PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Nuclear Strike



Ethereal
11-16-2017, 06:18 AM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 06:39 AM
I don't think that we would get into a shoving match with either one. It is the small radical countries we should be concerned about. Iran, NK, maybe even Pakistan. Russia and China have way to much to lose in a nuclear war.

Cletus
11-16-2017, 07:17 AM
I don't think that we would get into a shoving match with either one. It is the small radical countries we should be concerned about. Iran, NK, maybe even Pakistan. Russia and China and Russia have way to much to lose in a nuclear war.

Spot on.

Both China and Russia would have too much to lose to ever want to get into an nuclear exchange with the US. A greater threat exists from smaller, rogue states.

Green Arrow
11-16-2017, 07:47 AM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

None.

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 07:55 AM
None.

so, you desire to see the US destroyed in a nuclear attack.......................I think your moral compass is broken because you have determined that we deserve it

Green Arrow
11-16-2017, 08:15 AM
so, you desire to see the US destroyed in a nuclear attack.......................I think your moral compass is broken because you have determined that we deserve it
Quote the post where I said that or admit to lying.

Kacper
11-16-2017, 08:16 AM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

When we had no other choice.

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 08:18 AM
Quote the post where I said that or admit to lying.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ethereal http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2213895#post2213895) Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

None.


I equate that to mean we should not launch anything

Green Arrow
11-16-2017, 08:24 AM
I equate that to mean we should not launch anything

Where in that post did I say I wanted to see the US destroyed in nuclear attacks? It shouldn’t take long to answer, there was only one word.

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 08:45 AM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

Never.

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 08:46 AM
Where in that post did I say I wanted to see the US destroyed in nuclear attacks? It shouldn’t take long to answer, there was only one word.

The poster you are talking to has a bad habit of reading what he wanted you to say rather than what you actually said.

Docthehun
11-16-2017, 08:58 AM
If we detected inbound, we'd probably launch a response before the foreign missile(s) struck their target. Otherwise, I doubt we'd be the first to launch. I think the other superpowers understand there'd be no winners.

Green Arrow
11-16-2017, 09:00 AM
Never.

This single-word post clearly says that you are a deep admirer of Robert Mugabe and like butter on your toast.

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 09:04 AM
This single-word post clearly says that you are a deep admirer of Robert Mugabe and like butter on your toast.

You left out Marxist and hater of all things American.

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 09:53 AM
Where in that post did I say I wanted to see the US destroyed in nuclear attacks? It shouldn’t take long to answer, there was only one word.

we're not talking about a first strike against anyone. Perhaps that's your take. But you do realize that if we responded, it would already be too late.
You truly want us to NOT respond.
There are no winners or losers in a nuclear war. Is that agreed upon?

barb012
11-16-2017, 10:00 AM
China, Russia and the US would not be that stupid to use nuclear weapons on each other for it would create global catastrophic consequences for everyone.

Archer0915
11-16-2017, 10:30 AM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?
If there were some sort of world ending plague - take out the regions that are infected.

Green Arrow
11-16-2017, 10:34 AM
we're not talking about a first strike against anyone. Perhaps that's your take. But you do realize that if we responded, it would already be too late.
You truly want us to NOT respond.
There are no winners or losers in a nuclear war. Is that agreed upon?

Where did I say I didn’t want the US to respond at all?

Captdon
11-16-2017, 10:53 AM
None.

If they launch at us?

Captdon
11-16-2017, 10:56 AM
Where did I say I didn’t want the US to respond at all?

OK. Then what did none mean?

Safety
11-16-2017, 11:01 AM
we're not talking about a first strike against anyone. Perhaps that's your take. But you do realize that if we responded, it would already be too late.
You truly want us to NOT respond.
There are no winners or losers in a nuclear war. Is that agreed upon?

So you admit to lying about green arrow.

Safety
11-16-2017, 11:03 AM
A famous quote from a movie is most apropos here... "I'm not afraid of the man who wants 10 nuclear weapons, I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 11:08 AM
So you admit to lying about green arrow.
Common see? she's still trying to instigate

Safety
11-16-2017, 11:14 AM
Common see? she's still trying to instigate

Just in case anyone missed the exchange and actually believed a word you ever say....


so, you desire to see the US destroyed in a nuclear attack.......................I think your moral compass is broken because you have determined that we deserve it


Quote the post where I said that or admit to lying.


Where in that post did I say I wanted to see the US destroyed in nuclear attacks? It shouldn’t take long to answer, there was only one word.


The poster you are talking to has a bad habit of reading what he wanted you to say rather than what you actually said.


So you admit to lying about green arrow.

Yea, thank god for the quote feature, otherwise hacks would be able to back away from their posts.

Cletus
11-16-2017, 12:51 PM
I actually don't have a problem with the use of low yield tactical nuclear weapons against critical infrastructure, shipyards, railheads, dams, the power grid, heavily protected industrial centers... things like that. I could also see their use against massed troop and / or armor formations.

The important thing though, would be to make sure that there is no chance of a nuclear retaliatory strike. That would mean NOT using them against China, Russia, the UK, or a few select other countries.

DGUtley
11-16-2017, 12:54 PM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

When we detected inbound.
Overwhelming territorial invasion from either of those entities.

resister
11-16-2017, 12:54 PM
Just in case anyone missed the exchange and actually believed a word you ever say....











Yea, thank god for the quote feature, otherwise hacks would be able to back away from their posts.
Quit henning, cluck cluck!

DGUtley
11-16-2017, 01:21 PM
Just in case anyone missed the exchange and actually believed a word you ever say.... Yea, thank god for the quote feature, otherwise hacks would be able to back away from their posts.


@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) see? she's still trying to instigate


so, you desire to see the US destroyed in a nuclear attack.......................I think your moral compass is broken because you have determined that we deserve it




Quote the post where I said that or admit to lying.




Where in that post did I say I wanted to see the US destroyed in nuclear attacks? It shouldn’t take long to answer, there was only one word.




The poster you are talking to has a bad habit of reading what he wanted you to say rather than what you actually said.




So you admit to lying about green arrow.


WARNING, @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), @stjames1_53 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1928), @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226), @Crepitus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345) -- Please stay on topic, discuss the thread and stop bickering about each other.

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 01:51 PM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?
A nuclear strike or series of strikes should be considered when it is our national interest to do so.

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 01:52 PM
If we detected inbound, we'd probably launch a response before the foreign missile(s) struck their target. Otherwise, I doubt we'd be the first to launch. I think the other superpowers understand there'd be no winners.
We reserve the right to a first use of nuclear weapons. There is always a winner.

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 01:53 PM
There are no winners or losers in a nuclear war. Is that agreed upon?
I do not agree. There is always a winner. And always a loser.

Common
11-16-2017, 02:01 PM
@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) see? she's still trying to instigate

Ignore it

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 02:02 PM
I do not agree. There is always a winner. And always a loser.

I think the first nuclear attack will be in the for of a bomb created here and detonated here. We cannot guard every avenue

Green Arrow
11-16-2017, 02:23 PM
OK. Then what did none mean?

Under no circumstances should we fire nuclear weapons at Russia or China.

DGUtley
11-16-2017, 02:28 PM
I think the first nuclear attack will be in the for of a bomb created here and detonated here. We cannot guard every avenue

You are saying that if he Russians fire their nuclear arsenal at the USA and we are aware of it that you'd not retaliate? You'd let them take out a good chunk of our population without retaliating with nuclear missiles?

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 04:33 PM
You are saying that if he Russians fire their nuclear arsenal at the USA and we are aware of it that you'd not retaliate? You'd let them take out a good chunk of our population without retaliating with nuclear missiles?

no. I'm saying that it would probably be in the form of a suitcase bomb set off by some obscure, or not so obscure, terrorist. I don't think it will be by missile

The Xl
11-16-2017, 05:20 PM
As a retaliation to a nuke that was launched on us, successfully or unsuccessfully.

stjames1_53
11-16-2017, 05:27 PM
I still don't think the first nuke strike will be by missile.

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 06:37 PM
I still don't think the first nuke strike will be by missile.
That, however, was not the question.

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 06:37 PM
We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 07:24 PM
We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

You are familiar with the term "retaliation" yes?

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 07:45 PM
We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

You are familiar with the term "retaliation" yes?
How do nuclear weapons differ from any other weapon's use? One can retaliate to a slap across the face. Should we never again engage in conventional attacks?

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 07:54 PM
We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

How do nuclear weapons differ from any other weapon's use? One can retaliate to a slap across the face. Should we never again engage in conventional attacks?

You can't slap an entire city in the face, and even if you could it wouldn't kill everyone in it.

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 07:58 PM
You can't slap an entire city in the face, and even if you could it wouldn't kill everyone in it.
Therefore? What?

We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 08:10 PM
Therefore? What?

We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

Someone in your neighborhood probably has a shotgun, why shouldn't he use it on you or your other neighbors?

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 08:14 PM
Someone in your neighborhood probably has a shotgun, why shouldn't he use it on you or your other neighbors?
If it is in his interest to do so I believe he should. Equally, I am well armed and trained. If it is in my interest to use deadly force against someone do you believe I shouldn't?

We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 08:15 PM
You can't slap an entire city in the face, and even if you could it wouldn't kill everyone in it.
And yet retaliation for a slap across the face is still possible. So retaliation for using a weapon does not tell the story, does it?

If using nuclear weapons killed everyone in the country who would retaliate?

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 09:43 PM
If it is in his interest to do so I believe he should. Equally, I am well armed and trained. If it is in my interest to use deadly force against someone do you believe I shouldn't?

We have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't we use them?

Dude, I got no response to crazy.

Have a nice night.

resister
11-16-2017, 09:49 PM
Dude, I got no response to crazy.

Have a nice night.
I advise you to change bait, yours stinks...21084

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 09:50 PM
I advise you to change bait, yours stinks...21084

I told him I was done, how is that bait?

Do you understand what "bait" means?

resister
11-16-2017, 09:52 PM
I told him I was done, how is that bait?

Do you understand what "bait" means?
Your bait stinks, I advise you change it...

Crepitus
11-16-2017, 09:53 PM
Your bait stinks, I advise you change it...

Ok, so that's a "no" then.

Good night.

resister
11-16-2017, 09:54 PM
Ok, so that's a "no" then.

Good night.
:rollseyes: Not taking your, stink bait. Bye now!

MisterVeritis
11-16-2017, 10:08 PM
Dude, I got no response to crazy.

Have a nice night.
I am not the crazy one. People who fail to act in their own best interests are the crazy ones.

Safety
11-16-2017, 10:10 PM
Ok, so that's a "no" then.

Good night.

Why do you even bother?

resister
11-16-2017, 10:12 PM
Why do you even bother?
safety can always be counted on, to come a hennin, cluck cluck!

Safety, the shit stirrer, ever the instigator!

Adelaide
11-16-2017, 11:27 PM
safety can always be counted on, to come a hennin, cluck cluck!

Safety, the shit stirrer, ever the instigator!

Thread banned for ignoring the warning.

donttread
11-17-2017, 08:18 AM
Under what conditions do you believe it would be necessary or appropriate for the US to launch a nuclear strike on another nuclear power like Russia or China?

Well if mother nature can't find a way to take a flea dip and "thin the herd" . Maybe then? But lets give nature a chance for say the rest of my natural lifetime and those of my grandchildren?

Peter1469
11-17-2017, 07:31 PM
Well if mother nature can't find a way to take a flea dip and "thin the herd" . Maybe then? But lets give nature a chance for say the rest of my natural lifetime and those of my grandchildren?

Mother Nature is not going to take a "flea dip." It would make for a good .99 cent Kindle e-book story though. Write one out, I would get it.

Mini Me
11-24-2017, 12:05 PM
The poster you are talking to has a bad habit of reading what he wanted you to say rather than what you actually said.

30 days in the Hole for him!That's VERY dishonest!

Mini Me
11-24-2017, 12:23 PM
I fear Izrahell as much as I do Agent orange with his shaky finger on the nuclear trigger!

The Samson Option

Rosenbaum writes in his 2012 book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III that, in his opinion, in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option[dubious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement) – discuss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samson_Option#Dubious)].[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#cite_note-FOOTNOTERosenbaum201221.E2.80.932.2C_141.E2.80.932-29)
In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld), thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada) then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#cite_note-30) Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan): 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#cite_note-31)
However, it was unlikely Israel could have even targeted Europe as according to Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Yaakov, who was the mastermind behind the "Samson Option", Israel did not yet have other measures like bombs or missiles to carry the nuclear payload.[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#cite_note-32)
In 2012, in response to Günter Grass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass)'s poem "Was gesagt werden muss" ("What Must Be Said (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Must_Be_Said)") which criticized Israel's nuclear weapons program, Israeli poet and Holocaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust) survivor Itamar Yaoz-Kest published a poem entitled "The Right to Exist: a Poem-Letter to the German Author" which addresses Grass by name. It contains the line: "If you force us yet again to descend from the face of the Earth to the depths of the Earth — let the Earth roll toward the Nothingness." Jerusalem Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Post) journalist Gil Ronen saw this poem as referring to the Samson Option, which he described as the strategy of using Israel's nuclear weapons, "taking out Israel's enemies with it, possibly causing irreparable damage to the entire world."[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option#cite_note-33)

donttread
11-24-2017, 03:57 PM
You mean it won't be the only bastrds crazy enough to have ever used nukes on people?