GameBanshee Forums

Do you feel that if attacked with weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical), the United States of America should respond in kind?

This ignoring the fact that the USA has already been provoked with weapons of mass terror.

If we're being threatened, response is the best way to handle it...

REALLY now, I've heard of sitting ducks, but...

To be honest I tried not to post in this thread - sorry Grunty no offence

Maybe I do not even want to consider it...I would hope we do not, and maintain targetting military units rather than embark on mass destruction

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

While I am not in favor of using nuclear weapons, it begs the question:

Why do we continue to have them?

I do not buy the reasoning that it is a deterrent. (sp?) I think the US has proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.

Although I do not put it past some of our "esteemed" political leaders to use them.

The question is too broad to answer. Attacked--by whom? What size an attack? Which weapons?

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>Do you feel that if attacked with weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical), the United States of America should respond in kind?

This ignoring the fact that the USA has already been provoked with weapons of mass terror.</STRONG>

The question is Should the US allow it's self to be bombed without repling? Should the US be wiped off the planet? The bleeding hearts will say, yes. The "warmongers" will say no. The truth....the US will take everyone down with them. For a group to think they can nuke America and expect America not to reply in my mind, are crazy.


Why should I ,an American, allow some country to kill off my country? Should my country gives it's life so your country can survive?

I don't have any problems with any country, but to ask me to let my country be wiped off the planet for the sake of your country is to high of a price to pay.

Are you training to become a politician?I agree with the others.An xchange of bio-weapons would,probably,leave just the Albatroses with no fish to eat.It is enough that we have to deal with mass psycho-war as it is,and I suspect that there are quite a few crackerpots running around with visions of grandeur and what have you.

Originally posted by McBane:
<STRONG>While I am not in favor of using nuclear weapons, it begs the question:

Why do we continue to have them?

I do not buy the reasoning that it is a deterrent. (sp?) I think the US has proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.

Although I do not put it past some of our "esteemed" political leaders to use them.</STRONG>

I disagree, nuclear weapons certainly are a deterrent.
Lets say you are the leader of a rogue nation. You decide to attack the US with nuclear weapons. You must understand that your country will be permanantly alterd if not destroyed by the retribution. Your cities will disappear. Your countryside will be radio active and uninhabitable as well as large portions of the earth. You will be responsible for destruction of the earth. What kind of legacy does that leave you in your quest for global or religious domination?

One of the reasons the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was that they thought that the US was weak and would not fight. The military was weak yes, but their assumptions about the will to fight were wrong. Thats why we need to have a strong military. So those assumptions will never be made again.
Didnt you ever hear the story about the guy bringing a knife to a gun fight??

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
(who said that? T.Roosevelt?)

Why dont you take your BDGII character and go fight a dragon or the guys at the guarded compound, or twisted rune, right when you come out ot the dungeon in Chapter 2? Because they are too strong. If they didnt have the power to destroy you, you wouldnt think twice about it.
Their ability to kill you is a deterrent.

The death penalty is another topic all together. I dont see the the parallel between it and nuclear weapons. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty because of the chance to falsly convict. Although the death penalty may not be perfect, it does cut down on repeat offenders for sure.

OK... rant over. Fire away.

Originally posted by NCT:
<STRONG>Are you training to become a politician?I agree with the others.An xchange of bio-weapons would,probably,leave just the Albatroses with no fish to eat.It is enough that we have to deal with mass psycho-war as it is,and I suspect that there are quite a few crackerpots running around with visions of grandeur and what have you.</STRONG>

President Weasel

Would you allow your country to be wiped off the planet and not try and take the one who attacked you with you, even if this meant taking the rest of the world down as well?

No offense taken Yshania. Just though I'd throw the question in.

@fable, the question is deliberately broad but I don't think that prevents an answer. Your response suggests that you think any of those points actually matter. Do you draw a distinction between the release of Anthrax spores in one building and the use of nuclear weapons? To do suggests weapons of mass destruction can be deployed on a "limited" basis.

Whom: terrorists.
What size: ranging from dozens to millions of deaths. As I already said, this all ignores the fact the US has already suffered a terror-based civilian catastrophe (1/6 the casualties of the Vietnam war on a single day).
Which weapons: probably chemical or biological. But does it really matter what source? Point being NBC attacks are all clumped together as weapons of mass destruction. Sarin/Antrhax/Briefcase Uranium bomb.

Personally, I think Weasel has hit the nail on the head.

There is a strategic concept called "shot from the grave". If knowing they are to be wiped out by an imminent NBC attack, should the defender launch a counterattack anyway? Let others live for the "greater good"?

No. By admitting this policy you draw aggression. People must know that to attack your country, even in complete victory, is to suffer grievous loss in return.

You might not win but you can arrange for the other guy to limp on the way home (Finland 1939 as an example). If they know that, deterrence plays an important role in such considerations.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>President Weasel
</STRONG>

I'd vote for you

IMO:
If somebody attacks ei. the US with ei. nuclear weapons I hope the retaliation will be severer and with nuclear weapons.

Otherwise it would be to bow down to the meanest "bully" whom dares to pull the biggest gun.

Some fires need to be fought by fire.

Originally posted by Xandax:
<STRONG>IMO:
If somebody attacks ei. the US with ei. nuclear weapons I hope the retaliation will be severer and with nuclear weapons.

Otherwise it would be to bow down to the meanest "bully" whom dares to pull the biggest gun.

Some fires need to be fought by fire.</STRONG>

I don't want to start any flames...but


Take this a step further and say ie England or Denmark where attacked by Nukes....should the US launch in partnership with these countries?

IMO yes. I believe you stand by your friends. Should I allow your country to be wiped off the planet? No

@Mr.Sleep You will be my Chief of Staff.

Now I just need to find me a Monica

Aye, aye Mr President Weasel Sir!

An attack on one is an attack on all. Attacks by weapons of mass destruction are an assault on humanity.

Reply with said weapons? What else are we going to do? Bend over and take it?

I've always taken solace in mutually assured destruction.

Hey, @Weasel. Good to see your moniker, again.

I know how to stir the giant from his sleep

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Hey, @Weasel. Good to see your moniker, again. </STRONG>

Yes I broke my promise to myself I tried Gruntboy knows I'm a "warmonger"

Maybe my time away will show an improvement on my temper.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I don't want to start any flames...but


Take this a step further and say ie England or Denmark where attacked by Nukes....should the US launch in partnership with these countries?

IMO yes. I believe you stand by your friends. Should I allow your country to be wiped off the planet? No
<snip>
</STRONG>

NATO article 5

Weasel can't resist a bit of MAD and flagwaving.



You know you love it

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

I disagree, nuclear weapons certainly are a deterrent.
Lets say you are the leader of a rogue nation. You decide to attack the US with nuclear weapons. You must understand that your country will be permanantly alterd if not destroyed by the retribution. Your cities will disappear. Your countryside will be radio active and uninhabitable as well as large portions of the earth. You will be responsible for destruction of the earth. What kind of legacy does that leave you in your quest for global or religious domination?

One of the reasons the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was that they thought that the US was weak and would not fight. The military was weak yes, but their assumptions about the will to fight were wrong. Thats why we need to have a strong military. So those assumptions will never be made again.
Didnt you ever hear the story about the guy bringing a knife to a gun fight??

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.