Author Topic: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?  (Read 3016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mefustae

  • 210
  • Chevron locked...
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by Carl
basically this is a scare tactic. they want their enemies to think that they would actually use them, even though in reality they won't, unless they ever get around to developing those sub-kiloton nukes they were talking about a while ago.
Remember, these are the bastards that have used the Bomb before, and you're insane if you think they won't use it again. Seriously, if they start using the Bomb, who's going to stop them? Who is capable of stopping them? And, most poigniently, who would muster the courage to stand up to a nation with the largest active Nuclear Arsenal in the world?

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
I see nothing here that did not exist ten or twenty years ago.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
"bastards"?
other than that, yeah.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Shrike

  • Postadmin
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by deep_eyes
the US is just mad that they didnt make these Neutron bombs decades ago that woulda took out entire areas of people without damaging too much the structures housing them....

engh.... we always have MOABS...
Actually, they did make them.  But unlike the general idea that it's a 'conqueror's bomb', neutron bombs are only really effective against military targets due to their low yields (1-ish kiloton).  They still explode just like a normal nuke, they just have increased neutron emissions; the original intent was to use them to counter Soviet armored formations which are by their nature highly resistant to more conventional blast-overpressure nukes.

Would they have actually worked?  I can't say.  Would they allow 'clean' conquests simply by killing civilians and leaving everything mostly undamaged?  Certainly not.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline Mefustae

  • 210
  • Chevron locked...
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
"bastards"?
other than that, yeah.

Heh, yeah, sorry if you took offense to that, I meant the people in charge of making this sort of plan, and those that would gladly put it into action and destroy the world rather than see the American way of life destroyed (hey, should it come down to it, the US would gladly destroy all life on the planet, in the mindset of 'if we can't exist, nobody can'). If you've heard the speech by President Truman a short time after the bombing of Hiroshima, in which he says something along the lines of 'we've used it, and we're going to keep using it until the US is victorious', you'll know exactly what I mean by 'bastards'...
« Last Edit: September 12, 2005, 03:37:02 am by 2686 »

 

Offline Shrike

  • Postadmin
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by Mefustae
Heh, yeah, sorry if you took offense to that, I meant the people in charge of making this sort of plan, and those that would gladly put it into action and destroy the world rather than see the American way of life destroyed (hey, should it come down to it, the US would gladly destroy all life on the planet, in the mindset of 'if we can't exist, nobody can'). If you've heard the speech by President Truman a short time after the bombing of Hiroshima, in which he says something along the lines of 'we've used it, and we're going to keep using it until the US is victorious', you'll know exactly what I mean by 'bastards'...
Do you have any proof whatsoever for this?  Feel free to post links and sources.
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by Shrike
Do you have any proof whatsoever for this?  Feel free to post links and sources.


I think he must mean this
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/hiroshim/truman1.html

[q]IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- August 6, 1945

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British "Grand Slam" which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form these bombs are now in production and even more powerful forms are in development.

It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.

Before 1939, it was the accepted belief of scientists that it was theoretically possible to release atomic energy. But no one knew any practical method of doing it. By 1942, however, we knew that the Germans were working feverishly to find a way to add atomic energy to the other engines of war with which they hoped to enslave the world. But they failed. We may be grateful to Providence that the Germans got the V-1's and the V-2's late and in limited quantities and even more grateful that they did not get the atomic bomb at all.

The battle of the laboratories held fateful risks for us as well as the battles of the air, land, and sea, and we have now won the battle of the laboratories as we have won the other battles.

Beginning in 1940, before Pearl Harbor, scientific knowledge useful in war was pooled between the United States and Great Britain, and many priceless helps to our victories have come from that arrangement. Under that general policy the research on the atomic bomb was begun. With American and British scientists working together we entered the race of discovery against the Germans.

The United States had available the large number of scientists of distinction in the many needed areas of knowledge. It had the tremendous industrial and financial resources necessary for the project and they could be devoted to it without undue impairment of other vital war work. In the United States the laboratory work and the production plants, on which a substantial start had already been made, would be out of reach of enemy bombing, while at that time Britain was exposed to constant air attack and was still threatened with the possibility of invasion. For these reasons Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt agreed that it was wise to carry on the project here. We now have two great plants and many lesser works devoted to the production of atomic power. Employment during peak construction numbered 125,000 and over 65,000 individuals are even now engaged in operating the plants. Many have worked there for two and a half years. Few know what they have been producing. They see great quantities of material going in and they see nothing coming out of those plants, for the physical size of the explosive charge is exceedingly small. We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history - and won.

But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise, its secrecy, nor its cost, but the achievement of scientific brains in putting together infinitely complex pieces of knowledge held by many men in different fields of science into a workable plan. And hardly less marvelous has been the capacity of industry to design, and of labor to operate, the machines and methods to do things never done before so that the brain child of many minds came forth in physical shape and performed as it was supposed to do. Both science and industry worked under the direction of the United States Army, which achieved a unique success in managing so diverse a problem in the advancement of knowledge in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if such another combination could be got together in the world. What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. It was done under high pressure and without failure.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

The Secretary of War, who has kept in personal touch with all phases of the project, will immediately make public a statement giving further details.

His statement will give facts concerning the sites at Oak Ridge near Knoxville, Tennessee, and at Richland near Pasco, Washington, and an installation near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Although the workers at the sites have been making materials to be used in producing the greatest destructive force in history they have not themselves been in danger beyond that of many other occupations, for the utmost care has been taken of their safety.

The fact that we can release atomic energy ushers in a new era in man's understanding of nature's forces. Atomic energy may in the future supplement the power that now comes from coal, oil, and falling water, but at present it cannot be produced on a basis to compete with them commercially. Before that comes there must be a long period of intensive research.

It has never been the habit of the scientists of this country or the policy of this Government to withhold from the world scientific knowledge. Normally, therefore, everything about the work with atomic energy would be made public.

But under present circumstances it is not intended to divulge the technical processes of production or all the military applications, pending further examination of possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.

I shall recommend that the Congress of the United States consider promptly the establishment of an appropriate commission to control the production and use of atomic power within the United States. I shall give further consideration and make further recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace.[/q]

I've highlighted what would be the key bits in this context

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
To be fair to Truman the speech is almost entirely bluff seeing as at the time he made it he didn't actually have any other nukes to throw at Japan anyway.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by deep_eyes
the US is just mad that they didnt make these Neutron bombs decades ago that woulda took out entire areas of people without damaging too much the structures housing them....

engh.... we always have MOABS...


Actually a neutron bomb is not like that. It's useful if used en masse against enemy armoured columns.

Tanks are very resistant against heat and shockwave - usual destructive powers both in conventional and nuclear non-directed explosive devices. However, like most objects they're not very resistant to radiation. A neutron bomb of yield X will have smaller destrucive range than a normal tactical nuke of yield X, but will release much more short-term radiation. Some guy said that "a neutron bomb will kill tank crew instantly from 600 meters whereas normal nukes of similar yield would kill them instantly from 200 meters or even less".

Point being? A huge neutron bomb would still leave residual radiation. It would also render some landmass uninhabitable for at least couple of days. It does not just zap out radiation - it's a nuke, a very expensive one, pretty weak in traditional terms and only useful if you drop a ****load of them into an enemy armoured army corps staging area. Also, the half-life of tritium being what it is (12 years I think but I might be wrong), the sum that is poured in keeping the neutron bomb operative is... impressive. It 's a huge, ineffectual gamma ray emitter which also ****s up terrain pretty well.
lol wtf

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • FLAMES OF WAR
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
A pakistanian terrorist has blown a plain! Nuke Pakistan! That will tech the bastards... Guess that's the working principle.

As crazy as it sounds, would you actually attack the US if your family, friends, dog, city and country may pay DEARLY for it?
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Cobra

  • 212
  • Snake on a Cain
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
i say decree the thing, get our people, the women and children out of there, bomb the bastards and get on with our lives.
To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field of millet, only one grain will grow. - Metrodorus of Chios
I wept. Mysterious forces beyond my ken had reached into my beautiful mission and energized its pilots with inhuman bomb-firing abilities. I could only imagine the GTVA warriors giving a mighty KIAAIIIIIII shout as they worked their triggers, their biceps bulging with sinew after years of Ivan Drago-esque steroid therapy and weight training. - General Battuta

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Eh?
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by Cobra
i say decree the thing, get our people, the women and children out of there, bomb the bastards and get on with our lives.


I say you're a f**king idiot for saying that.

The level of stupidity and racism involved for anyone to say that astounds me.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Cobra

  • 212
  • Snake on a Cain
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
simple. get everyone from the US, the women and children from iraq who aren't involved, then nuke the place.

[EDIT] i don't see how that could be a racist comment, kara.
To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field of millet, only one grain will grow. - Metrodorus of Chios
I wept. Mysterious forces beyond my ken had reached into my beautiful mission and energized its pilots with inhuman bomb-firing abilities. I could only imagine the GTVA warriors giving a mighty KIAAIIIIIII shout as they worked their triggers, their biceps bulging with sinew after years of Ivan Drago-esque steroid therapy and weight training. - General Battuta

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
A pakistanian terrorist has blown a plain! Nuke Pakistan! That will tech the bastards... Guess that's the working principle.

As crazy as it sounds, would you actually attack the US if your family, friends, dog, city and country may pay DEARLY for it?


That's why a lot of them are attacking the US; because the US (and also the UK, etc) is killing civillians in retaliation for attacks.  Terrorists by definition don't care about others. only inflicting terror.  Suicide bombers especially.

And if the US actually acted on this, and launched pre-emptive strikes on the likes of Iran, Syria or North Korea it would quite simply open the gates of hell.  Not only would any nuclear nation be able to justify a pre-emptive nuclear strike (say, Russia on Chechnya, India / Pakistan on each other, China on Taiwan), but it could conceivably for a catalyst for a new cold (or hot) war as the response, as nations form defensive blocks against the nuclear threat of the US (or simply to counter the potential threat).  And that's ignoring the other consequences; how would China react to fallout from a strike on NK?  What would be the impact upon global oil access if an Arab state was hit?

Yeah, if you break it down into kiddy terms, it sounds almost sensible... you hit me and I'll kill your family has always been an effect form of, well, terrorism.  But the actual geopolitical consequences would be terrifying.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by Cobra
simple. get everyone from the US, the women and children from iraq who aren't involved, then nuke the place.

[EDIT] i don't see how that could be a racist comment, kara.


Would you nuke Oklahoma because Timophy McVeigh was born there?

And isn't it terrorism to bomb families and friends because of who they know?  Even if they're dark skinned or speak a different language.

 

Offline Cobra

  • 212
  • Snake on a Cain
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
hmm.. i guess you have a point there.
To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field of millet, only one grain will grow. - Metrodorus of Chios
I wept. Mysterious forces beyond my ken had reached into my beautiful mission and energized its pilots with inhuman bomb-firing abilities. I could only imagine the GTVA warriors giving a mighty KIAAIIIIIII shout as they worked their triggers, their biceps bulging with sinew after years of Ivan Drago-esque steroid therapy and weight training. - General Battuta

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • FLAMES OF WAR
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


That's why a lot of them are attacking the US; because the US (and also the UK, etc) is killing civillians in retaliation for attacks.  Terrorists by definition don't care about others. only inflicting terror.  Suicide bombers especially.


Untrue - they do have their friends and family like anyone else.
I suppoe iut's not only hte religious thing, but allso the desire to protect their country from US maddling.

If attacking the US may get your ccountry nuked and millions of belivers killed in a instant, would you really dare to attack? Let's not forget that in an all-out religious war mulims would be pretty much f**** as the greatest technogogy and military firepower is not in their hands....
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
I doubt any of them believe that America would be stupid enough to start nuking muslim countries. For a start it would mean that they'd lose all access to any oil from the middle east.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan


Untrue - they do have their friends and family like anyone else.
I suppoe iut's not only hte religious thing, but allso the desire to protect their country from US maddling.

If attacking the US may get your ccountry nuked and millions of belivers killed in a instant, would you really dare to attack? Let's not forget that in an all-out religious war mulims would be pretty much f**** as the greatest technogogy and military firepower is not in their hands....


I don't think you understand; they (terrorists) already believe that is happening.  They're not afraid to die, because they believe they will be rewared - and the same for their family and friends, etc.  You can't scare someone with dying, if they've already embraced it.

Look at the London bomber who had a wife and kids, for example - did he care about his family?  I doubt it. Or the Palestinian bombers, who know the Israeli army will bulldoze their homes as a result of what they do.

  Plus, despite their insanity and fanatacism, they know the US can't really do that, because of the consequences.  And that if the US did, it would destroy itself in the process; it's standing within the world, it's economic power, and it's access to resources.  For that reason, they might even welcome it; unless the US nukes the entire Arab world (which would destroy the access to resources there and turn the rest of the world against them), a single nuclear attack will only militarize the rest of the middle east.

It's not as if the US would pull back from Iraq because of terrorism, after all; and these guys are leagues ahead of the US in terms of fanatacism.