Chlorine

Arioch

Arioch

Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
3,261
Likes
55
Location
New England
Feedback: 39 / 0 / 0
Does anyone else see the use of chlorine by terrorists in Iraq as the employment of WMDs? As a former NBC instructor, I would tell my students that US policy had always been that "We reserved the right to retaliate with WMDs if they were used against us. And since the US has abandoned its stocks of chemical and biological weapons, the only thing we have to respond with are nuclear weapons." What are we waiting for?
 
No matter what some arm-chair commandos might tell you, the use of nuclear weapons as a retalitory measure is not the best option. We would have to include a lot of friendly people in the casualties.

What we need to do is drag Katie and Matt and a whole bunch of other liberal media types over to the site of one of these attacks, stick a camera in their hands and make them take pictures to bring back to the US and UN and show what is really happening and what these Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are doing.

In this instance we have to let the terrorists kill the innocent and we need to get this story out to the world and wipe their noses in it.
 
The media, and the public, are just idiots. Particularly the Muslim public, as far as I can tell. They go rampaging and rioting if someone so much as draws a cartoon of "the prophet", they demonize the US soldiers, but meanwhile, the Islamic terrorists are slaughtering people by the thousands, gassing them, blowing up schools and groups of children, and they don't even rate a peep.

It is the most sickening thing I have ever seen, it's almost like the Muslims are some kind of Zombies.
 
FPrice said:
No matter what some arm-chair commandos might tell you, the use of nuclear weapons as a retalitory measure is not the best option. We would have to include a lot of friendly people in the casualties.
Click to expand...

Funny, that didn't stop Truman from doing it, and that act ended the war!
 
Adam_MA said:
Funny, that didn't stop Truman from doing it, and that act ended the war!
Click to expand...

My comment was directed to the scenario at hand and not a world war where it was used against a country which we were at war against. We are not at war with Iraq - the war is against terrorists who have infiltrated the country.

Using a nuclear weapon in this instance is kinda like buring your house (no let's make that your neighbor's house) down because they have cockroaches. It might work but the consequences are way out of line with the intended target.
 
So, to end the war, it was acceptable to bomb 2 non military, non combatant targets, but collateral damage by taking out the enemy is not acceptable?
 
The old double standard. We use smoke grenades and the libs and islamist apologists scream "chemical weapons." They use chlorine gas (aka, phosgene) and the libs and apologists are silent.
 
FPrice said:
My comment was directed to the scenario at hand and not a world war where it was used against a country which we were at war against. We are not at war with Iraq - the war is against terrorists who have infiltrated the country.

Using a nuclear weapon in this instance is kinda like buring your house (no let's make that your neighbor's house) down because they have cockroaches. It might work but the consequences are way out of line with the intended target.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that a nuke would be a bad thing? [shocked]
I've always like them. [smile]
 
Who are we going to nuke? I'm all for erasing a country that happens
to be screwing with us, but you'd have to have nuclear winter over about
half the earth if you want to deal with the "fundamentalist problem" in that
manner.

IMO Iraq will be "won" whenever someone decides they're going to get
tired. And waiting out the fundies is going to be pretty expensive.

The problem with this terrorism shit, is WTF do we do? About the only thing
I can think of that is a good long term plan is to build up an incredibly
large foreign intelligence apparatus; the only way to stop these attacks is
to know that they are coming ahead of time. The problem with this approach
is that because it doesn't yield short term results people get
cranky and underfund it; because they think every solution is a pushbutton
ez bake oven deal.

-Mike
 
Mike,

You are defintely on the right track there. Some problems can be resolved by a nuke, some can't.

True strategic genius lies (partly at least) in knowing the difference.
 
I originally posted this out of frustration and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but after reading the replies, I started thinking seriously about how nuclear weapons could be deployed to achieve a tactical end.

One thing that occurs to me (and there would be more with further contemplation) is the following:
A known insurgent stronghold is identified
The area is ringed with concentrated firepower
UAVs are used to monitor the area and everyone leaving is subjected to detainment and interrogation
The target area is swept for hold-outs and said hold-outs are detained and interrogated
Coalition forces pull back to cordon the area and provide security
Atomic mining charges are placed to cause sufficiently large earth tremors to effectively destroy all structures
Coalition forces are pulled back to safe areas and the charges are detonated.

Is it perfect? No! But I came up with this with about 20 minutes effort and no other input. Given the present knowledge of nuclear weapons available (my in-depth knowledge is 12 years old) I'm sure it could be improved tremendously.

Might there be some collateral damage? Certainly.

Is this the "best" response? Probaly not, but it is a response.

Are we responding efectivly now? What do you think?

Will the rest of the world hate us? They already do.

Will it give potential enemies pause? You betcha!

Will it be worth it? I leave that to your own minds and hearts.
 
FPrice said:
My comment was directed to the scenario at hand and not a world war where it was used against a country which we were at war against. We are not at war with Iraq - the war is against terrorists who have infiltrated the country.
Click to expand...

Look at the history of Iraq, terrorists never infiltrated the country. Our definition of terrorism is the normal life of their country. Thousands of years of bloodshed, dictators, mass violence towards other tribes, and the innocents that are forced to follow. Also gotta love their leader system just over the past century. Wanna be a leader of Iraq? Get a simple position, gain favor, and kill, "mysterious death", etc the leader. After that just wait for your turn to get the knife in the back.

Dropping a nuke on Iraq solves nothing. You only make other countries look at the US as a tyrant and a threat. More and more countries will produce WMDs and their reason is simple, not counting WWII for the simple fact it was a massive takeover/invasion war. The US used them as a defensive measure/tactical threat in the cold war against Russia. Now they actually deployed them against "conflicted" and "helpless" countries in the eyes of other countries and must build their own to protect themselves from the US.

my 2 cents
 
I originally posted this out of frustration and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but after reading the replies, I started thinking seriously about how nuclear weapons could be deployed to achieve a tactical end.
Click to expand...

The problem with this line of thinking is that you are selecting a weapon and then trying to mold circumstances to support the use of that weapon.

Kinda bass-ackwards at best.

A better method is to look at the scenario and then choose a weapon which fits the tactical, strategic, and political requirements and considerations.
 
A nuke would be no good cuz we wouldnt be able to go in afterwards to secure all the oil

we need to napalm the shit out of them...ever hear of a muslim smore?

burn the lil bastards out...scorch everything...oil is still safe for us
 
FPrice said:
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are selecting a weapon and then trying to mold circumstances to support the use of that weapon.

Kinda bass-ackwards at best.

A better method is to look at the scenario and then choose a weapon which fits the tactical, strategic, and political requirements and considerations.
Click to expand...

Of course, but based on my follow-up to replies, that was the premise. Not how to best acomplish a goal, but how to best employ a nuke.
 
Back
Top Bottom