If an atomic bomb blew up in New York the bomb plus the radiation would cause enough damage and kill enough people providing enough trauma for the economy that we would probably never recover. Though it’s not as scary as what it was back in the days of Soviet Russia there’s still concern as countries like north korea has already developed bombs that go for 100’s of miles.
There would be no need for nukes in a takeover of any of those countries. A pre-emptive strike would be patriot missles taking out all of their nuke facilities (which wouldn’t be a nuclear explosion, though messy). Nukes wipe out a huge civilian population and the US has plenty of precision equipment to take out only the necessary targets (provided that their operators are competant).
This is precisely why I think the US is the most dangerous of all. We have Bush to thank for making pre-emptive strikes on countries that “may or may not” have nuclear facilities a viable option in war. In truth: it’s a convenient way to start a war, and blame somebody else for starting it. (Ever punched a kid in the school yard just because he looked at you fuuny? Well this is the same thing, only with Nukes) If Australia had a stockpile of Nuclear weapons, and Howard gets re-elected, he’d want to do the same thing: already he’s trying to get Indonesia to let him make pre-emptive strikes in their country against possible terrorists threats. Indonesia has flipped him the bird.
Sure, there’s plenty of precision equipment - there has been since Gulf War I, but every time I hear on the news that this equipment has been used, I hear that the US has hit a civilian target.
Sure it’s going on all the time: I believe the terrorists have won their war, because we all now live in fear of being a suspect. And it won’t be long until one of our own weapons are pointed directly at us.
Mike Moore (whether you believe his side of things or not) stated one pretty true thing in his book “Dude, where my country?” And that was this: The Bush administration has passed the US PATRIOT act, which gives US intellegence the RIGHT to scan civilian email, credit card movements, purchase records and internet use just in case a terrorist may be planning an attack. The claim for drafting this bill was that the senate was simply “ammending existing laws” so that they could have greater access to peronal information. Moore claimed (and with this point I at least agree) that no terrorist would use a system that can be monitored, they would not use a credit card to buy and sell Nuclear weapons, and they would not leave a paper trail. Under this system, only “suspected” terrorists can be caught. Therefore, the only people our authorities can fear are us.
You can check out these following links (I have tried to be as fair as possible here, because both contain biases of both sides)
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/u/s/USA_PATRIOT_Act.html
Governments around the world won’t take too long to draft similar laws in their own countries. I pray it is a long time before good old Oz Down Under sucumbs to such worthless regulations. Now I’m not anti-US, just against any legislation that sets a bad example for the rest of the world. This legislation is using the same techniques as the war on drugs. What keeps the war on drugs going is that the government will ALWAYS catch people with drugs - they need to show they are doing SOMETHING. Unfortunately, those people are either users, or those forced into growing crops because they have no other way of making enough money to survive (watch Traffic, or any documantary on the war on drugs). The dealers, the pushers, the landlords who own the plantations never get caught because they are trading with dirty money, and dealing under the table. This legislation will GUARANTEE the US government will find terrorists, but they will be looking in all the wrong places. I am afraid that the world will come to the point when we have to do SOMETHING about terrorism, because terrorist activities will still be occuring, but only place we can point the nuke is the place where we are gathering proof: Ourselves!
Your analogy (the kid on the playground) is more akin to using precision weapons. The kid is not permanently harmed although he is forced to submission. Nuclear weapons would be more like a kid pulling out a knife or a gun and making the other kid a casualty, whereis there is permanent, long-lasting and significant damage.
No matter what you say, I’m not going to believe that the US would pre-empt a nuclear strike. It just isn’t reasonable, for too many reasons to name. You’re going off on a tangent with the Mike Moore stuff, and though I agree, it’s irrelevant to you claiming that the US would use nukes (though now you seem to be leaning toward “conventional weapons are still scary?”).
Other countries could easily make their own missles at a much MUCH lower cost than what the US pays. Check it out. (Alltaken, you might be interested in this, since the guy is in NZ and your government is suppressing him!)
No country is gonna nuke any other country. As dumb as people are, they’re too smart for that. That would incur the wrath of nearly every country.
I have to agree shbaz against Paul_C. Bush isn’t going to nuke anyone. That’s big leap from invasion. Invasion says you got something we want; nuke says we want you dead.
I’m not so sure about the threat of Israel. They got a lot of people hating them for one reason or another. They don’t need to throw nukes in the mix.
That’s what I think.
If they do use nukes there’s also risks they’ll try to use them in their own country. And if they do they’ll rip themselves to shreds. :-?
I apologize guys, if I’ve seemed a little paranoid. Don’t mean to make this a big deal. It’s disconcerting, the threat of nuclear war, and yes, I would agree with you, shbaz, I am making a case more akin to precision weapons rather than nukes… but maybe it’s cos I am an animator (and video editor by trade). Does anyone here remember the Itchy and Scratchy skit on the simpsons where itchy pulls a gun on scratchy; scratchy pulls a bigger gun on itchy, itchy pulls an even BIGGER gun on scratchy… until we zoom out to show each of their guns are almost as big as the world? Well, sometimes I fear that isn’t too far from the truth. We’ll start off wars with tactical missiles with low yeild blasts, ground forces, air attacks, but how long can you give a war before it goes Nuclear?
shbaz, thanks for the correction on the analogy. You made a valid point. All I wanted to say was that politics these days (it seems to me, anyway) are just playground disputes with really BIG guns. And USA has the biggest of them all.
You’re going off on a tangent with the Mike Moore stuff, and though I agree, it’s irrelevant to you claiming that the US would use nukes (though now you seem to be leaning toward “conventional weapons are still scary?”).
I don’t agree that this is off topic - I just wanted to state my case as to why I believe the US may be the instigators in such a war - it’s all well and good to say “they’ll push the button first” but not unless you can say why they would. You’re right: it is highly unlikely, but I pray to god ANY nuclear attack from any faction or nation is too.
This next comment IS off the topic, but I hope you guys’ll pardon the digression: It’s so nice to have a civil debate on such an issue. Maybe it’s because we’re animators. Search the net, and other forums aren’t so nice. 
Search these forums and you’ll find some not-so-nice ones too. Some as recent as, oh, a few days ago. 
Goddamn it, Shbaz! Why do you have to contradict me all the time? searches for big red button on desk Scratch the US being a threat, the republic of Paul_C shall be the first to spark Nuclear war! BWAHAHAHA!
Just kiddn’ dude. Know what you mean.
The pros and cons of the Politically Incorrect War agaisnt Iraq (correct me if I’m wrong on historical facts [except for the finding of the chemical weapon, I’m 100% sure about that]):
Cons:
–It’s against world peace.
–Diplomacy should always be used, especially agaisnt thuggish dictators who coudln’t care less, and who kills millions of his own people without a second thought.
–It scares the heck out of everyone else.
–Franch and Russia can’t make tons of money selling weapons to Iraq anymore.
Pros:
–Suddam had ties to terrorists.
–Suddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, of which we did find a few chemical agents. He certainly had time to get rid of all the big stuff.
–Suddam clearly had amibitions to conquer the rest of the middle-eastern contries. A man of his nature controlling the worlds supply of energy (literally) could be devestating and cause World War 3.
–Iraq had a huge war machine, and was continually increasing it. Peace was NOT on Suddam’s mind, most definately.
(Ever punched a kid in the school yard just because he looked at you fuuny? Well this is the same thing, only with Nukes) If Australia had a stockpile of Nuclear weapons, and Howard gets re-elected, he’d want to do the same thing: already he’s trying to get Indonesia to let him make pre-emptive strikes in their country against possible terrorists threats. Indonesia has flipped him the bird.
Those of you who live in the U.S. knows that that is impossible. Why? Freedom. The president wouldn’t last in his office for ten minutes after doing such a thing. Our country is divided between the Democrats and the Republicans, both of whom hate the other with a passion. Congress could not allow nuclear stikes like what you’re saying, because it simply isn’t possible with the current political structure of our country, unless we were attacked first.
And if Bush launched a nuclear strike without the support of Congress? Well, he could become the first president to be stoned by Congress. Heck, employees of the White House could turn on him!
Sure, there’s plenty of precision equipment - there has been since Gulf War I, but every time I hear on the news that this equipment has been used, I hear that the US has hit a civilian target.
Not true. Hitting civilian targets is a risk in any war, due to the possibilty of faulty intelligence, but it doesn’t happen that often (it’s the news media. . .sigh they only report bad news). The U.S. has spent tens of millions of dollars developing precision-weapons that would protect civilians by causing no collateral damage, thus destroying only their targets and nothing else.
Sure it’s going on all the time: I believe the terrorists have won their war, because we all now live in fear of being a suspect. And it won’t be long until one of our own weapons are pointed directly at us.
The whole goal of the the terrorists is to KILL US! And not just the U.S. of A, but all the free world! There goal is mass murder. They don’t do what they do to get what they want, they do it for the sake of killing innocent people. And it’s just rediculis to fear being a suspect, unless you have past history with terrorism, even if it was extreamly indirect (like the case of that one singer).
Mike Moore (whether you believe his side of things or not) stated one pretty true thing in his book “Dude, where my country?” And that was this: The Bush administration has passed the US PATRIOT act, which gives US intellegence the RIGHT to scan civilian email, credit card movements, purchase records and internet use just in case a terrorist may be planning an attack. The claim for drafting this bill was that the senate was simply “ammending existing laws” so that they could have greater access to peronal information. Moore claimed (and with this point I at least agree) that no terrorist would use a system that can be monitored, they would not use a credit card to buy and sell Nuclear weapons, and they would not leave a paper trail. Under this system, only “suspected” terrorists can be caught. Therefore, the only people our authorities can fear are us.
Not true. The terrorists DO have websites, you know. And I believe the FBI was scanning email addresses before the patriot act. Not a comfortable idea, though. I have to admit I don’t like it either.
joeedh
I will correct you on these points if needed, tho I think you are at least %90 correct:
Cons:
–It’s against world peace.
–Diplomacy should always be used, especially agaisnt thuggish dictators who coudln’t care less, and who kills millions of his own people without a second thought.
Morally true, but history incorrect. Historically, it should only be used when thuggish dictators the US government has installed suddenly get too big for their boots. This is what happened with Saddam.
–It scares the heck out of everyone else.
–Franch and Russia can’t make tons of money selling weapons to Iraq anymore.
Hahaha! Probably true, also, although France admitted that the "coalition of the willing entered into Iraq on false pretenses, so pulled out.
Pros:
–Suddam had ties to terrorists.
Yes, but not the ones GW Bush thought. Iraq and Afghanistan HATED each other, because the Taliban believed Saddam was a pussy when it came to religion. In fact, he wasn’t quite despotic enough. They would call other taliban sissy-boys “Saddam” like the US calls people French, now.
–Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, of which we did find a few chemical agents. He certainly had time to get rid of all the big stuff.
This has yet to be proven, and I would go as far as saying you are incorrect. Yes, Iraq had weapons, but as far as has been decided, no nuclear weapons, and no “mobile weapons facilities” that Rumsfeld claimed were “in the north, the east, south… around the general area”.
–Suddam clearly had amibitions to conquer the rest of the middle-eastern contries. A man of his nature controlling the worlds supply of energy (literally) could be devestating and cause World War 3.
–Iraq had a huge war machine, and was continually increasing it. Peace was NOT on Suddam’s mind, most definately.
This was why the US needed an excuse to remove him from power. He was installed by the US because he could keep Iraq in check, and allow the kind of trade that was good for the US, but when he wanted more, the US said “uhuh, we know you’re a monster, but that’s just waaaay too monsterous, even for us.” Unfortunately for Saddam, he didn’t have a good record when it came to looking after his people. So it was easy to say 'Saddam was a bad man". But the point of going into Iraq was NOT to overthrow Saddam’s regime - which is illegal by UN law - but to find and distroy the WMDs. When nobody found any, the bombing had already begun, and the reason for going into Iraq changed to “Saddam had to go”.
Congress could not allow nuclear stikes like what you’re saying, because it simply isn’t possible with the current political structure of our country, unless we were attacked first.
Which is why somebody like Bush would point the finger, shoot, and then cry “He started it!” I don’t think this is unlikely, and I pray that freedom prevails.
And if Bush launched a nuclear strike without the support of Congress? Well, he could become the first president to be stoned by Congress. Heck, employees of the White House could turn on him!
Wouldn’t I love to see that? If he gets re-elected, this just might happen.
Not true. Hitting civilian targets is a risk in any war, due to the possibilty of faulty intelligence, but it doesn’t happen that often (it’s the news media. . .sigh they only report bad news).
I agree, 100% - news reports bad news: if it bleeds, it leads. But for such “smart” bombs, you can’t argue that there have been a heck of a lot of civilian casualties. I don’t believe the news is repeating itself every time there is one. Smart missiles were created to lessen the risks, weren’t they?
On the other hand, media “spin” has given the impression that US missiles are “friendly” missiles. They walk little old ladies across the street, trip up that guy who stole your purse, and sometimes bring in your paper from the porch. (okay, I exagerate, but I hate to be really REALLY serious)
The whole goal of the the terrorists is to KILL US! And not just the U.S. of A, but all the free world! There goal is mass murder. They don’t do what they do to get what they want, they do it for the sake of killing innocent people.
Weeeeeellll… no. The birth of terrorism I was once told, was at the end of WW2, when the USA gave Palestine to Israel. Most terrorists are anti-American because they believe they are fighting to restore the land to the rightful Palestinian owners. The only way they see fit to be heard is to attack the US and its allies until the problem is fixed. The killing of innocents is an atrocity, and they know it, but many come from countries where such atrocities occur every day. Mass extermination is not the goal - the return of Palestine to the Palestinians in the goal.
Not true. The terrorists DO have websites, you know. And I believe the FBI was scanning email addresses before the patriot act. Not a comfortable idea, though. I have to admit I don’t like it either.
Their websites (and I checked them out) is to promote their cause. The only ones the FBI and CIA will catch are the ISPs.
you know it is funny though (about the email scanning and stuff) there is no constitutional promise of privacy to my knowlege. And as long as you are doing nothing wrong it shouldn’t be a problem.
in the history of the world,
The US is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons in agression
its plain and simple. by track record, the US is the most dangerous.
Alltaken
I’m 100% about the chemical weapons, it was on the news a few months back (although naturally the big liberal news stations barely reported it. . .). Apparently they found some kind of explosive device that mixes these two chemicals together, forming a mist. One drop of this mist is supposed to be enough to kill you–and I believe they found quite a lot of these explosives.
The only reason why the Iraq terrorists didn’t really protect or use them is because they thought they were normal explosives.
joeedh
This was why the US needed an excuse to remove him from power. He was installed by the US because he could keep Iraq in check, and allow the kind of trade that was good for the US, but when he wanted more, the US said “uhuh, we know you’re a monster, but that’s just waaaay too monsterous, even for us.” Unfortunately for Saddam, he didn’t have a good record when it came to looking after his people. So it was easy to say 'Saddam was a bad man". But the point of going into Iraq was NOT to overthrow Saddam’s regime - which is illegal by UN law - but to find and distroy the WMDs. When nobody found any, the bombing had already begun, and the reason for going into Iraq changed to “Saddam had to go”
Yeah, I have to agree with you there. But didn’t they find something like a WMD, but comepletely cleaned out? I remember hearing that on the news during the war.
[quote]Congress could not allow nuclear stikes like what you’re saying, because it simply isn’t possible with the current political structure of our country, unless we were attacked first.
Which is why somebody like Bush would point the finger, shoot, and then cry “He started it!” I don’t think this is unlikely, and I pray that freedom prevails.[/quote]
Wouldn’t work. He would still be impeached within minutes, so Congress could try him for treason quicker :P.
[quote]And if Bush launched a nuclear strike without the support of Congress? Well, he could become the first president to be stoned by Congress. Heck, employees of the White House could turn on him!
Wouldn’t I love to see that? If he gets re-elected, this just might happen.[/quote]
I actually like Bush, though. . .I mean, I live near a nice news-talk radio station where the people are kind enough to not have giant egos and extreme liberal biases coughdanrathercough. . .so I get a different picture. . .
Weeeeeellll… no. The birth of terrorism I was once told, was at the end of WW2, when the USA gave Palestine to Israel. Most terrorists are anti-American because they believe they are fighting to restore the land to the rightful Palestinian owners. The only way they see fit to be heard is to attack the US and its allies until the problem is fixed. The killing of innocents is an atrocity, and they know it, but many come from countries where such atrocities occur every day. Mass extermination is not the goal - the return of Palestine to the Palestinians in the goal.
If so, then why attack the World Trade Center? Why not a football stadium, where you could get more kills probably more easily? The World Trade Center was an internationall office, and I remember hearing that a great deal of the people who were killed there were not actually American.
Or perhaps not. I’ll have to do some research on that. . .
For that matter: Trust nothing I say until I do more research.
joeedh
We used them in defense. Japan attack US first. Pearl Harbor is considered second to the World Trade Center attack. The Japanese were in the middle of their Samauri thing, and it was decided that the cost of invading Japan was simply too high. A lot more Japanese would have died if we had invaded.
LOL, “Japan attacked US” can be read two ways, can’t it.
joeedh
The only reason why the Iraq terrorists didn’t really protect or use them is because they thought they were normal explosives.
Iraq Terrorists? Cor blimey mate, there were Iraq terrorists with WMD who didn’t know they were WMD? Did you tell Bush and Powell?
%<
n the history of the world,
The US is the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons in agression
its plain and simple. by track record, the US is the most dangerous.
You don’t live in America, so I don’t think you really understand the situation. We are not nuking anyone. After Japan, for nearly 60 years, no nuking has occured. We might as well attack Italy for once being the seat of the Roman Empire who went on vast campaigns of invasion. And let’s go ahead and attack Germany over the Nazi thing again.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA actuallly went and ‘‘liberated’’ italy and germany
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=real_hussein_2&preplay=1
hehe
There are simple too many nukes for one not to explode eventually by accident or otherwise…
A nuclear explosion in any country will cause instant nuclear responce from that country or that country’s ally.
A nuclear responce equals a nuclear responce.
And cancels out the Mutualy Assured Distruction rule that’s been keeping us safe all these years.
Thus spelling the end of the world. It’s not a question of if, but of when.
Oh, and I voted for China 
We used them in defense. Japan attack US first. Pearl Harbor is considered second to the World Trade Center attack. The Japanese were in the middle of their Samauri thing, and it was decided that the cost of invading Japan was simply too high. A lot more Japanese would have died if we had invaded.
LOL, “Japan attacked US” can be read two ways, can’t it.
joeedh[/quote]
I agree with alltaken that the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on another country.
a couple things here though.
People seem to think of the A-bombs as atrocites for the large amounts of destruction and death that they caused.
This is probably known, but US firebombing of Japanese cities (what they were doing before the dropped the A-Bombs) caused just as much destruction and just as much death (sometimes more) as nuclear weapons (60-90% destruction). In fact, I defy most people to compare pictures of firebombed cities and Hiroshima/Nagasaki and be able to tell the diifference. Probably less people died on the day of the A-bombs than a normal firebombing raid.
I am in no way excusing either, they’re both horrible, horrible, things, I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t that much more destructive than what the US was doing already.
in addition, many of the Japanese military were fanatic and would not have surrendered. Many, many more people, on both sides, would have died. Actually, there was an attempted coup de’ta (sp?) in the Japanese military that tried to prevent the surrender, taking the emperor hostage to prevent the surrender message from getting out.
I also don’t think that necessarily equates to the US being the biggest nuclear threat. What reason does it have for actually using one? Its conventional military is strong enough for anything it wants to do really and the use of a nuclear weapon would pretty much turn the entire world against it (as if it wasn’t becoming that way anyways). Besides which, the war is over and past. don’t forget it by any means, but thinking the US is likely to nuke another country because it used them, in a time of actual war (not this quasi-war we’re in now), against a concrete enemy, is way out of context.
Lastly, a possible controversial point. I don’t think the US is going to be at the top of the World for that much longer. I think that the “center of the world” or whatever you want to call it has a chance of moving to (or should I say moving back to) Asia. Not to say US will cease to be a superpower, it’ll just have to share. in the purely economical sense, Asian countries are rising in global GDP. As they modernize and industrialize, there is truly a potential for huge growth in influence. Historically speaking, Asian countries, esp. China, has held dominance in GDP and power for the greater part of Human history, greater than any of the Western Empires. The period in which the West/US has held dominance is actually relatively very short and slipping. In fact, if you look at the charts, it literally appears like a temporary dip in Asian influence.
Of course, charts and economic projections aren’t everything. Even given that, there are other patterns. Why did China fall behind the West? one argument is that it was too good, too early in its history, it was precocious. They were so far advanced past anything in the west, (seriously, the chinese fleet was several times larger than the entire continent of Europe would see for centuries, and their ships at least three times as large. If they had wanted, they could have easily expanded and dominated the West). However, being so far advanced, it decided it needed nothing from the World and was content where it was. The entire fleet I just mentioned, poised to spread out over the world, was grounded and dismantled. china turned inwards, and thus it fell behind.
We can actually see some of those same patterns happening in the US. Only 200-300 years after its creation, it has risen to global dominance. Looking around though (I live in the US), its really easy to see that same subconscious arrogance though. Most in the US don’t know squat about other countries and global issues, some don’t care too (not everyone is like this obviously, but a lot are).
Another corollary. there is a general trend in how governments rise and fall. In China it has a formal name, dynastic cycles, and though its not quite as prominent in other places, there are parallels. New governments come in with strong leaders and popular support. not to say that trying things don’t happen, but the country progresses. However, as time goes by, the power spreads out and becomes more beurocratic. Leaders, in general, start becoming weaker. The government starts to become more ineffectual and or the people begin to percieve it this way (I know about the silent majority but there really is a growing amount of people who think something like this). If you look at it, you might consider it to be like what the US is going through right now. Obviously, the parallel isn’t perfect as the situation is different, however it is interesting to note.
back on to nuclear threats, I wouldn’t discard India and Pakistan. I think nuclear conflict there might actually be more likely that fron North korea and definitely the US.
btw, for context, I’m a Korean American living in the US (my parents are both 100% Korean). I don’t consider myself Korean, but at the same time I wouldn’t consider myself American.
I have more to say but this post is getting really long. I’m just going to hope I made my ideas clear because i’m not particularly in the mood to obsessively proofread what I just wrote.
have a nice day 