It's just that a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere between "weapon of mass destruction" and "big honking bomb." It's somewhat arbitrary and not flawlessly logical, but the global political consensus has chosen to consider bombs that explode thanks to nuclear fission to be in a different class to your garden-variety anti-Taliban "daisy cutter." Think of it as a bit like the legal drinking age: arguments can be made to set it anywhere you want and inevitably it'll be a silly rule that people will argue should go somewhere else.
Reagan's development of tactical nukes and neutron bombs was viewed by the Soviets and the rest of the world as a major escalation in the arms race, even though I'm sure Reagan was willing to make the argument that tactical nukes are only itty-bitty bombs, barely 10 times what they dropped on Hiroshima and all.
We're used to a global political structure where weapons deriving their destructive power from the fissioning or fusing of atoms are deterrants from future war. The jury's still out on whether we'd have been better off with a Cold War with nukes or without. Today, we have some degree of stability because of MAD. Saddam damn well didn't crack out his biological and chemical warheads because he knew that provisions in the global arms infrastructure, namely nuclear-tipped missiles off his coast, existed that would mulch his sorry ass, for instance. (Then again, this works both ways: a commonly cited reason for the allies not going after Saddam after victory in Kuwait was the fear that when cornered he would have fewer qualms about getting himself nuked if he could take down as many Allies and Israelis as possible with biological and chemical weapons in the process.)
Anyway, while we've got a measure of global familiarity with the schoolyard's "rules" regarding nuclear weapons at present, when Bush starts putting up missile shields and building tactical nukes the balance starts to break down and we have ourselves a tilted situation that pisses off people and raises uncertainty. We simply do not have a global political architecture that likes having nuclear-energy-based weapons, even if they're not quite 25 megatonners, used as an offensive weapon.
And to be quite honest, from what I can tell from the war on terrah, I'm skeptical that these sort of weapons are any more needed today than fifty years ago.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"First Strike" is merely a military technicality. Wars do not begin in a vaccum. Bin Laden didn't say, "Well, there's nothing to do out here in the desert, so I guess we'll attack America." The U.S. attack other countries every day in many ways, mostly economically. People do not spend millions (or is it billions?) to start a war unless there is a VERY compelling reason, and it will never end unless you find that reason and heal it.
Regarding whose lives are "better": Superiority is one of the problems, isn't it? My country is better than yours. My religion is better than yours. My race is better than yours. My political party is better than yours. Every one of these has caused people to kill and get killed, and for what? What is patriotism but isolation of other countries from yours? What is a nation but a bunch of people who happened to be born in the same place? If Christianity is so great, how come people can discriminate or even kill in its name? If Islam is so great, why did you spend a fortune on revenge instead of feeding your people (the same thing could be said of the U.S.)? Every terrorist soldier has/had a mother and father, perhaps even children they're fighting to save. I'm not saying their cause is entirely good, only that it's not so different from ours. Except that while most of us are trying to make a living, most of them are just trying to live.
Nobody is inherently better than anybody else, for any reason. Just imagine for a minute that this is true. What would you do then?
posted
If Christianity is so great, how come people can discriminate or even kill in its name?
I can discriminate and kill in YOUR name. That doesn't necessarily mean you approve of it. It may mean that I don't understand your wishes, or that I'm just lying to people so I have an excuse.
Every terrorist soldier has/had a mother and father, perhaps even children they're fighting to save.
FROM WHOM? No one was ATTACKING them, at least not until they attacked us. If they cared about their families, they'd be home, trying to make their lives better, instead of out killing OUR kids.
Except that while most of us are trying to make a living, most of them are just trying to live.
No, they're trying to kill us. Ziyal, this discussion is NOT about your average Muslim family, it's about TERRORISTS. There IS a difference.
Nobody is inherently better than anybody else, for any reason. Just imagine for a minute that this is true. What would you do then?
Imagine? We already BELIEVE it's true. Our problem isn't with peoples' inherent worth, it's with their ACTIONS.
I'm having difficulty seeing exactly what point you're advocating here, Ziyal.
Thank god then that the good guys haven't bombed any civilian targets in this "war on terror and stuff".
We haven't TARGETED any civilians. Intent is everything. Or at least a good chunk.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Intent is everything? Omega, you've just bit your own tail.
If intent is everything, then the 'Axis of Evil' is totally motivated to attack the US and the UK for the only reason of Bush's and Blair's intention to use tactical nukes against them.
Congratulations, Ommie, you've given me the reason I was showing on the first post of this long thread.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
Can anyone translate that into a logical english sentence? I missed it entirely.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Translation: If the Bush administration made a document about their intention to use tactical nukes against seven possible oppossers, and Britain's Minister of Defense said they would use nukes against Irak, Iran and Korea, in that act they are stating their intentions.
Like you said 'intent is everything'. So, that intent to use nukes is the exact excuse those countries need to attack you.
I call that 'bully provocation'. What do you call it? I thought that was for S. Hussein only, not for the oh great US of A.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega: Not only was the original sentence logical English, everything was spelled, capitalized, and punctuated properly. Apparently, Argentinians speak better English than Tennesseans.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What the yotz is this guy talking about? 'Cause it's certainly not what I am.
Intent is everything (or most) when judging peoples' actions. Yes, we kill civilians on occasion, but for the most part we don't INTEND to kill civilians, and in fact go to great lengths to avoid it. THAT is what makes us different from them.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There's a fine line between intending to kill civilians, and bombing places where civilians are but sort-of, let's-keep-our-fingers-crossed hoping that maybe none of them will get hurt. Even less so when the bombs used are tactical nuclear weapons. Either way the underlying problem remains - on both sides - a fundamental disregard for the lives of people on the opposing side.
posted
Define "people on the opposing side". We DO have a fundamental regard for the lives of CIVILAINS in the same area as our enemies. That's why we do everything we can to avoid killing them. The enemy soldiers, OTOH, we don't need to have any regard for at all: they're trying to kill us. The idea that we always give them the opportunity to surrender if at all possible is quite a ways above the "necessary" line. We not only have regard for civilian lives, we even have regard for ENEMY SOLDIERS' lives.
So where's your problem?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
My problem lies somewhere between the benchmarks that a) you're talking bollocks, and b) you're avoiding the issue.
I out it to you again that the Allies' intent to kill as many of the 'true' enemy - the terrorists, enemy soldiers etc., as opposed to civilian countrymen of theirs - is not that much different to the motives of said enemy, who don't even have to worry about US civilians getting killed (because you're invading their country and there aren't any US civilians there).
Don't try to muddy the issue by going off on how our heroic allied servicemen will always give their enemy the chance to surrender, because it isn't true. None of them are going to risk their lives on the offchance some raghead has a grenade down his shirt, or is willing to sacrifice his life for hsi country, or Allah, or whatever.
posted
Omega: How can we trust your opinion of "doing everything not to kill civilians"? You're the same person who argues that every little baby that got blown up in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually a soldier.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm sorry, JB. I couldn't stay away any longer. I had to say this...
If ONE MORE #$%& says that the strategic planning document demonstrates "intent" to use nuclear weapons again, I will put them on my list of people who may be beaten with the carcass of a salmon.
A contingency plan, a list of possible outcomes of a string of events does not in any way, shape, or form equal a statement of intent.
Let me put it to you this way.
Let's say that "Gary" and I really really REALLY didn't like each other, but we were in a situation where we came together frequently. Say I thought that one day "Gary" might decide to take a swing at me. I might have various scenarios in mind with which to deal with that possibility, such as:
1. Let him connect, and sue. 2. Let him connect, and take a swing in response. 3. Dodge 4. Dodge, and take a swing. 5. Anticipate swing, avoid contact. 6. Anticipate swing, swing first. 7. Anticipate swing, carry SIG. Dodge, draw, and shoot the #$&*.
Or many others.
That I might have an option on my list of options does not mean that I intend to or will take that option, even when the scenario presents itself.
From the list above, out of preparedness, I might actually be carrying the SIG, but still choose use one of the other 6 options, because of the consequences of using option 7. My considering carrying the SIG (or even having it) does not mean that I intend to shoot "Gary" with it.
Nor does putting someone on a list of people who MAY be beaten with the carcass of a salmon mean that I intend to DO it.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
