• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drop a nuclear bomb on Russia to stop the Crimea from becoming part of Russia?

Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin?

  • Yes, Palin was right, threaten and use nuclear weapons to Putin in Crimea crisis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    46
The bridge too far from Brewer dealt with guns on campus, which she vetoed, just like she vetoed the recent 1062.
The same gun bill in Idaho right now.
And you have Joko comparing gun issues to what Palin said.
And Sen. Graham quipping we'll lose Alaska to Putin.
With friends like GOPs at this Present Moment Awareness, .......

Palin compared it to gun control. Listen to what she said.
 
Palin compared it to gun control. Listen to what she said.

And that would be a stupid comparison because nuclear warfare is used to destroy entire cities, and the levels we have entire countries or even the whole planet. Guns are used (properly anyway) as self defense or in defense of others. You don't use guns to take out the entire families and neighbors of your enemies, possibly even killing yourselves in the process, to halt the actions of some in power (unless you're a "bad guy").
 
And that would be a stupid comparison because nuclear warfare is used to destroy entire cities, and the levels we have entire countries or even the whole planet. Guns are used (properly anyway) as self defense or in defense of others. You don't use guns to take out the entire families and neighbors of your enemies, possibly even killing yourselves in the process, to halt the actions of some in power (unless you're a "bad guy").
We had a nuke in the 40's and japan didn't. If they also had a nuke, we might have been afraid to drop ours on them.
 
We had a nuke in the 40's and japan didn't. If they also had a nuke, we might have been afraid to drop ours on them.

But that is not the situation we are discussing when it comes to Russia. We both have nukes, and we both have way more than enough to basically wipe out the human race on the planet (or at least take it to hunter-gatherer society levels), and everyone knows this. There is no need to have that many nukes on either side. It only takes a few to be able to counter the other side, no matter how many they have. You don't need to match their levels.
 
But that is not the situation we are discussing when it comes to Russia. We both have nukes, and we both have way more than enough to basically wipe out the human race on the planet (or at least take it to hunter-gatherer society levels), and everyone knows this. There is no need to have that many nukes on either side. It only takes a few to be able to counter the other side, no matter how many they have. You don't need to match their levels.
It's obvious you didn't watch the video...
 
It's obvious you didn't watch the video...

I have read the thread. There is no need for the comments that were made, no matter what she actually meant because there is no way that we are going to reduce our nuclear arms to such a level that we would not still be a threat to Russia, so why bring it up?
 
I have read the thread. There is no need for the comments that were made, no matter what she actually meant because there is no way that we are going to reduce our nuclear arms to such a level that we would not still be a threat to Russia, so why bring it up?
So...

Since you didn't watch the video and her words in context...


You have a valid opinion... Based on other peoples biased opinion...

OK...

I will keep that in mind for future debates with you!
 
So...

Since you didn't watch the video and her words in context...


You have a valid opinion... Based on other peoples biased opinion...

OK...

I will keep that in mind for future debates with you!

There is no context that could be made to warrant what she said to be taken seriously. At all.
 
There is no context that could be made to warrant what she said to be taken seriously. At all.
LOL...

OK, if you say so...

You really should watch the relevant part of the video...
 
LOL...

OK, if you say so...

You really should watch the relevant part of the video...

Knew there was no point in wasting my time because she said exactly what I thought and that was put out here and I stand by what I have posted. It was dumb. Continuing to build up nuclear arms in no way helps the situation because we already have more than enough to fight back and pretty much eradicate any country with the amount we have more than a few times over so scaling back on nuclear arms will in no way make our threat level rationally lower. If we fired off even half of the nuclear weapons we have today at any country, the world is pretty much screwed. Anyone who doesn't recognize that fact is an idiot.
 
Knew there was no point in wasting my time because she said exactly what I thought and that was put out here and I stand by what I have posted. It was dumb. Continuing to build up nuclear arms in no way helps the situation because we already have more than enough to fight back and pretty much eradicate any country with the amount we have more than a few times over so scaling back on nuclear arms will in no way make our threat level rationally lower. If we fired off even half of the nuclear weapons we have today at any country, the world is pretty much screwed. Anyone who doesn't recognize that fact is an idiot.
You are reading in your own bias.
 
You are reading in your own bias.

How? Is there some problem with reducing our number of nuclear weapons to a level where we could still basically wipe out most human life on the planet, but only once or twice? I understand the point of having nuclear weapons now. I don't agree with them, but I do get it. But there is logically no need to match another country one-for-one on nuclear weapons. The point is to be able to counter the threat or at least retaliate if they make a first strike. We can do that now and even if we reduced our nuclear armaments, multiple times over. And we do it in such a strategic way that there is no doubt that we will make a devastating blow to anyone who strikes us first. So what is the point?

You tell me what you believe it is?
 
Back
Top Bottom