Getting political...
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">The new nuclear agency of the us</div>I just read that the Republican governemnt of the USA is currently developing for a new nuclear weapon policy aiming for a use of small nuclear warheads against targets if a conventional attacks would be too difficult, if the US are threatened by biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry, or if the fight takes an "unsuspected turn".
Now, I as European pacifist am pretty shocked by the prospect of this (Imagine another Anthrax attack with that policy in use...), but it's pretty easy for me to say "Stay away from anything that glows in the dark."
Knowing that we've got pretty many different people on the forums I ask you for your opinion on the topic.
Now, I as European pacifist am pretty shocked by the prospect of this (Imagine another Anthrax attack with that policy in use...), but it's pretty easy for me to say "Stay away from anything that glows in the dark."
Knowing that we've got pretty many different people on the forums I ask you for your opinion on the topic.
Comments
USA has used and still uses just as horrible techniques as the regims we normally think of when we speek of faschism. If not worse.
What makes it even more horrible is that all the killing seemes to be a way to gain popularity/votes as an official person. Don't know about you but it makes me SICK.
I did not attack americans, only america as a state.
Anyway, I'm sure they'll never use any nukes, that's just 2 dangerous eve nfor them, that fall-out coudl reach their country 2.
Unfortunatly it is a real threat. Just take a look at the list there, apart from Iraq (which is a real threat now) both China and Russia are on the list. If <b>any</b> nukes are used against Russia or China (especially china, which is also a big threat now, they have been suplying afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and palestine with weapons) Then WW3 is pretty much definite. Of course, the USA is smart enough to never EVER nuke russia or china. But, the middle eastern countries are definitly a target worth considering. Iraq has been researching biological warfare
Plus, fallout in some oriental country would hardly reach Europe, not to mention the US.
As much as we support fights against terrorism, and also mourn the loss of those in Sept. 11, general feeling in the UK is that Bush is using as an excuse to flex his military muscles, despite unstable conditions and without first properly trying to solve the situation (like we and other countries have been doing).
Using nukes when peace seems to be more widespread that most times seems to be rather drastic...
That said, nukes are not one's best friend. Ditto with firestorm bombs (I shudder to think what a firestorm raid could do to large enough city).
However, saying that we will not use them is akin to the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Happy to write but not even worth the paper.
Well, I agree that Bush might not be the brightest amoung us, but one thing is for sure, he'll listen to his advisors.
What ever good or bad comes out of this, it will NOT be entirely up to him.
That said, I think there is a greater danger of pure politicial trouble than all out war.
As it said in the article, "...imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N"
Now I hope this doesn't become a great discussion here at these forums, and that I won't regret contributing to it.
It is imperative that reports like this are written in our press. It is also imperative that the reader is aware of the contents as a whole and the agendas of the writers.
Maybe this isn't the best place for this discussion, but talking about it is sure better than heading straight to the gun rack. Be well my friends.
It was also reported there that the secret study from which we are getting our informations had been issued to the congress in january and that it had been signed by Colin Powell, so I believe that it's save to say that this revision will be very likely to come.
Next, I really believe that there is a difference between a government and its country - in Americas case, this would be the nearly 50 % of the population that haven't voted for Bush.
I'm aware of the fact that Bush is extremely popular right now, this was only supposed to be an example.
Now back to the topic. While I agree with you that a nonconventional threat, which is the probably most severe case of the three, is more than massive. I can not, however, understand why being attacked with a weapon of mass destruction would justify a counter attack with a weapon of the same calibre.
No matter how tactical a nuclear weapon may be, and no matter how remote its target is from civil settelment, weapons of mass destruction are per definition weapons that will produce incredible civil losses.
I'm in no way questioning the US's right of self defense, but I simply can not imagine <b>a single</b> case that bears at least a tiny fraction of probability in which the use of nuclear weaponry wouldn't mean the dead of thousands of civilians.
And this can't be in the interest of a nation that calls itself the heart of the Free World.
1.) Terrain- Hill/mountainous landscape greatly reduces area of destruction.
2.) Distance- After about 2.5 psi(roughly) range of a nuclear weapon the survival rate is 75%+.
3.) Population Density- Definatly makes a difference
4.) Size- While I can't quite figure out the power of such a tac. nuke, I do know that they are designed to be used in close quarters (i.e. in a battlefield) and regalutions state that they shouldn't be used unless 99.5% chance of no friendly nuking (now that's espically friendly fire!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->. Also if the tac nuke is about Hiroshima power, it could be more or less safely tested in the SouthWestern deserts. Heck I'm been in viewing distance from a city to the place they tested it.
5.) Materials Used- What type of nuclear material used greatly matters in radioactivity. As I stated earlier most nukes nowadays are cleaner than eariler ones (cheaper ones can be quite dirty espically the hypotechical $20K nuke)
6.) Fire- Incendiary bombs if used en masse such as the Hamburg raids produce almost nuclear weaponeque damage. Nukes also start fires. How much material available to burn and weather factor here.
7.) Height- Greatly affects damage for good or ill
It is imperative that reports like this are written in our press. It is also imperative that the reader is aware of the contents as a whole and the agendas of the writers.
Maybe this isn't the best place for this discussion, but talking about it is sure better than heading straight to the gun rack. Be well my friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>First off, there is no difference between America as a "state" and Americans.</i>
Super! take a million bucks from that taxmoney you have as an american and donate it to flayra so the mod will get done faster. Seriously, where you are born or what country your from doesn't have to be who you are. I know a sertain political group who thinks so though.
<i>I feel safe in saying that no American approves of using nuclear weapons as a form of attack.</i>
There you go again. Must have took you a centuary to ask every american if they approve of using nuclear weapons as a form of attack.
<i>But any country willing to strike with a major nuke/bio/chemical attack is not looking to simply get your attention. They want to wipe you off the planet. In my opinion, anyone responsible for such a massive disregard for human life does not deserve consideration for their demise.</i>
Ok. You see this has allways been the problem with the american gouverment. So hostile. They make no difference between the people who are accually "responsible for a massive disregard for human life" and people trying to live in a country ruined by war and oppression. As long as there is a scapegoat for the voters.
Allso, to everyone, read the previous posts concerning how many civillians a nuke would kill and try to see this in a bigger perspective. Maybe you will feel like me and think "well that's truly f**ked up! why should we have war at all??!"
Thanks for your informations - I feel however little comfort coming from them: We were all extremely shocked when about 5000 people died in the WTC and Pentagon, and now we see the government of America, which is, as Spooge said, the same as the American people, thinking about the use of a weapon with a survival rate of 75% after 2,5 psi.
I really don't want to ridicule the terrible incidents in New York and Washington, but how high was the survival rate of those attacks in the same distance? Keep in mind that all what happens today is done as a response to the 11. September.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I really don't want to ridicule the terrible incidents in New York and Washington, but how high was the survival rate of those attacks in the same distance? Keep in mind that all what happens today is done as a response to the 11. September.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll agree that the survival rate was high. Also I suspect that most people here believe that the nukes would be used in a city. That is highly unlikely to be the case. The most statgetic and efficent way to use tactical nukes would be to use them to clear caves (the shockwaves alone would end up killing anything in the cave system, this is the idea behind the daisy cutter one of the largest convential bombs ever produced).
Such caves under my list early will follow:
Terrian: Hilly/Mountainous
Distance: Quite some distance from civilation
Population Density: Whoever's in the cave system and outlaying areas can't be too large (one reason is that the first area most likely used will be already heavy bombed).
Size: Most likely a small one (power unknown unfortunly)
Materials: Most refined Ore produced quite clean for a nuke
Fire: Dry arid land, depends on wind and plant growth
Height: I'll guess a few hundred feet over point. Spread of range unknown
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Super! take a million bucks from that taxmoney you have as an american and donate it to flayra so the mod will get done faster. Seriously, where you are born or what country your from doesn't have to be who you are. I know a sertain political group who thinks so though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
America and the government certainly are not 100% or anywhere near in agreement on everything. However for the most part, the government will have support either in apathy or agreement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok. You see this has allways been the problem with the american gouverment. So hostile. They make no difference between the people who are accually "responsible for a massive disregard for human life" and people trying to live in a country ruined by war and oppression. As long as there is a scapegoat for the voters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please show an <i>intential</i> attack on civilian holdings in these bombing raids. I'm talking about intent to kill and annilate the civilain population and/or holdings such as in Operation SeaLion (Hitler's raid on London), the firestrom of Hamburg (mentioned eariler), Hiroshima, 9/11, Operation Barbossa(Hitler's sneak attack on Russia), Okinawa(though one could argue at that point the whole island was military), Sherman's raid on Geogeria, or China under Japanese attack. This is in opposed to <i>accidental</i> losses such as Pearl Harbor, Fall of France& Poland, most U.S.& U.N. "peacekeeping missions."