PDA

View Full Version : Nukes in Afghanistan?



Coaster Boy
10-30-2001, 01:33 PM
I was flipping through the channels when I came across a local channel that was discussing nukes being used in Afganistan. I decided to watch the show. And what I heard astonished me. Russian presidend Putin has agreed with Bush to alter the anti balistic missile treaty(pact? I don't know what it's called) to allow Bush to build his missile defence screen.

But it will also be altered to allow the use of tacticle nuclear warheads. While these missiles are no where near the power of the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII, they still pack a punch. These missiles would mostly be used to blow caves to smitherines, not on open troops or buildings.

But still, they're nuclear bombs!! If this happens it will say to everyone with nukes that it's ok to use them!

What are your thoughts?

Erik Johnson
10-30-2001, 02:42 PM
If this happens, it'll be very very bad. We absolutely cannot use nuclear weapons unless we ant to destory everything we're fighting for.

AZ RIDER
10-30-2001, 02:57 PM
I agree, nukes should not be used. they should only be our very last line of defense, and we are very far from that.

Kraken
10-30-2001, 04:22 PM
What you guys don't understand is that Russia has ALWAYS had the ability to use Nuclear Weapons. This isn't a new development, and the danger isn't any greater. This will not have tell the world "it is ok to use Nuclear weapons", as the treaty is relativly new.

Diamond Stud
10-30-2001, 06:15 PM
NUKES SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD NEEDS TO ERASE THIS IDEA FROM THEIR HEADS. NUKES ARE THE EASY WAY OUT AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE EASY WAY ENDS UP BEING THE BAD WAY IN THE END.



Stop nuking the whales!

Coaster Boy
10-30-2001, 06:22 PM
This is how the news guy put it: (this is not an exact quote) "This is an option the US is exploring to destroy caves where Al Qaeda members, including bin Laden might be hiding. If conventional bombs were used, they would only do so much damage, but a small nuke could take out the entire area. If we sent in troops, there is a good chance the caves are booby trapped, and several soldiers would die without firing a shot."

I agree, but still....Nukes?:= :=

Amy
10-30-2001, 06:30 PM
One of my great fears is someone dropping a nuke on NYC. If a nuclear bomb is dropped on NYC, I die instantly. The chances of it happening are slim, but hey, if you told me in August that the Twin Towers wouldn't be here in a month I'd laugh in your face.

Inferno
10-30-2001, 07:34 PM
Yeah, but it's not likely for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on the U.S. Afghanistan does not have nuclear capability even. If a plane was headed for a U.S. hopefully we'd be able to shoot it down before it got here. But it probably won't happen.

CrystalKat
10-30-2001, 10:44 PM
This would be a bad plan, but not a surprising one. It would depend on the fallout zone and exactly what this would accomplish in terms of ending the conflict entirely -- though I don't think it would, it would just heighten the actions at hand, since terrorism isn't something you can ever be sure has been eliminated.

Interesting, however, that the United States is the only country in the world to have instigated nuclear war.

theriddler
10-30-2001, 11:53 PM
I dont think they mean the nuke u guys r thinkin of. They already have the capability to use these things...I dont think they do that much damage.

Coaster Boy
10-31-2001, 12:23 AM
Right. These nukes are very weak, but still much more powerfull than the 4,000 lb "Bunker Buster" bombs. They also have little amounts of radiation.

Pantera Psycho
10-31-2001, 02:38 AM
If they use very weak nukes and are very careful with where they place them, then maybe one or two would be fine, but if they get out of hand with them to the point of where they don't give any warning and wind up hurting too many innocent civilians, then no chance. This is something they'd have to be EXTREMELY careful with though, not something for them to take lightly.

Andy Rathe
10-31-2001, 12:33 PM
Nuclear weapons should NEVER be an option. Assuming that one is used, the Moslem world would (rightly or wrongly) see it as an attack on their religion and I'm pretty sure that at least one of their terrorist organisations, perhaps even Al Queda, would have access to their own nuclear weapons. We'd all be history.

mrk468zz
10-31-2001, 02:29 PM
there's seems to be (in my opinion)a staggering overreaction in this thread to the use of nuclear weapons. utilizing a few tactical nukes is indeed a dangerous and serious decision to make, but it certainly doesn't spell doom for the world. it would be a surprising escalation (and highly controversial) but it wouldn't bring about armageddon. if a terrorist organization has posession of a nuclear warhead (which is possible and indeed likely) they will use it whether we use nukes or not, so long as they can overcome the delivery problem. in any event, we won't use them unless there's no other option b/c of the negative reaction that the world's countries would have. but it wouldn't be the end of the world if we did, either.

Kraken
10-31-2001, 07:15 PM
Considering how people think of any Nukes, people would probably panic. They wouldn't really understand the context. That is why Nukes are not good here.

But Melissa? The U.S. instigating Nuclear War? If I recall, some country bombed some base in Hawaii...

CrystalKat
10-31-2001, 09:18 PM
The attack on Pearl Harbor was an instigation of a conventional war -- no nuclear weapons were used. Our dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been history's only use of nuclear weapons in wartime - hence, technically nuclear war. Boy, really makes you proud... <SMALL>SARCASM</SMALL>

Kraken
10-31-2001, 10:57 PM
So you think we should have fought back using equal weapons as the Japanese? We fought a war like that. It was called Vietnam.

raser
10-31-2001, 11:23 PM
First of all lighten up this is supposed to be a fun website. Secondly you cant count Vietnam and ww2 in the same aspect. In Vietnam the nation didnt accept the war for the most part in ww2 everyone was behind the war effort and we could have fought a conventional war and still won for we would have been allowed to do whatever it takes to win.

Pantera Psycho
11-01-2001, 12:34 AM
Actually, we gave Japan plenty of warning with both nuclear bombs, it was their own fault that it was dropped on them, they almost literally asked for it. They were told that we would drop a nuclear weapon on them if they didn't concede the war, and they didn't. We then dropped it on them, and still, even after that they refused to concede, they knew it was coming, if they had any brains, they would've given up. It wasn't until after that when they gave up. So it was as much their fault as ours.

mrk468zz
11-01-2001, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Melissa
Our dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been history's only use of nuclear weapons in wartime - hence, technically nuclear war. Boy, really makes you proud... <SMALL>SARCASM</SMALL>

not that i want to get too far off topic, but those two nuclear bombs literally saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. a full-scale invasion of Japan would have resulted in massive casualties on both sides, and its pretty well accepted that the total would have skyrocketed far beyond the casualties caused at nagasaki and hiroshima for the Japanese alone (not to mention the american side). i'm not saying nuclear weapons are good, but they were a necessary evil in this case.

Andy Rathe
11-02-2001, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by mrk468zz


not that i want to get too far off topic, but those two nuclear bombs literally saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. a full-scale invasion of Japan would have resulted in massive casualties on both sides, and its pretty well accepted that the total would have skyrocketed far beyond the casualties caused at nagasaki and hiroshima for the Japanese alone (not to mention the american side). i'm not saying nuclear weapons are good, but they were a necessary evil in this case.

This pretty much sums up the argument in this particular case - how many lives were lost in order to save millions more. To drag this back on topic, though, I still reckon nuclear weapons in Afghanistan would be very, very bad.

Kraken
11-03-2001, 08:04 PM
Me too. Not really the destrutctive power, but the "Hey, it's Nukes!" factor. It's just a really scary weapon, and we shouldn't really use it.


P.S. A full scale invasion of Japan would have been very bad. Civillians were trained to fight with sticks, and nearly the whole population of Japan would have been wiped out.

Halation
11-07-2001, 09:37 PM
No way, NEVER AGAIN!!