Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118

Thread: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

  1. #111
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    09-03-17 @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    314

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    If they don't have nukes we wont need nukes to defend ourselves.

    Do you remember why we nuked Japan in WW2? They didn't have nukes then either,

    The whole point is, Why self impose limits on what we can do? We will never know what will happen in the future or what our response might have to be, limiting our options is not in our best interests, even though it might reduce some threats now it will cause more grief down the road.

  2. #112
    User The Carnage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-26-10 @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The way I see it, if we get rid of these things, terrorists will have a much harder time gaining access to them. The fewer nukes in existence, the better. Plus, there's almost no circumstance in which we would retaliate with a nuclear weapon to a terrorist attack. Even if Al-Qaeda detonates a full-blown thermonuclear warhead and obliterates New York City... who do you retaliate against? Any target would be more or less arbitrary and only result in mass civilian casualties for the possibility of killing a few terrorists. If we did manage to find the people responsible, we have much more precise methods of getting rid of them.

    The only purpose a nuke has is to eliminate population and infrastructure on a large scale. The enemy we face now simply does not have either.
    What you are saying is completely true, but I don't think that getting rid of our warheads will be able to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. Plus, if somehow a hostile country owns nuclear weapons, the others will simply want as well to impose superiority, even though strategically they offer poor results.
    Last edited by The Carnage; 04-15-10 at 06:49 PM.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously."
    -Douglas Adams

  3. #113
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by The Carnage View Post
    What you are saying is completely true, but I don't think that getting rid of our warheads will be able to stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. Plus, if somehow a hostile country owns nuclear weapons, the others will simply want as well, even though strategically they offer poor results.
    Yes, unfortunately the reality is that we can't totally control proliferation. Nor can we create a perfect airport security program that still respects our individual rights. Still worth continuous work, though.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #114
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by cholla View Post
    Do you remember why we nuked Japan in WW2? They didn't have nukes then either,

    The whole point is, Why self impose limits on what we can do? We will never know what will happen in the future or what our response might have to be, limiting our options is not in our best interests, even though it might reduce some threats now it will cause more grief down the road.
    Many people, including myself, still debate the moral imparative of the U.S. nuking Japan. Yes, doing so forced Japan to surrender and quite possibly saved countless lives in the short-term, but in the long run the US has "flipped the bill" so to speak for rebuilding Japan ever since.

    There are consequences to the nuclear option; ours was to help rebuild Japan for atleast 4 decades.

    As to the emposed limits, IMO, it no longer makes sense to maintain old nuclear contingencies for today's terrorist threats. What are you gonna do? Nuke caves or entire mountain side?

  5. #115
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    09-03-17 @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    314

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Many people, including myself, still debate the moral imparative of the U.S. nuking Japan. Yes, doing so forced Japan to surrender and quite possibly saved countless lives in the short-term, but in the long run the US has "flipped the bill" so to speak for rebuilding Japan ever since.

    There are consequences to the nuclear option; ours was to help rebuild Japan for atleast 4 decades.

    As to the emposed limits, IMO, it no longer makes sense to maintain old nuclear contingencies for today's terrorist threats. What are you gonna do? Nuke caves or entire mountain side?

    From post 109 above, same question, same answer.

    What about the enemy we will face in 50 or 70 years, will we not need nuks then?

    Is unclenching our fist working real well now? Sure, with countrys that are no threat anyway.

    Not doing a thing for the real threats, never has, never will. Its human nature, talking is not going to change that.

  6. #116
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by cholla View Post
    From post 109 above, same question, same answer.

    What about the enemy we will face in 50 or 70 years, will we not need nuks then?

    Is unclenching our fist working real well now? Sure, with countrys that are no threat anyway.

    Not doing a thing for the real threats, never has, never will. Its human nature, talking is not going to change that.
    It's not really worth thinking about hypothetical enemies 50 years from now. In 40 years we'll work on that
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #117
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    09-03-17 @ 09:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    314

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It's not really worth thinking about hypothetical enemies 50 years from now. In 40 years we'll work on that
    My point is that we have had nukes for 70 years and there is no sign that the need for them is going away. Not thinking about the possibilities of the future is a mistake that responsible people cannot afford to make.

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms


Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •