althom said:

your country was one of them
oz the 53rd state after canada and the uk

blackcherry said:

We never called for the use of nuclear weapons.....but we did support the US in what they wanted to do.

2the9s said:

yeah i always prefered burger king myself :tasty:

althom said:

same thing

althom said:

Yeah! One of those people was Dick Cheney! On some news show in the days after 9-11, some news anchor asked about our options and he said that "nothing was off the table" and the anchor responded "even nuclear wepons" and Cheney repeated "nothing is off the table."

And that wasn't internet anger! That was, at best, administration PR! Yikes!

2the9s said:

that's some PR

2the9s said:

Now THAT'S scary!

althom said:

blackcherry said:

Australia has been the victim of one of the biggest post-9-11 terrorist attacks.

And my question is, what context/situation do you see, if any, where nukes would be a response to some provocation, whether state sponsored or otherwise. That can go both ways. Will non-state groups continue to seek nuke capability in the face of contonued bombing etc and will states be more willing to use nukes as a response to hyper-terrorism?

2the9s said:

. I think the futiure of "war" so to speak is headed toward intelligent weapons which are now being developed. I cant see any situation where Nuclear weapons should be deployed in response to provocation. What is hyper-terrorism?

2the9s said:

the US is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, i dont believe there is any country or fanatical terrorist group that can offer a probable threat to the security of the united states or her allies.
americas biggest strength lies with her intelligence agency and there isn't a group / government or organization
that isn't monitored or controlled by the US intelligence agency
if a group has managed an attack against america its because america allowed it
the weapons these groups possess, the training they are giving comes from one source
albeit indirectly
america has no enemy strong enough to warrant a nuclear response and america
has no enemy foolhardy or organized enough to manage a successful nuclear strike
even the idea of a dirty bomb wouldn't work
[This message was edited Mon Feb 23 18:02:27 2004 by blackcherry]

Lleena said:

It's a word I made up. Though I've heard a phrase something like it ("super-terrorism"?). It means an act of terrorism so vast that is like a provocation for war. Like 9-11 was.

But so-called "intelligent" weapons (and I can't help but thinking of "smart bombs" here) are also a part of Pentagon PR, no? The idea of "clean" weapons goes over well with the public. One of the functions of nuclear weapons is their devastation and the fear they impart, no? That is part of the thinking. Just like the buzz bombs of WWII used on London by the Germans. The belief that technology will be used to develop "better" weapons doesn't seem right to me.

"wepons"
[This message was edited Mon Feb 23 18:05:45 2004 by 2the9s]

Lleena said:

the future of war will be a guerrilla warfare . when the people start demanding their share
of education, health and food
but in reality it is too late cnn has brainwashed the masses
and everyone is too busy watching friends
the revolution will not be televised

2the9s said:

buzz bombs
lost my local and my chippy to one of those things
damn that Hitler

Oh, and when I say "our lifetime" I don't mean Lleena's, because she is 70!

I do.

blackcherry said:

There would have to be an extreme threat for the U.S. to launch a nuclear weapon first. I don't see the america dropping a nuclear bomb in a situation that can be resovled with soldiers and weapons that aren't as destructive.

There are several situations, and at least in some of them, I'd prefer the damn bomb to hit close to my pad so that it's over as soon as possible.

.


AND WE'LL ALL B-E L-I-V-I-N IN THE P--U--R--P--L--E RAIN!


.

I had some seven-layer burritos tonight.

althom said:

True, True

I mean what the hell do we need such horrible weapons in the first place

I mean it's the year 2004 and it's time for change for the better of the world

No, I don't think so.

But you come pretty close 9s.

Aerogram said:

That's a good point, Aero. By "several situations" do you mean chemical or biological scenarios? If we begin to talk of the use of "tactical nukes" etc have we lost one of their main uses? The fear of apocalypse? Do the fears of chemical and biological events surpass those of nucleay events?

sag10 said:

Hey!!!!

2the9s said:

i didn't say we'd survive the event

Did you know Russia has 'lost' over 100 briefcase sized nuclear bombs since the collapse of the USSR? They literally can fit inside a briefcase.

Makes you think.
[This message was edited Tue Feb 24 11:30:36 2004 by Marrk]

Watch Testament.