First, a warning. Fo2, Snay, please stay away from this one. Yeah, I humbly ask you to.
Jeff, go wash your Jeep, twice.
Rob, stay at TrekRPG.net and see what they can do for your campaign during the next 24 hours.
But, please, do NOT touch this thread even with a 10-foot pole. The punishment is most horrible man-training. Well, that punishment depends on the individual, and for some it wouldn't be a punishment, but I think it will fit you both.
Now, getting serious:
I agree with most of you: Bush's behaving like an ass. Or he is an ass. That won't make much of a difference. The whole 'axis of evil' conception of modern world he made has already been criticized by Mikhail Gorbachov (no less than after the 9-11 ceremony this afternoon), who, being the Soviet leader that made huge steps towards our present situation with the countries behind the iron curtain (along with Reagan, I have to admit that ) I guess is entitled to a respectable opinion.
Meanwhile, small, maneuverable, confined-power "tactic nukes" WOULD make good weapons. Now, I find this so aberrant for the following motives: First: there's always that feeling to waste everything where an attack is directed. Kill the people, raze the quarters, salt the grounds. The nuke would do that in one second, huh? Second: Aren't there similar, equally efficient ways to do the same amount of damage a small nuclear bomb would do, without the side effects (who would end affecting for years, even if that place/country ends up being an ally of the attacker... see Japan 1945-2002)? Third: Showing bully power. Now this is what makes me the most uncomfortable. That's exactly the same position leaders like Saddam Hussein try to show, and Bush is copying him! Yeah, he HAS the power, he ain't bluffing, you'd say, and that'll make those towel-heads stay put. At the same time, you're bringing fear of attack from another country to a more latent state, again. Like circa 1968. Go back to build your underground bunkers, only for 99,999.95.
Please go on, stay civil, discussion is good. Repeat with me three times...
(BTW, thanks to everyone who helped)
[ March 11, 2002, 19:30: Message edited by: Dr. Jonas Bashir ]
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Second: Aren't there similar, equally efficient ways to do the same amount of damage a small nuclear bomb would do, without the side effects?
Yes, fuel-air bombs; but they're not effective against deep-buried bunkers - one of the new missions for the tactical nukes they're envisaging - as far as I know, that is.
posted
Hmm... The French neo-Gaullists considered a similar policy in the 90's, but even they had the common sense to back out.
The problem isn't just the fact that you're using nukes. Even if you can minimize the environmental effects to acceptable levels, you can't minimize the political fallout. Anything nuclear, weapons or not, is automatically viewed with general resentment. Sure, countries like Pakistan, India, Israel and China would probably love nothing more than being able to use their nukes against their neighbors, but even they're probably not gonna do it unless threatened first. World leader or not, if the US decides to deploy nukes tactically, we'll probably see a bipolar split worst than the Cold War ever was, between "the sane, rest of the world" and those "crazy American %#*)&@!!"
However, defense structure technology hasn't exactly been sitting on its butt all these years. A few years ago, I've heard of a chemical weapons factory in Africa or something that is invulnerable to anything short of a direct nuclear attack. No matter how much FAE or Paveways you use, there are just certain things too well protected to be taken out with conventional means.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I learned of this issue from my mother earlier tonight. She was very upset and distrustful of our current regime.
My concern is not political. It is social. If we attack Iraq with nuclears, than every irate and irrational Mideasterner will see the victims of this attack as martyrs. These crusaders of the fallen 'heroes' will intensify their attacks against our country. We may yet see a North American city nuclearized by a suicide bomber.
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
The trouble I have is, how does one define terrorist?
Some self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" might be designated terrorists depending on their defenition (I am referring to people who are at guerilla war with Russia at the moment and that you barely hear anything about).
My defenition of a Tango is that it is one who engages in assaults on civilian personnel to make a political statement. Attacking military personnel (and possibly also government personnel depending on the branch) just makes you a rebel, but not necessarily a tango.
Ahh well, in the end we'll all be exiled to another planet light-years away because the government decides it's easier for robots to do all the jobs, and hence, everyone else is growing fat and overpopulated...
IP: Logged
posted
Jeff, which part of 'please stay away' didn't you understand?
I know you tried not to talk about the topic in question, but it would be better the other way. Please, stay away of this topic. Thank you.
So... there are advantages which shadow the disadvantages. That's the bad thing of warfare, you're intending to HARM the opponent, not protecting him.
Now, two quotes from the local news: An English intelligence report says that Irak will drop a nuclear bomb in less than 5 years. At the same time, Donald Rumsfeld declared the US won't launch any nuclear attacks to any country, especially Russia.
As targetemployee said, that's my mian concern, too. Creating more resentment among their populacy will lead to the reaffirmation of their dictatorships and conduct their efforts towards an open war.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
Chris StarShade
Ex-Member
posted
Hmm... yes, perhaps I can get myself one of those snazzy personnel ID's (such as "Avoided by Deer since 1999")
On another forum, in a distant universe I am known as "Interstellar Bandit from Dimension X" feel free to apply this to me here.
IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
well padding up your post count with gems like that is a good start..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm guessing that "tangos" is a new term for terrorists? Who on earth came up with the idea? Do you know how pissed off the makers of Tango fizzy orange are going to be?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) I guess is entitled to a respectable opinion.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
