GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>

As I am not great in geography, lets use France as an example. Suppose the US really makes the french angry and they nuke us. Would we nuke them back? Do you not think there will be fallout in other European countries?

I guess I'm trying to state that I don't think it will stop someone, and I am not convinced it is the right response for us.</STRONG>

What would you call the right response? To allow the Us to be wiped out and let the attacker go on with their daily lives?

Or to sanction them with what will we sanction them with...rocks and sticks?

I like Gruntboy and Weasel!

Would the US be wiped out?

If no, then use whatever conventional means to rid the world of the threat. I am not a huge fan of massive loss of innocent lives.

Is a "tactical" nuclear strike achievable? I do not have a good answer to that.

Sanctions are a crock of s**t. Have sanctions hurt the governments of countries? No. But is sure hurts the average citizen.

If the US is wiped out, I still cannot justify killing other innocent people. The options listed above could still be used by our allies.

McBane, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

So what do you suggest we do as an alternative?

I ask you, is it right that the citizens of us should have jet planes slam into their buildings because of the actions of a rogue nation's leaders?

And we're not even talking about WMD here(weapons of mass destruction).

EDIT - Allies?! So the US lays down, dies and lets its allies fight the fight? What means ahve they got to continue the fight (and why should they by your logic?).

Innocent civilians are already dead at the hands of the terrorists and their sponsors.

Good night.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Gruntboy ]

I ask you, is it right that the citizens of us should have jet planes slam into their buildings because of the actions of a rogue nation's leaders?

**sigh** Of course not. I abhor any loss of life. Do I think the US is doing the right thing? I believe so. Those responsible should be given justice. As reprehensible as it is to me, I want blood. However, lets make sure we get blood from those who are behind it.

Do you think some farmer in Afghanistan should be killed? That's the question. Drop a nuclear weapon and that is a very likely scenario.

These last 3-4 weeks have been extremely conflicting emotionally for me. I have been a pacifist my entire life, and am very uncomfortable with my destructive feelings.

Good Night Gruntboy

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>
Would the US be wiped out?

If no, then use whatever conventional means to rid the world of the threat. I am not a huge fan of massive loss of innocent lives. </STRONG>

The bombs dropped on japan would be considered fire crackers to the bombs of today. Would you consider the "innocent lives" in France to be better than the "innocent lives" in the US?

Conventional means would mean we the US would then have to put more "innocent lives" on the line to take care of a threat, a threat that hasn't lost one single life...just a bomb.

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>
Sanctions are a crock of s**t. Have sanctions hurt the governments of countries? No. But is sure hurts the average citizen.</STRONG>

This is the plain truth. The sooner the world relizise this, the better. To think a country will spend what little money it has on it's citizens, when the person in charge wants to have a military, is plain stupid. I hear people talking about Iraq.....what do you think Saddam is doing with what money he has....building up his military. But who gets the blame for the children dying??


The US.

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>

If the US is wiped out, I still cannot justify killing other innocent people. The options listed above could still be used by our allies.

</STRONG>

Innocent is the word. I cannot agree with you here. People riot in the street about the US does this...the US does that. They do this knowing they will be shoot in some countries, but they will not stand up to the things their own government does....makes sence to me.

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>Do you really think there is a nation that thinks we are weak? Do you think the stockpile of nuclear weapons proves we are not? I think we have proven our conventional arsenal is potent enough.

Is it right that citizens, who are unfortunate enough to live in a "rogue nation" should be annihilated because of the actions of their leader?

If someone is going to send a nuclear weapon, do you think he really cares about what will happen to his country?

As I am not great in geography, lets use France as an example. Suppose the US really makes the french angry and they nuke us. Would we nuke them back? Do you not think there will be fallout in other European countries?

I guess I'm trying to state that I don't think it will stop someone, and I am not convinced it is the right response for us.</STRONG>

Lets see...

Not now.
Yes.
Probably.
Should we?
No, but I do.
Me either.(Geography)
Yes.
Yes.

I'm trying to say you cant limit your ability to defend yourself.
How can you know what the right response will be to a future problem?
Why would you dare limit your capabilities when the US and its people are threatened?

Perhaps we could dismantle all of our military, wear pins, sing give peace a chance, and we will be safe.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

Okay. Now that I have a better sense of where this thread is heading, I feel I can jump in, both feet firmly in mouth.

I think the potential size, speed and inherent "danger value" of each threat must be separately assessed, and action taken accordingly; universal approaches have never historically worked. From my perspective:

* If a group of rebels are looking to overthrow a dictatorship and grab several citizens of a third nation hostage, then a measured response is necessary. First, the hostages must be freed, and the best way to do that is to find contacts to the rebel leaders who can then send orders to their field unit. If that's not possible, the hostage situation must be ended somewhere between *as soon as possible* and *with all hostages safely freed.* I will not explain how this is achieved, since it depends upon the individual situation. Once the situation is ended, a limited strike against the rebels may be necessary--or it may be that unofficial (and officially deniable) governmental links could achieve the same purpose of preventing a repeat event.

* If a group of people possessing biological or chemical weapons release them deliberately in any nation, they should be wiped out, and their stock of weapons carefully destroyed. This is not intended as an act of vengeance, or even an act of justice: Western systems of justice, based on Pax Romana, are thrown out the window when confronted with a situation where the crime causes so much suffering. (How *do* you exact "justice" upon a person who has killed hundreds or thousands or--as in the case of Stalin and Hitler--millions of lives?) My offered solution is simply a passionless prophylactic, horrible as that sounds: I wish to prevent that group from ever having the chance to kill more people. I value the group's individual lives, but their actions have made them a danger to a far larger number, and no amount of reasoning with such groups has been traditionally shown to work.

I realize this reasoning sounds horrific; it sounds that way to myself. But I can see no other path out of the dilemna which will keep any society safe and feeling secure.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Perhaps we could dismantle all of our military, wear pins, sing give peace a chance, and we will be safe.

Wow. Please put your stereotypes away.

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>Wow. Please put your stereotypes away.

</STRONG>

Fair enough.....just an extreme example to prove a point.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>
I wish to prevent that group from ever having the chance to kill more people. I value the group's individual lives, but their actions have made them a danger to a far larger number, and no amount of reasoning with such groups has been traditionally shown to work.

</STRONG>

If I get this right. I believe every person should be able to live their life any way they see fit....as long as this doesn't harm another group?

I agree 100%.

The sad truth, I've came to realizies in the last few weeks....some groups will not be happy to every other group is dead. I personally don't want to see someone die, but it has come to a point where lives must be given and taken.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>If I get this right. I believe every person should be able to live their life any way they see fit....as long as this doesn't harm another group?

I agree 100%.

The sad truth, I've came to realizies in the last few weeks....some groups will not be happy to every other group is dead. I personally don't want to see someone die, but it has come to a point where lives must be given and taken.</STRONG>

Agreement. I am only afraid that governments, being governments, will attend to this with their usual mixed agendas, so that the effort to remove bin Ladan, for instance, will also become an effort to eradicate the Chechnyan freedom fighters.

as far as kepign an arsenal is concerned, i think it is very important. we built it up originally to make sure the world was in a stale mate. and although russia is no longer a threat, more and more countries are developing nuclear capabilities...take india and pakistan in the past few years.
if the US were in fact attacked with nuclear weapons, i have no doubt we would strike back in kind. the difference would be that we would announce our intent, drop propoganda to encourage civilians to leave, and then leave a giant crater.

@weasel - can i be secretary of health and human services if/when you become president?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Agreement. I am only afraid that governments, being governments, will attend to this with their usual mixed agendas, so that the effort to remove bin Ladan, for instance, will also become an effort to eradicate the Chechnyan freedom fighters.</STRONG>

From the reports I have seen....the deal has already been stuck. The US will not make any more remarks about the 'Chechnyan' problem.

I'm not one of the one's who thinks the US doesn't do any wrongs. But I don't think the US is evil. The world looks at the US as if we are perfect. We are not.


The US government cuts deals to help itself, while trying to limit the 'fallout' or danger to other countries. Sometimes the wrong chooses are made....sometimes there are not any right chooses.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>

@weasel - can i be secretary of health and human services if/when you become president?</STRONG>

You have the job.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>You have the job. </STRONG>

woohoo!!!

@ McBane

Of course do ABC weapons have an awesome effect of deterrence. If not having a country anymore isn't a threat, what else then? In WWII, neiher Hitler nor Stalin (though both dictators faced extremly critical situations) have made use of their chemical weapons arsenal. Why - because of moral convictions? No, they were fearing retaliation.

If a country is attacked by another with ABC weapons, it surely has the right to respond in kind. Terrorists do not represent a whole nation, however. If Hamas terrorists would launch an AB attack on the U.S., what would yo do? Nuking all of Palestine? In this case you should rather try to finish off the guys really (politically) responsible - if necessary with tactical nuclear warheads.

Weasel, at your inauguration, could I sing "give peace a chance"?

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>Weasel, at your inauguration, could I sing "give peace a chance"? </STRONG>

LMAO Yes you can