Posted by: TLC ®
12/12/2002, 03:35:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
The Vines Sir; You are not alone in your concern. This is very very scary stuff.I believe that Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups must have some love of their home countries and the people that they are "defending" in their worldwide "Jihad", which I understand translated from arabic, means "to defend." Would Usama or Saddam or the likes of them, feel any justification for their actions which resulted in Saudi Arabia or Iraq being totally obliterated and everything in it? What would they possibly gain? A lot of people don't realize that their are many different sizes and types of nuclear weapons. They range all the way from large strategic monsters capable of destroying complete cities on down to the battlefield tactical ones meant to contain the damage to a confined area.
The now infamous "Daisy Cutter" monster that we used in Afghanistan is a terrible, but still, conventional bomb capabable of destroying everything in a radius of 600 yards.
And we are supposedly developing bigger ones. Our smallest tactical nukes aren't much bigger than this. Ask the Japanese about what the U.S. is capable of, when it considers all less destructive measures not an option. There were 240,000 innocents killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I wonder how many of these ever heard of Pearl Harbor. I think the U.S. has to get the point across, that it is enough that everyone know, without a doubt, it will use whatever means necessary to destroy and eliminate any and all threats. Nukes have been a sucessful deterrant to the use of WMD so far, but our enemies have to know for certain that we are not bluffing!
They must be convinced that they have no way of winning and if attacked with a nuclear weapon we would completely destroy "any" country that supported or harbored them.
Faced with this fact, they would have to consider the consequenses they face as unbearable, and that they would bear the burden of thousands of their fellow citizens being killed. These are very serious times and certainly a time for cool, but determined, heads on our part. Very concerned and hoping the deterrent works: TLC
|
Posted by: Artem ®
12/12/2002, 03:49:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
"They must be convinced that they have no way of winning and if attacked with a nuclear weapon we would completely destroy "any" country that supported or harbored them."In other words take "their" civilians as hostages?
|
Posted by: TLC ®
12/12/2002, 04:29:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
Artem: Don't think for a moment that I would savor such a decision. I only know that given no other choices I would take their civilians as hostages before I would allow them to take our civilians as hostages. What would you suggest? TLC
|
Posted by: Artem ®
12/12/2002, 05:04:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes, absolutely. And then use the "they started it" defence. It worked in kindergarden, why not in global terrorism?From a purely rational perspective, forgetting how despicable what you are suggesting actually is, how would it work? How would it stop fanatics who believe muslims dying in jihad are rewarded in the afterlife and who believe infidels deserve their death?
Hostage-taking works as leverage only on those who value lives of hostages more than their ideals. I don't think muslim extremists would value ANYTHING above their ideals. I suggest that pre-emptive action should be taken very cautiously against people who are directly involved in terrorism or sponsoring terrorism. Killing civilians will only strengthen the hatred and ultimately grow the numbers of "the enemy".
|
Posted by: TLC ®
12/16/2002, 00:27:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Artem Sir; Morals are all well and good in theory, as well as for the heart.But, in kindergarten, one of the first lessons I learned was that if I was the one doing the pushing, I was not the one being pushed. When you are the scariest, meanest monster, son of a bitch on the block, you don't have to worry about the monsters jumping out at you from the shadows or from under the bed. Fact of life, morals aside for a moment: Right or wrong, the big dog most always gets the meat, always has and always will. The hardest decision that we all have to make is when choosing the lessers of several evils. TLC
|
Posted by: Nik ®
12/16/2002, 03:02:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
I remember a quote that went something like this:"So we can all be glad when we've been destroyed and wiped lout because we had GOOD morals." Makes you think, doesn't it?
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/12/2002, 05:51:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thank you for your response. As I have read a few responses, what comes to mind is the fact that for many folks the idea of promoting their religious ideal, at all costs, is almost a way of life. Take LDS for example, I have never encountered a more environmentally negligent people. Many folks are of the idea that Christ will come soon so sacrificing the environment for economic gain is perfectly fine. This is an example of religious irrationality. You'd think that they would have been happy about Clinton's Escalante Reservation decision right? No, because it hurt Utahn economy... Yeah, like its not a known fact that Utahns are some of the most underpaid employees in the nation... who's pocket book was getting hurt here??? But let's not get off topic... In a very real sense, some terrorists may have the idea easily put in their head that "God will protect us" if they hurt the infidels. They might believe that God will never allow them to be destroyed, and that they need to show faith by striking the devil's people. In what way would the threat of nuclear retaliation penetrate the mind of one of these? I truly think things are different here. There are too many destabilizing elements. If we were dealing with leaders like Saddam Hussein, we would be fine, because he understands the costs, being in power and in great comfort. But most of these terrorists don't have anything to lose, and heaven to gain. Do you think they are afraid of threats by the devil's boy, GWB? TV
|
Posted by: TLC ®
12/12/2002, 06:31:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
The vines Sir; Your points are very well taken. These guys have to be afraid of something. I guess we just have to find out what that would be, if anything. If they have none, then I can't think of an effective way to combat them, using our western ideals of human life.The bad guys certainly have us at a disadvantage here with their outlook on death and their religious concepts of devils and infidels. How many 9-11s must we endure while we knock off a few dozen of them occasionally? TLC
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
12/12/2002, 11:52:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Political posturing.Vicki p.s. The block does nothing but throw the discussions out of order. Just as I said. See?
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:55:04
|
Posted by: Martin ®
12/13/2002, 17:46:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
GWB's announcement is nothing to fear. It is one of the few intelligent things he's ever done.The issue is, as has been pointed out, deterrance. Ever since McNamara, we've known that overt threats of nuclear weapons serve as a deterrant, and this is no exception. GWB's announcement was quite wise -- so long as he doesn't actually carry it out. But as TLC points out, it is essential for everyone to fear that he just might be crazy enough to do it, and in GWB we have a President who most people agree is easily crazy enough. Therefore, his announcement will have considerable positive deterrant effects. Good one, Dubya! You've managed to get something right for a change.
- Martin
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
12/15/2002, 18:49:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC said: "They must be convinced that they have no way of winning and if attacked with a nuclear weapon we would completely destroy "any" country that supported or harbored them."Osama Ben Laden and his ilk seem to be incurable, religious fanatics. I am not at all confident that there is anything we can possibly do to convince them that ". . .they have no way of winning. . ." Consequently, neither am I confident that the threat of nuclear retaliation upon them or nations that harbor them will have any deterrent effect on them. I am sure that they are convinced that Allah is firmly on their side, despite the severe setbacks we inflicted upon them in Afghanistan, and that they will eventually triumph, whatever we do against or to them in the short term. They have shown a callous willingness to not only die, but slaughter any number of innocent bystanders, if they can manage to kill a few Americans (or Jews) in the process. They seem to have the attitude that if any truly innocent bystanders are incidentally killed along with their intended targets, they will have actually done them a favor by hastening them into the loving embrace of Allah. Ben Laden's stated goal seems to be nothing less than conversion of the world's entire population to Islam, and extermination of all who will not convert. I sometimes get the impression that he would rather see the entire world transformed into a lifeless, radioactive slag heap than fail to achieve that goal, so great is his disdain for life (mortal life, at least)! I am convinced that only their death or permanent incarceration will effectively stop their nefarious activities. Gunnar
|
Posted by: james ®
12/12/2002, 04:49:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well, that would make a nation responsible for its citzens. The same as if there were terrorists from the united states planting bombs in other countries. I would hope that the U.S. would do what it could to stop its own citizens from taking unethical actions.
|
Posted by: The Vines ®
12/12/2002, 05:58:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
You bring up a good point. I ask myself: how strict can we draw boundaries regarding responsibility and accountability here? Can we say to a nation: "you didn't take care of your own, now you will pay.."? What about the innocent? I guess it is really hard to think in terms of "human family." We are stuck in the "us" and "them" frame. Sometimes I wonder and ask myself, how many people really consider other countries, races, religions, etc... just as important as their own... TV
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
12/12/2002, 05:16:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
There is no good that can come out of using nuclear weapons, no matter who starts it. I believe Bush is simply using the deterrant strategy by confirming that nukes are an option if we are pushed that direction. Obviously, that has always been the stance--otherwise, having them is meaningless. We have to be willing to use them for them to be a deterrant. What Bush is actually willing to do is a very different matter, and it's doubtful that he would start using high powered nuclear weapons based on some chemical attack from Iraq--that is a step up which wouldn't be warranted, IMO.However, Bush can be an idiot, so hopefully the circumstance won't arise. -Dan
|
Posted by: vicki ® Jersey Girl!, Jersey Girl!
12/12/2002, 11:55:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
Do you see how useless the block is?
Modified by vicki at Thu, Dec 12, 2002, 11:56:29
|
Posted by: Vicki ® Jersey Girl!
12/12/2002, 12:03:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
Adults should be able to authentically ignore another person without resorting to foolish blocking features that jeopardize the integrity of the discussion. What if I were to block everyone, TV? Do you realize what that would do to the board?Vicki
|
|
