This site is no longer active and is available for archival purposes only. Registration and login is disabled.

YEAH? Well, uh, my bombs are bigger than your bombs.


YEAH? Well, uh, my bombs are bigger than your bombs.

Postby Cameron » Dec 11, 2002 @ 10:32pm

WASHINGTON (Dec. 11) - In a new defense strategy submitted to Congress on Wednesday, President Bush warned Iraq and other hostile countries that the United States is prepared to use "overwhelming force'' - including nuclear weapons - in response to any chemical or biological attack.

The threat was contained in a White House document called the ``National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said it was prepared as a response to the ``unrelenting effort by hostile states and terrorists to acquire and be able to use weapons of mass destruction.''

The six-page strategy outline underscores long-standing policy that the United States ``reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies.''

That passage intends to threaten U.S. nuclear retaliation as a deterrent to hostile governments, said senior administration officials who briefed journalists about the document Tuesday.

In rare agreement with the White House, former Vice President Al Gore embraced his rival's strategy. ``As presented, Al Gore feels this is in keeping with America's long-held strategy of using our own weapons of mass destruction principally to dissuade any aggressor from using their WMD arsenal against us,'' said spokesman Alejandro Cabrera.

Administration officials emphasized that the strategy, developed jointly by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and homeland security adviser Tom Ridge, is an overall statement of the Bush administration's overarching principles. Its timing, however, coincides with other muscle-flexing by President Bush designed to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the United States is serious about seeing him disarmed.

Also on Tuesday, Bush used a private White House meeting with Turkish political leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to press for permission for U.S. troops to use Turkish bases, arguing that such a display of solidarity could persuade Saddam to give up his weapons peacefully.

The White House document gathers into one comprehensive whole several doctrines for prevention, deterrence and defense that Bush has enunciated since taking office, including a commitment to boost programs aimed at containing the damage of any chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

The strategy said some unspecified states that support terrorists already have weapons of mass destruction and seek even more ``as tools of coercion and intimidation.''

``For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding to aggression against our friends,'' the document said.

``We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the United States, our forces and our friends and allies'' from weapons of mass destruction, it continued.

The broadly worded strategy does not speak with any specificity to the priorities it asserts, nor does it assign them any budget numbers. Instead, those details were contained in classified directives, described as ``substantial taskings,'' issued to relevant federal departments a couple of months ago, officials said.

The strategy's priorities will be reflected in the new budget Bush submits to Congress in February.
<a href="http://www.therockboat.com/" ><img src="http://www2.pdai.org/cam/trb.gif" /></a>
User avatar
Cameron
pm Insider
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Nov 22, 2001 @ 12:58pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana


Postby James S » Dec 11, 2002 @ 10:51pm

Yup. And now we don't like Yemen or North Korea along with Iraq.

The world is coming to a head :/
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~sonne/james/tag.gif">
James S
pm Insider
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Jan 12, 2002 @ 2:33pm
Location: Lexington, KY


Postby James S » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:19am

http://question.msnbc.com

vote on whether we should use nukes if we're attacked with a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD). I voted YES, and here's why

"What other means are left to us if we're attacked by a weapon of mass destruction? In such a circumstance, diplomacy has already obviously failed. Complacency would destroy any power and respect the country has. Small arms and general infantry will be put into a place of risk when a nuclear retaliation would "get the job done" with "little risk." Of course, we must first assess the capabilities of the opponent to ensure that more wmd's are not launch in response to our retaliation. It is the only option at such a point."
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~sonne/james/tag.gif">
James S
pm Insider
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Jan 12, 2002 @ 2:33pm
Location: Lexington, KY


Postby Robotbeat » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:24am

Haven't you seen the new James Bond movie? Some guys in North Korea are trying to make an immensely powerful space weapon!

No really, I support this decision, but yeah.

The "my bombs are bigger than your bombs" strategy works well, at least it has before. Instead of actually using nuclear weapons, USA and USSR busied themselves with trying to make superior weapons. The strategy worked, as USSR is now Russia and a bunch of other democratic nations. USA won the Cold War because we had more cash. The Cold War was about protecting our country and our allies, just as the "War on Terrorism" is. This time, however, will hopefully be quicker and less painful.

I hope that Saddam gets overthrown or whatever very soon. Sure, it'd be cool if the citizens of Iraq could do it, but that just won't happen (well, it might). I think that Iraq should be invaded, but all in due time. I also think that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I know that Iraq has helped terrorism, and that by itself constitutes an act of war against the US or one of its allies (such as Israel, one of our closest allies).

Let me ask a question: Does anyone think that there aren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why not? It'd be nice to know which country you are a resident of, so that I can tell if you agree or not with your country's over-all view.
Die, Palm, Die. If that offended you, then get rid of your Palm OS device.
User avatar
Robotbeat
pm Member
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Jan 28, 2001 @ 4:52pm
Location: In your mind...


Postby James S » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:30am

The point some people are making is that nuclear weapons are not a deterant to terroristic activities. But that's obviously not what nuclear weapons are aimed at!

I do not believe Iraq has many, if any, weapons of mass destruction. During Desert Storm, the weapons inspectors were called out so that the US could bomb the weapons facilities, in which 80% of their weapons were destroyed. I'm sure the US targeted the long range and wmd first. I don't think that Iraq has much military power left at all. The weapons inspectors are back in, though, so we'll all know soon enough ... or maybe not 8O
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~sonne/james/tag.gif">
James S
pm Insider
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Jan 12, 2002 @ 2:33pm
Location: Lexington, KY


Postby Cameron » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:33am

The only thing I have against using nuclear bombs is the fact that millions of innocents will be killed or hurt. I'm very strongly against what we did to Japan for that same reason. Most americans don't know the full story. We had more options, a few could have lead to the same conclusion without killing many americans. We want to kill those with sadam, not those with him, AND those against them. If anything it will be seen by the middle east that we don't give a damn about all the people out there, and will help sadam in showing what he's been saying all along, that America is a bully.
<a href="http://www.therockboat.com/" ><img src="http://www2.pdai.org/cam/trb.gif" /></a>
User avatar
Cameron
pm Insider
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Nov 22, 2001 @ 12:58pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana


Postby James S » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:39am

What this policy does is that it doesn't restrict the options of the United States. It's not saying that we're going to nuke every mosquito that lands on Bush's hairy bottom. The point is that we're not limiting our options, we're not going to refuse to use nuclear weapons ... if they're appropriate! We're not going to bomb ANYTHING just for the sake of bombing.

This is a move of deterance, not a move of offense. By announcing that we're not going to restrict our use of powerful weapons we're hoping that Saddam will think twice about using his own.
This is the same situation as the Cold War. It's just to apply pressure. It's called brinksmanship and it's about the only strategy we have to stop others from doing something stupid. This is defensive, not offensive.
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~sonne/james/tag.gif">
James S
pm Insider
 
Posts: 17064
Joined: Jan 12, 2002 @ 2:33pm
Location: Lexington, KY


Postby Robotbeat » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:40am

I also voted yes to using nukes to counter WMD attacks. This is what I said:

The US is often very kind to nations that it has attacked (such as Cuba or Japan), giving aid and sometimes paying restitution. This reduces the fear that nations may have of attacking the US. If mere conventional weaponry was used to respond to a WMD attack, that fear would greatly diminish and leave the US open to more attacks by other rogue nations. A US nuke attack would uphold the long-held US foreign policies and also reduce any US casualties.

Many people may fear nuclear weapons because of the Cold War idea of "mutually assured destruction". Such is not the case here. The environment would also remain intact, because a relatively small number of nukes would be used against a rogue nation. Hundreds of atmospheric nuclear test were conducted last century, and we are not all dying of radiation sickness. In fact, I have many friends in Nagisaki, Japan, which is a very beautiful city today.
Die, Palm, Die. If that offended you, then get rid of your Palm OS device.
User avatar
Robotbeat
pm Member
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Jan 28, 2001 @ 4:52pm
Location: In your mind...


Postby Robotbeat » Dec 12, 2002 @ 12:46am

You mean the plan of sending over 1 million Allied solders over to invade Japan and fight the poorly-armed citizens? That would have killed many more than 1 million Japanese. Japan is now the second best economic nation in the world, second to the US. If Japan were invaded, the entire infrastructure would have been destroyed. A nation that fights with kamikazees will fight to the death. We gave Japan warnings about the power of nuclear weapons, and it wasn't until the second attack, two days or something later, that Japan surrendered.
Die, Palm, Die. If that offended you, then get rid of your Palm OS device.
User avatar
Robotbeat
pm Member
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Jan 28, 2001 @ 4:52pm
Location: In your mind...


Postby Mike Bannick » Dec 12, 2002 @ 1:03am

The president has been kidnapped by ninjas.
User avatar
Mike Bannick
pm Insider
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Feb 2, 2002 @ 9:13am
Location: Loveland, Colorado


Postby Robotbeat » Dec 12, 2002 @ 1:09am

Die, Palm, Die. If that offended you, then get rid of your Palm OS device.
User avatar
Robotbeat
pm Member
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Jan 28, 2001 @ 4:52pm
Location: In your mind...


Postby sandmann » Dec 12, 2002 @ 1:15am

The fates lead him who will;
Him who won't, they drag.

Seneca
User avatar
sandmann
pm Insider
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Dec 7, 2001 @ 10:58pm
Location: Madison, WI


Return to Anything Discussion


Sort


Forum Description

Post all off-topic messages here, almost anything goes.

Moderators:

Dan East, sponge, David Horn, Kevin Gelso, RICoder

Forum permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron