I can see the use for smaller, tactical nukes whose purpose is to strike a military target, and does not decimate civilian populations or endanger the planet to any great extent.
I do not see the use for having a very large "total annihilation" nuclear weapons system. What is the point?
Are we trying to frighten everyone in the world? Doesn’t that just make them want to build nukes of their own? This isn’t the cold war, Mutually assured destruction doesn’t work with terrorist states, they want to die.
Meanwhile, we are just scaring people with these things. What were we going to do with them? Nuke enemy cities, where the civilian populace is not a threat to us?
So what about China and the European Union, are we afraid of these people, so much so that we must be prepared to obliterate them?
I say it’s completely nuts. And I am a conservative "hawk" who is pro-strong defense and border security.
I would ask for total worldwide WMD disarmament, starting with nukes and pathogens and chemical agents.
I would encourage beefy border security, offer aid to our allies, support UN troops for peacekeeping, and build strong missile defense systems in our nation and encourage our allies to do the same.
Conventional weapons will do for peacekeeping and thwarting terrorism. And disarming these things which I would hope we have no intention to use should be a priority, and it would encourage other nations to disarm as well.
I’m not a pacifist when it comes to defense. I believe in strong defense, and some offensive capability where needed. But WMD is something we should NEVER use.
What if China were able to nuke the United States, most major cities? Would nuking Chinese cities bring those people back? Or would it create the destruction of all mankind?
Vengence is not worth a billion lives.
I would appreciate your thoughts on my question. (It’s at the top of the page, please don’t give me the "what was the question" lecture)
Whether you agree or disagree, please state your reasons, keep it civil, and dont use personal attacks, thank you.
If it came down to this, and several US cities have been nuked by a foreign government, my first concern is for the surviving American lives. I would do anything to spare their lives. Come on, let’s face it, what is the point of "winning the war" when we’re in danger of losing every American life?
I’d counterstrike, of course, against military targets. But no nukes, certainly not against civilians. The survival of the biosphere and the human race, as well as American lives are hanging in the balance. I would not launch nukes, ever.
Erehwon-
Deterrence doesn’t work. Other nations are arming for nuclear conflict, and placing more American lives in danger in the process.
No, I wouldn’t do it if other nations didn’t do it as well, but the nuclear standoff is pointless. Someone has to make the first move.
Deterrence isn’t a deterrence to terrorist states, either. And I still wouldn’t nuke Iran, those people are not anti-USA their government is.
Point is, civilians don’t need to be in fear of nuclear attacks. That’s idiotic.
Tuugalik- If you seriously believe "nuking our enemies back" will do anything to spare American lives, and will not affect the survival of the human SPECIES, then you my friend are the one that is drunk.
Nuclear retaliation does what? What does it do? If it’s just there as a BLUFF then why have nuclear material inside?
What would nuking the civilian population accomplish?
If you don’t have reasons for disagreeing, don’t bother posting.
Miss Manners-
What is the point?
I didn’t say I would lay down and die. I said counterstrike against military targets.
And by the way, in the unlikely scenario that the entire world would attempt to nuke us at once, what would be the f—ing point in nuking everyone back?
Do you want to see the end of the human race?
IF we were unable to stop those missiles from striking us, nothing we do will protect our civilians anyway. So what is the point of hitting back? To cause more innocent people to die?
I’d aim for every missile, silo, submarine, aircraft, etc. But I would not aim for civilian people who did nothing to harm the United States.
I do thank you for your answer, you did at least state your reasoning. I strongly disagree.
I’m more than willing to debate this in a civil fashion, just message me or send an email.
Civil comments only, please.
Share This
