Use of nukes

**palme** · 06-30-2002, 01:19 PM

Are you for this or against?

It seems like some countrys and organisations have forgotten what you have in your arsenal. Maybe it´s time you remind them?

**steele175** · 06-30-2002, 06:58 PM

i think the use of nukes must be a last option... i dont even think we NEED to use them. we got alot of other way to get the job done without having to risk that nuclear winter after effect getting carried over to other areas of the world. but i do agree that we need to let them know that were not f,n around. we need to stop worrying about upsetting this person and that person and just get the job done! just my opinion though......just my opinion.

**Vegas Kid** · 07-01-2002, 07:47 AM

Yes, but as a last resort. I'd perfer the Hydrogen or Neutron bomb cuz it has less after effects.

**Buddha_Red** · 07-01-2002, 09:04 AM

one country launches, the rest will IMO then we are screwed

its a horrible option that i hope we never use again.

**Neo** · 07-01-2002, 09:07 AM

I don't think that nukes are even an option. If we bombed one country, say the middle east area, then we would end up contaminating other countries and our allies with the spreading of radiation. Plus, if we launched, then we would certainly be fired back upon. It's a no win situation....

**palme** · 07-03-2002, 02:34 AM

If osama had nukes he would have used them already...but as Vegas said, maybe a Hydrogen or Neutron bomb should be used instead and kill the fuck.

**jeffylyte** · 07-04-2002, 07:39 AM

a quick note on nuclear technology. The idea of the thermonuclear warhead being a separate entity from "normal" fission bombs isn't quite correct.

1) the trigger for a "hydrogen bomb" is a fissile chain reaction meaning a nuke
2) pretty much all warheads on missiles in the US arsenal are "enhanced" meaning that in addition to the plutonium core, the weapon has an outer shell of fillsile material with pockets of tritium and deuterium to enhance the yeild. this is in essence a hydrogen bomb.
3) old style gravity bombs can still be found without the tritium. Due to the weight requirements ICBMs and other missile launched warheads need the stuff. Because the gravity bombs can be heavy, they dont. this is why the shelf life of the missile warheads is only ~20years, but for teh gravity bombs it is~100years. of course by treaty, we can do "maintenance" ie replace the tritium as it has a short half-life.

in essence they both have about the same power, and are both exremely radioactive and cause a winter effect.

4) Neutron bombs have a very low explosive power and very small effective radius. This is why nobody ever wants to use them. They arent very effective at destruction. They work by releasing large amounts of fast neutrons that kill all living matter, but leave the buildings. Unfortunately, the area is then contaminated. In essence it is similar to a very large "dirty bomb". Of course not as much radioactive materials are released, but teh secondary radioactive generation cant be too good.

On another note. It is ironic that Pres Bush critisized Pakistan for not having a no-first-use policy, as Bush also doesn't have a no-first-use policy. What do yo think "in case of surprising military developments" means?

In fact, the only time the U.S. has ever had a no-first-use policy was during the Clinton years

Keep in mind that during the cold war, even the USSR had a no-first use policy.

Just something to consider

**Little Jonah** · 07-07-2002, 01:23 AM

nukes r bullshit too much fallout that hurt innacent people and not the enemy

**palme** · 07-07-2002, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Little Jonah
nukes r bullshit too much fallout that hurt innacent people and not the enemy

The enemy would get a beating of his life time...

**Imnotdutch** · 08-12-2002, 11:49 AM

I sometimes wonder whether people stop to think before suggesting nukes be put to use.......

BTW that wasn't directed at Palme as he asked a question concerning whether people thought they should be used......there just seem to be alot of people around (although apparently not on this board) who thinks nukes are a cure-all.

**EXCESS** · 08-12-2002, 09:50 PM

Nukes would kill millions of innocent people, when the intended target is usually a small government and military. I can't stand that toughguy attitude about nukes. Just remember that there are people with that attitude in other countries that want to launch them at you and your family.

**gotenks** · 08-13-2002, 04:19 AM

When people fought with swords on horseback was the time of men, not its all crappy weapons not much real guts in that.
NUKES are for the cowards too scared to fight like real men.

**Zoolander** · 08-13-2002, 04:39 AM

Nukes are Bullshit. Only losers use them or even condone the usage of them.

We might as well use preparation 'H'

**shonuff** · 08-13-2002, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by gotenks
When people fought with swords on horseback was the time of men, not its all crappy weapons not much real guts in that.
NUKES are for the cowards too scared to fight like real men.

exactly gotenks... nukes r for cowards i wish the gun was never invented it takes the battle out of battle...i like the old days were all u had was a sword and shield and sometimes u didnt even have a horse and u had to look your enemy in the eye and actully fight for your life...I love battles like on the movie braveheart.

**palme** · 08-14-2002, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by shonuff

exactly gotenks... nukes r for cowards i wish the gun was never invented it takes the battle out of battle...i like the old days were all u had was a sword and shield and sometimes u didnt even have a horse and u had to look your enemy in the eye and actully fight for your life...I love battles like on the movie braveheart.

Then i would hafto say living when the Romans ruled most of Europe would be the best thing. They had the best short sword tech´s ever!!!

**The French Curler** · 08-25-2002, 12:32 AM

The only way to REALLY fight is with fists and blades!

**Imnotdutch** · 08-29-2002, 06:11 PM

Gotenks are you suggesting that what makes a real man is the ability to fight one on one?

I dont see the issue of people wanting to fight being any different if it concerns swords or nukes......its all macho bullshit that is usually unnecessary. Also, you can live in the past if you like, and fantasise about fighting with swords (I do wonder how many of you could actually kill somebody with a sword), but it is natures way to continuously improve offensive weapons, and in turn defensive methods. Why wish for ancient weapons when others are moving on? Makes no sense to me!

**The French Curler** · 08-29-2002, 07:01 PM

Well, some of us know how to use a sword Imnotdutch, and some don't.

**Imnotdutch** · 08-30-2002, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by The French Curler
Well, some of us know how to use a sword Imnotdutch, and some don't.

I dont know about using a sword

But I do know about using fists and grappling........tis ok on a small scale but when you are talking about countries colliding there are more efficient ways of doing things.

**palme** · 08-30-2002, 08:35 AM

Imnotdutch - Ive have background in Aikido, tai boxing and shootfighting so i guess im qualified in fist, kick, elbow, knee and grapple use?

And if we would live during the romans im sure we all would know how to use a sword as we most likley would be farmers/grunts in the army.

**Vegas Kid** · 08-30-2002, 08:43 AM

Look, I'll take techonolgy over brute strength any day. Would you rather have a masacar of American's like in "Braveheart" or limit the amount of deaths by introducing guns and other techonology.

Nuclear weapons are in a different category all together. You can't compare the use of nukes to the use of guns vs swords. Trust me, if the romans had missles they would have used them.

**palme** · 08-30-2002, 09:02 AM

The romans owned because of there superior techonolgy and tactics. The Balista was that times missiles.

**Imnotdutch** · 08-30-2002, 10:52 AM

Palme,

Yip I reckon you pass on the qualification side of things

And if we were around when the romans were, you would be using the superior technology and tactics of the day...I agree. I dont see how this relates to nukes being for cowards (I know you didnt say that)....but I totally agree with you.

Incidentally, I wouldnt be using the romans superior tactics / weaponry because my family has a long history of coming from Cornwall in the UK. Cornwall is one of the few places in the UK that the romans couldnt get into

They got stopped by a bunch of farmers hehehe.

Originally posted by palme
Imnotdutch - Ive have background in Aikido, tai boxing and shootfighting so i guess im qualified in fist, kick, elbow, knee and grapple use?

And if we would live during the romans im sure we all would know how to use a sword as we most likley would be farmers/grunts in the army.

**mique** · 09-09-2002, 12:34 AM

Ive been in Pakistan for the last 6 months and I have wished we would have nuked this whole dam place into a self lighting glass parking lot, but there are innocent people over here and thats why I like the next best thing, daisy cutters! they can clear out something like 4 football feilds of these Osama fallowing peices of shit.