Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

US vs Iraq

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Jakeman, Jan 13, 2003.

  1. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US vs Iraq

    That wasn't the answer I was looking for. The answer is, because of the potential threat of other nuclear powers.

    I think we all need to look at the bigger picture. You all seem so certain that the US won't use nukes, when that doesn't even matter. What matters is the potential threat of nuclear powers.

    We need to be more humble about our (the US) place in the world.
     
  2. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
  3. Strader

    Strader Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    The potential threat of the US as a nuclear power is near nil. North Korea's potential is somewhat high. This is based upon how they historically act to various events.

    Like I said, just because the US has nukes doesn't mean that other nations need them for defense. Nor do they need them to defend from other nations. The nation that uses a nuke would quite possibly get nuked by the current powers. As it stands they are fine. Any nation that doesn't realize this, doesn't deserve nationhood.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2003
  4. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    As it applies to this situation, potential is potential... there is no degree of potential. I really don't like your claim about the nuclear threat potential of the US... it's almost arrogant IMO. It's all about being humble. :nod:

    edit: left out word
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2003
  5. Strader

    Strader Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    My opinion of the nuclear threat of the US is based on their 50+ year history of not using them even when they were losing massive amounts of troops. They are based upon commerce and don't want to nuke everything in sight. Potential is not the same for every group. Sure all the groups that have nukes have the ability to use them but they do not all have the same willingness. This changes the potential for each group. Thinking otherwise is narrow.

    This isn't a fantasy land of ideals. It's a world of realities and I'll place bets that the US is far less likely to nuke than Korea or Iraq any day.

    btw I can't be arrogant about this. I'm not an American.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2003
  6. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    I'm sure Iraq and Korea don't see it that way... all they see is a potential nuclear threat which creates the need to become a nuclear power to counter that threat. We all need to see and understand the other side's perspective.

    Also, we can come up with reasons to use nukes if we want to. Our (people's) ability to justify our actions, regardless of if those actions are right or wrong, is proven in the same history you speak of. All it takes is a smooth talking politician to change the popular opinion.
     
  7. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    Uh, no.

    USA is responsable. So is Britain, Australia, France, Spain, Netherlands, etc.. I would trust them with nuclear weapons.

    Volatile countries like North Korea, Iraq, India, Pakistan and Cuba cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. They are not driven by commerce. They have a blind hatred for the western world. It would make their day to see us obliterated. They hate us with a passion unmatched by any other country.

    To nuke another country would not be a good thing from the perspective of "civilized" nations. It only hinders themselves because they miss out of potential commerce.

    There are degrees of potential thread. You must see that North Korea and Iraq have a much larger chance of nuking us than Russia.
     
  8. Beeble

    Beeble Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    2,699
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I say obliterate the volatile countries right now.
     
  9. Kaeric

    Kaeric Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,850
    Likes Received:
    4
    Market Rating:
    0
    "Two MIT rocket scientists have a dire warning for Washinton: The Bush blueprint for national missle defense will not work. . ." (page 88 Wired April 2002 ). Sorry, but these guys present some very present flaws with the system...
     
  10. gekko

    gekko Peasant

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    And I'm sure these scientists really know what they're talking about, oh wait, no I'm not.

    Are they involved with the process of developing the system? Do they know exactly what it looks like, and how it works? If not, then these two scientists need to shut up, and stop trying to get their 15 minutes of liberal fame.
     
  11. Strader

    Strader Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Cow knows what he's talking about and I didn't say what North Korea and Iraq think, I said that they're stupid not to believe that the US means them no harm. The leaders know darn well what's what. They just manipulate things. Also nuking people has never had great public support. It would take a politician the likes of which we've never seen to convince the public that nuking people was a good thing. The public knows that nukes can affect people around the world when detonated on the environmental level, not to mention the great danger of another nation mistaking an attack for something else. Nukes are too dangerous to be used lightly.

    There is no need to get their own nukes and they know it. They just like to pretend that there is. The leaders of those countries know that they aren't going to get nuked by the US unless they do something really provocative. They were never in danger of being nuked until they started to get nukes themselves and even now the US won't use nukes when they can accieve results with diplomacy, covert ops or regular military action. Those far less messy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2003
  12. cowofwar

    cowofwar Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2000
    Messages:
    13,721
    Likes Received:
    18
    Market Rating:
    0
    South Koreans are ungrateful pieces of **** as well.
     
  13. Strader

    Strader Peasant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Well not all of them but many are indeed ungrateful. How soon they forget how close they came to being dominated by the north.
     
  14. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Kaeric's quoted scientists are probably right for the system's current stage of development. The airborne laser hasn't even been test-fired yet.

    In terms of Asians and ungratefulness, the Vietnamese own the Koreans, they at least thank us for trying :) (we would have succeeded too if the American people could be a little more feeling for the South Vietnamese and not worried about young Jimmy so much).
     
  15. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Iraq wants nukes so they can kick Kuwait or Iran's ass, not so much the U.S.. They've invaded another country before and they'd probably do it again if they had the chance.

    They know once they have nukes that the U.S. would be unwilling to commit troops because of all the Vietnam-style anti-war sentiment that would erupt, same with North Korea. While it's been nice that the DPRK has been talking openly with the South in recent years, it's still laced by military skirmishes. Both want to take back what they lost, and they know if they get nukes that there's no way the U.S. would help stop an invasion, public anti-war outcry would be just too great State-side because of the chance of our guys being hit by tactical nukes and all of a sudden 50,000 American soldiers are dead.
     
  16. gekko

    gekko Peasant

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Kaeric's quoted scientists, as far as I'm concearned, and until proven otherwise, are worthless sources. Unless they are actually involved with the development of the project, they are basing what they know on assumptions, and if they are somehow involved, why the hell are they telling this stuff to the media?

    Also, the article is nearly a year old. An April 2002 magazine had to be finished in early to mid March, meaning the article was written before that. A year of development can go along way.

    If they are involved, I don't support their decision to speak of any flaws to the media. And if they're not, someone please shoot them.
     
  17. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    It has offensive capabilities. The reason there has been no more nuking is fear of retaliation.
    You cannot nuke someone if you know they will nuke you just as much. Most people won´t be prepared to pay that price.
    If you know that you yourselve cannot be nuked, it´s easier to press the buttom.
    If there was a StarWars defence system it should cover the entire world and be controlled by the UN.
     
  18. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I´m not sure about that. There´s a big difference between civilians and soldiers. If winning the war meant that you´d have to kill 10 000 cilvilians but all your soldiers would be spared, that would not be a legitimate option.
    In war, a soldier is worth less then a civilian.
     
  19. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Or real guns, we would get rid of at least one a$$holes.
     
  20. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    The people who flew planes into WTC are no longer alive, just as the people we gave those orders no longer are in position to give orders.
    You still feel you have to right to punish other people for what some people have done, just the same could a lot of people fell the need to hate the US for what they´ve done. It´s still the same organizations but with other people. The hate/fear is directed to the organizations, not the people in them today.
    The talibans are terrorists, the US are western oppressors. Your soldiers today are in the same organization that allowed the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, the US Army/Navy/Military forces just as talibans are in the same organiszation that flew planes into WTC.
     

Hitometer: 57,981,765 since 1995