[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Right now his advisors are pooping themselves.

And Obama's breath smells of fast actin' Tinactin.

I would prefer that Obama wait until he is running with Hilary before he starts talking about his foreign policy. At this rate Hilary won't ask him to be on her ticket.

[LANMaster]

Excellent point. I'm with you all the way on that.

But Hillary is sharp. She knows better than to select Obama as her running mate.

I think she'll surprise everybody and chose Biden.

[trekguy]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

You must be younger than I had earlier thought. Early 20's?

You're incorrect on just about every count in your post above.
Our nuclear arsenal has been an extremely effetive bargaining chip for decades. If the US had no nuclear arsenal, USSR would still be the evil empire exporting oppressive communism around the world.
And no, not everybody has them. In fact, very few countries have them in any abundance that might threaten any country's existence.
And no, if used, we all don't die anyway.
The money is only wasted if idiots like Obama take them out of usable inventory by telling potential enemies that they aren't in our arsenal of response anymore.

What does my age have to do with anything?? lol Let's just say I'm old enough to have a discussion without calling people "stupid", and "idiots".

Uh, no...communism collapsed because communism doesn't work... simple as that. We had the first nuclear weapons, that gave us an edge for only a short while. The former USSR wasn't afraid of our nukes... they eventually had more than we did... and they (Russia) still do to this day. So there goes your theory on that point.

OK, so not everybody has them... just the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea.... most likely Israel... and probably Iran, Saudi Arabia are close as well. That seems to represent most of the planet's area and population, wouldn't you say??

There are more than 40,000 nuclear weapons around the world... if a nuke is launched, there will be retaliation.... an exchange....the explosions, the radiation, the climate change... we may not all die right away, but the ones that do are probably the lucky ones. You had better check on that as well... you see, there are plenty of nuclear weapons around the world. It really wouldn't take too awful many nuclear explosions to mess up this earth.

[trekguy]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

You can say you are as smart as Obama if you think our nukes are worthless

In a nuclear exchange, everybody loses. So, for all REAL purposes, they are worthless.

And, Obama's a pretty smart guy... if you think I'm as smart as he is.... well, thanks!

[Littlefield]

If we did not have nuclear weapons we would be in danger and they are vital to our national security . What do you think would happen if Obama went further and said they are worthless . Lets just say he would be sliting his throat ,a move I do not foresee anytime soon

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by trekguy

In a nuclear exchange, everybody loses. So, for all REAL purposes, they are worthless.

And, Obama's a pretty smart guy... if you think I'm as smart as he is.... well, thanks!

I agree with the above statement. I also agree that Obamas mouth smells like tough actin' tinactin (even though I beleive I understand why he said it). He knows when he was being totally honest with his first response that people would criticize and he started making a second response, well it was too late for all of that.
BUT do all of you nuclear supporters honestly believe that just because we have nuclear bombs that stops us from being attacked by islamist terrorist (IT)? I say IT because that was the question posed at Obama. What happens when Iran gets its nukes, what then? How will we deal with Syria lets say or even worse, with Iran? Middle East policy will change dramatically Im sure.

So if I may ask this one question..in what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I can make that argument rather easily. The arms race cause the USSR to place a higher emphasis on nuclear arms than on it's Communist infrastructure, thereby ensuring it's collapse.

I agree that was a factor, even though it took 40 years for the US military industrial complex to grind down its Soviet equivalent. I assumed you were implying the USSR was intimidated by the US arsenal, which was certainly not the case. (although it might be the case now). You also skate over the real desire of Gorbachev and the the other reformers to implement democratic and economic change.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Sure.
Ideologies are increasingly the empitus of Radical Islamic States. (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon .... and I could go on and on)

I've got no idea what that sentence means Apart from what 'empitus' means - which had me rushing without satisfaction to Chambers - the hegemonic ideology at present, even though it's fraying at the edges, is the Project for the New American Century. To call Saudi Arabia a 'radical Islamic State', when it is just a run-of-the-mill feudal oligarchy, is daft.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

While Al Qaeda is an ideology, they were based in, and supported by the Taliban who were the leading governance in Afghanistan.
With such a scenario potential that radical Islamic groups operating in some country may attack the USA again, I see a nuclear response as all too potential due to the fact that invading Afghanistan and Iraq have not gone as well as we had hoped. Well, as many had hoped anyway.

Fine, but that's equating the ideology with the state. Rendering the sub-continent uninhabitable
for a few centuries will destroy the states but not the ideology.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

What are you talking about? We didn't attack Iraq over an ideology? We attacked Iraq over an increasingly hostile government. The target was not the least bit ambiguous. We invaded and attacked an army.

I was of course talking about the war on terror; if you really believe Iraq was attacked over an increasingly hostile government, full marks for sticking to the party line in the face of all evidence

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Sarge

So if I may ask this one question..in what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?

Tactical destruction of deep caves or hardened bunkers.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Tactical destruction of deep caves or hardened bunkers.

With or without the permission of our allies?

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Sarge

With or without the permission of our allies?

That question may depend on which "allies" to which you are referring?

Would that be Britain, Japan, Pakistan, or Russia, France, and China?

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That question may depend on which "allies" to which you are referring?

Would that be Britain, Japan, Pakistan, or Russia, France, and China?

Maybe you did understand the original question. It is the same question asked to Mr. Obama.

Originally Posted by Sarge

In what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?

The allies I am referring to is Afghanistan and Pakistan. What if they objected to the US using nukes within their borders, then what? Not only that but what about neighboring nations and nuclear fallout? Irans borders are shared with Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other side India and China share borders with Pakistan. Let me remind you that India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear capabilities. Do you think they will allow or not object to the US using nukes right next door? So with that in mind...

Originally Posted by Sarge

In what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Maybe you did understand the original question. It is the same question asked to Mr. Obama.

The allies I am referring to is Afghanistan and Pakistan. What if they objected to the US using nukes within their borders, then what? Not only that but what about neighboring nations and nuclear fallout? Irans borders are shared with Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other side India and China share borders with Pakistan. Let me remind you that India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear capabilities. Do you think they will allow or not object to the US using nukes right next door? So with that in mind...

I would say that it is very important that the allies of countries where bunker busters were to be used be on board, publicly or privately. Obviously it would be a political hot potato. Deliberations as well as execution would likely need to remain as quiet as possible.

Using bunker busters in countries with governments that aren't allies would be a different situation.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

I would say that it is very important that the allies of countries where bunker busters were to be used be on board, publicly or privately. Obviously it would be a political hot potato. Deliberations as well as execution would likely need to remain as quiet as possible.

Using bunker busters in countries with governments that aren't allies would be a different situation.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Bunker busters do not produce fallout or visible destruction. They are designed to break bunkers underground that would otherwise be impregnable.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Bunker busters do not produce fallout or visible destruction. They are designed to break bunkers underground that would otherwise be impregnable.

Yes but the original question involved Nuclear weapons. Assuming conventional NW. Im simply posing the same question to TSG members as the one that was asked to Obama. Id like to read some of the responses. So far you are the only one who responded. Where are all of the members with all the "right" answers?