Posted: 12/11/2002 9:39:23 AM EDT
|
If the U.S. is attacked with weapons of mass destruction, should it consider responding with nuclear weapons? Yes 66% 50313 votes No 34% 25747 votes Total: 76,060 votes Edited to add: I guess you want a link huh? [url]http://www.cnn.com/[/url] wow, do I feel like a dumbass |
|
I'd answer no, unless the culprit was a state, and the areas to be nuked were fairly remote. However good a "nuking" would make you feel, a nuclear strike carries immense baggage. Currently, the same result can be attained through conventional attack, and occupying troops. |
|
I bet the "Muslim Street" would change its tune if this was a set in stone policy. Offending state gets touched by the sun, civilian populations. The "Muslim Street" would put some preasure on their Governments for a change. Terrorists would not be welcome in their areas. If you fried Bagdad, the rest of the Islamic world would get back in their place. People tend to think that the civilian population has no say in what happens in their area. That is Bullshit. I wouldn't mind if they made Iraq into New Texas. Yeah, we want your oil. Now what are you going to say liberal pussies? |
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.