Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Time for Fat Man and Little Boy?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

tothelineplz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Posts
62
U.S. WARNS ENEMIES
The Bush administration is reminding potential attackers that nuclear retaliation is among the U.S. options


Uh oh...
 
What about the glass industry?

I don't know fellas, using nukes over there in the desert would put the glass industry out of business for a hundred years or so!

:D
 
I'll take my glass isotope free. The only bad thing would be to find out directly who made the attack and where to hit them. By the time they would have that figured out I would hope they would have found other options than smashing atoms.
 
Aggreed, nukes are not the answer, we would just isolate ourselves from the rest of civilized society, even though we are fighting an uncivalized enemy.
 
LR25 said:
Aggreed, nukes are not the answer, we would just isolate ourselves from the rest of civilized society, even though we are fighting an uncivalized enemy.



There is certainly a danger that we will lose several of our allies if we use nukes.

The Arab nations would probably balk, and it's hard to imagine the Europeans would be very thrilled.
But at that point, would it matter? The pro-nuke crowd could argue that after a weapon of mass destruction is used against American troops or on American soil, and if it kills thousands, if not hundreds of thousands with the potential in some cases to kill millions over time, the time for diplomacy is over.

At that point, one could say, Americans would demand the use of overwhelming military force to put an end to the threat, to hell with what the world thinks.

My father spent his whole life as an intelligence officer, he once said that the first shots in any nuclear war would not be fired in response to a nuclear attack, they would be fired in response to a rogue nation employing chemical or biological weapons upon a civilian population. He always envisioned a rogue attack upon Israel from the likes of Syria, Lebanon, Iran or Iraq. In which case everyone knew that nothing would stop Israel from retaliating.

He always tried to reassure us during the late 70’s and early 80’s as children growing up on the out skirts of DC that the Soviets were not our biggest threat.


Becky
 
Well nukes have always been an option when dealing with these people. We warned Iraq thru intermediaries in 1991, that any use of chemicals, biological, or nuclear, would prompt a massive relatiation.

You do not win a war by telling the other side what we will not do. You leave all your options open, at least in the enemies mind. Would we use nukes..Probably not. But then why tell the other side that.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top