this mentality all you have are a bunch of people walking around blind. Bullshit. Taken to its conclusion it reads that all you have is those, who are unwilling to use the same exact force in response to the aggresion, will walk around blind while the ones being the aggressors will still have their vision and the satisfaction of owning the blind ones. Its the abilty and the intention to make good on the promise that keeps peace. MAD worked for a reason. We do not define to the rest of the world who the legitimate targets are for them no matter how much psychobabble bullshit and goodwill will throw at them. We can have the high ground by not instigating the fight, but we have to have the will to meet the trangressions in kind. Weak civilizations succumb to the stronger ones. Always has been, always will be. We may be militarily strong but we are fucking weak in so many other areas nowadays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:13:22 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing huh? I was talking about civilians as targets of the US, and it sounds like you're saying 9/11 was a legitimate attack rather than an act of terrorism. Is that what you're saying? We do not define to the rest of the world who the legitimate targets are for them See post above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:22:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Utter crap. We used to win wars because our enemies realized that if they didn't quit we would destroy them entirely. We should return to that mode of operation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:30:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: I don't believe that POS fake would do anything to save the U.S. from anything. He's already destroying it...why would he care? HH He'd probably say we deserved it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:39:52 AM EDT
[#32]
The idea that you can avoid "targeting" civilians in a nuclear exchange is insanity. If we get hit with a nuke the only viable response is to so utterly devastate the enemy that further attacks against us are impossible. That means destroying every government building, every means of communication, every military and industrial facility, and every suspected location of military or governmental assets. Whether or not you are "targeting" civilians or not at this point is irrelevant because they are all going to die.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:51:46 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. Utter crap. We used to win wars because our enemies realized that if they didn't quit we would destroy them entirely. We should return to that mode of operation. We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:56:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:00:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Why would we want to? Let the SORKS or the Japs do it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:29:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:35:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who WOULD retaliate with nukes? I think it's safe to say if we launch a nuke it would be against a city, or least would result in huge civilian casualties....why would we retaliate with nukes when we can launch precision warheads against military targets while limiting civvie casualties? My point is, I don't think ANY president would use nukes. I would light a nuke off in no time if someone killed Americans in a nuclear attack. Bush would have, and if 1000's of soldiers get nuked in SK I bet the military will talk obongo into it. Meh...maybe....I don't know....what does retaliating with nukes really accomplish OVER just using precision warheads (these days anyways).... If the NORKS hit, say, Juneau with one of their whacky-ass missiles you don't think a counter-strike to a NORK city would be in order? Civilian casualties be damned in that circumstance, 'cause obviously they didn't care. Oh, and please spare me the "Two wrongs doesn't make a right" or "The civilians in North Korea didn't do it". We would be talking about a NUCLEAR strike on U.S. territory/citizens. There could be NO other response acceptable (unless of course it's Obongo like I'm talking about). I'd let them know that North Korea wouldn't have a starvation problem once we got done...... As a side note, I'd make it crystal clear to China NOW that it would behoove them to reign in their comrades across the border, 'cause if the NORKS popped one on us NOTHING would prevent a nuclear retaliation against them––-even sharing a border and close proximity to China. If they don't want canned sunshine on the other side of the border they better act. 60 years ago I would agree. Today though, I think there are better options. Although you "don't want to hear it" the fact remains that the civilians DIDN't do it. Yeah, they may be fanatical and all that but "dear leader" is the one that did it. Nuking a bunch of women and children isn't the answer IMO, the answer is striking every damn military target in North Korea. The days of civilians being legitimate targets is over. What about ours? They don't matter? Hell, why even HAVE nukes then? Remember, I'm talking about the use of them against us and potential American civilian casualties. That is unprecedented. We're not talking about a terrorist bombing of a school or mall. We're talking about a NUKE on an American city. If we did NOT reply in kind then there would be NOTHING stopping anyone from considering it, as they would never get nuked back. There are OTHER things one can nuke besides cities... Especially in North Korea... This is true, and in which case he might use one. I don't think he'd nuke a city though, nor do I think he should nuke a city. Why the hell not, were not talking about some terrorist bombing here, if a country any country and especially NK goes Nuclear your whole country Cities and Civi's included just became legitimate targets. The goal is to make it so horrific that they or anyone else for that matter would ever consider doing it again. I think he would push the button, The target package depends alot on what was hit, if they missed there intended target and it just hit relativily dead space, than we might limit our response and only nuke true military targets, but god forbid they hit a city any city, there would be ICBM's raining down on every major NK city |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:36:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Why would we want to? Let the SORKS or the Japs do it. So, if they nuke a US city, you are saying let someone else handle it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:40:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). I disagree, there war making machine is their civilian population, if you kill everyone who can assist in there war machine than they can't make war. If they go nuclear than we need to return the favor and start taking out cities, sorry conventional strikes don't have the same impact or destructive power that nukes do. And if there capital goes and a few major cities go up in a mushroom cloud they will quickly re-evaluate just how badly they want to fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:41:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:44:29 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:50:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? You think we don't know where their nukes are kept and where they'll launch from? Besides killing civilians we could always just use cruise missiles and such against military targets and their nukes
I don't believe that nuking civvies for pure retaliation is something we should do. We're better than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 12:52:57 PM EDT
[#43]
I can't imagine that he will
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:03:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? You think we don't know where their nukes are kept and where they'll launch from? Besides killing civilians we could always just use cruise missiles and such against military targets and their nukes
I don't believe that nuking civvies for pure retaliation is something we should do. We're better than that. First problem with that is that in many cases a ICMB can be on target faster than any cruise missile (30 minute flight time) second problem is that I would imagine that there C2 nodes are to heavily hardened to destroy with cruise missiles, remember they've had 50 years to harden there facilities. Hell there sector sketches on the border are in concrete. Third is that there civilians aren't being nuked for retaliation they are being nuked because they are targets, pure and simple. They are part of the military might (however big or small) that is NK. If you don't want your citizens glowing in there beds then don't nuke us. There is no such thing as being "better than that" IMO thats a load of BS, war is a horrific thing, if someone starts it our job in order to win is to make it as horrible as possible to end it as quick as possible, if we don't have the stomach to do what is nesecary to completely destroy our enemy we might as well put our guns away and go home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:14:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? You think we don't know where their nukes are kept and where they'll launch from? Besides killing civilians we could always just use cruise missiles and such against military targets and their nukes
I don't believe that nuking civvies for pure retaliation is something we should do. We're better than that. First problem with that is that in many cases a ICMB can be on target faster than any cruise missile (30 minute flight time) second problem is that I would imagine that there C2 nodes are to heavily hardened to destroy with cruise missiles, remember they've had 50 years to harden there facilities. Hell there sector sketches on the border are in concrete. Third is that there civilians aren't being nuked for retaliation they are being nuked because they are targets, pure and simple. They are part of the military might (however big or small) that is NK. If you don't want your citizens glowing in there beds then don't nuke us. There is no such thing as being "better than that" IMO thats a load of BS, war is a horrific thing, if someone starts it our job in order to win is to make it as horrible as possible to end it as quick as possible, if we don't have the stomach to do what is nesecary to completely destroy our enemy we might as well put our guns away and go home. Clearly we disagree on how war should be fought and the moral implications of how war is fought. I don't think we're going to change each other's minds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:24:00 PM EDT
[#46]
That ineffectual child couldn't order a sandwich without his teleprompter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:27:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? You think we don't know where their nukes are kept and where they'll launch from? Besides killing civilians we could always just use cruise missiles and such against military targets and their nukes
I don't believe that nuking civvies for pure retaliation is something we should do. We're better than that. First problem with that is that in many cases a ICMB can be on target faster than any cruise missile (30 minute flight time) second problem is that I would imagine that there C2 nodes are to heavily hardened to destroy with cruise missiles, remember they've had 50 years to harden there facilities. Hell there sector sketches on the border are in concrete. Third is that there civilians aren't being nuked for retaliation they are being nuked because they are targets, pure and simple. They are part of the military might (however big or small) that is NK. If you don't want your citizens glowing in there beds then don't nuke us. There is no such thing as being "better than that" IMO thats a load of BS, war is a horrific thing, if someone starts it our job in order to win is to make it as horrible as possible to end it as quick as possible, if we don't have the stomach to do what is nesecary to completely destroy our enemy we might as well put our guns away and go home. Clearly we disagree on how war should be fought and the moral implications of how war is fought. I don't think we're going to change each other's minds. Agreed, In the long run probably doesn't matter much as I doubt eithier of us will be making the call on what strike package to use  God Forbid that day ever comes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:31:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Just a rhetorical speech.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:48:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? You think we don't know where their nukes are kept and where they'll launch from? Besides killing civilians we could always just use cruise missiles and such against military targets and their nukes
I don't believe that nuking civvies for pure retaliation is something we should do. We're better than that. First problem with that is that in many cases a ICMB can be on target faster than any cruise missile (30 minute flight time) second problem is that I would imagine that there C2 nodes are to heavily hardened to destroy with cruise missiles, remember they've had 50 years to harden there facilities. Hell there sector sketches on the border are in concrete. Third is that there civilians aren't being nuked for retaliation they are being nuked because they are targets, pure and simple. They are part of the military might (however big or small) that is NK. If you don't want your citizens glowing in there beds then don't nuke us. There is no such thing as being "better than that" IMO thats a load of BS, war is a horrific thing, if someone starts it our job in order to win is to make it as horrible as possible to end it as quick as possible, if we don't have the stomach to do what is nesecary to completely destroy our enemy we might as well put our guns away and go home. Clearly we disagree on how war should be fought and the moral implications of how war is fought. I don't think we're going to change each other's minds. Agreed, In the long run probably doesn't matter much as I doubt eithier of us will be making the call on what strike package to use God Forbid that day ever comes
Ha....true....although I think either of us could do a better job than Obama....in fact, I have a 9 year old who could do a better job
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:56:24 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We had no other option then but to target civilians. Now we do, and we still win. No we don't. It's a matter of time. You have to eliminate their ability to make war before they drop a second nuke. You don't do that with a month-long conventional bombing campaign, you do that in a few minutes with a coordinated attack using B2's, cruise missiles, and maybe some SLBM's for good measure. I disagree. We can target their war making machine without killing women and children in their beds (which I am fundamentally opposed to, as long as there are other options which I believe there are). How do you take out CCC before they can order another strike while leaving civilians unmolested? What are these "other options" you speak of? You think we don't know where their nukes are kept and where they'll launch from? Besides killing civilians we could always just use cruise missiles and such against military targets and their nukes
I don't believe that nuking civvies for pure retaliation is something we should do. We're better than that. First problem with that is that in many cases a ICMB can be on target faster than any cruise missile (30 minute flight time) second problem is that I would imagine that there C2 nodes are to heavily hardened to destroy with cruise missiles, remember they've had 50 years to harden there facilities. Hell there sector sketches on the border are in concrete. Third is that there civilians aren't being nuked for retaliation they are being nuked because they are targets, pure and simple. They are part of the military might (however big or small) that is NK. If you don't want your citizens glowing in there beds then don't nuke us. There is no such thing as being "better than that" IMO thats a load of BS, war is a horrific thing, if someone starts it our job in order to win is to make it as horrible as possible to end it as quick as possible, if we don't have the stomach to do what is nesecary to completely destroy our enemy we might as well put our guns away and go home. Clearly we disagree on how war should be fought and the moral implications of how war is fought. I don't think we're going to change each other's minds. Agreed, In the long run probably doesn't matter much as I doubt eithier of us will be making the call on what strike package to use God Forbid that day ever comes
Ha....true....although I think either of us could do a better job than Obama....in fact, I have a 9 year old who could do a better job
Sad but true I'll vote for your 9 year old 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
