I am so fucking sick and tired of every discussion about nuclear weapons devolving into "the US is the only country to have ever used them." Is that the best argument you people can come up with?
It was a different time. We were in the middle of a World War that cost millions of lives. And Japan started it in the Pacific. Do I need to remind the people who always feel the need to point out that the US used nukes first that in WWII, Japan started it? They did a sneak attack on the US. So the US ended it after a brutal and costly campaign of retaking all the islands that Japan had conquered.
Whether or not using the bombs on Japan saved a million US soldiers' lives that would have been lost by invading Japan is debatable. But the bombs wouldn't have been dropped on Japan at all had they not taken over the entire Pacific and parts of Asia and attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. It was Japan's own fault and IMHO El Presidente was wrong to apologize for it.
Now on to Iran - I just don't understand how anyone other than a radical muslem could argue that Iran should have atomic bombs. They have openly stated their desire to use them to wipe another country off the face of the Earth. And do you really want the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world to have nukes?? Irans targets wouldn't just be the two countries most of you on here despise the most - Israel and the US...but also most Western European countries too - any country populated by infidels. You supporters of an Iranian bomb must be crazy. Would you also be comfortable with a coup in Pakistan resulting in Taliban control of its nuclear weapons? If you answer yes you're either a radical muslem or you are stupid. Because if that were to happen I guarantee you that not long after Indian MIRVS will be launched and the sites where Pakistani missiles and bombs are stored will be destroyed. So do you really want a regional nuclear war??
These arguments as to why there is a second ammendment will never end. Youll believe what you want to believe and so will I.
In reality it was designed to be a check against tyrany from taking hold in the US.
You can clean it a million times but if we ever get hit by an EMP - arguably the time when you would need the weapon to protect you the most - it woukd more than likely be useless unless you store it in a faraday cage.
Or get this - maybe the govt puts a kill switch in it....and when and if they ever go all the way and repeal the 2nd ammendment, like my home state of CT is in the process of doing, all the "smart" guns could be rendered useless.
I don't know if having a remote kill switch in it is even possible but I'm just speculating here.
I don't like this idea at all.
It would be one of the dumbest moves in the history of the world if the US were to unilaterally cut their warheads to 400, leaving China with 400 + and Russia with 5000+. Overnight the balance of power in the world would be changed, and it would actually make the world a much more dangerous place.
Imagine a scenario where Obama unilaterally cuts US warheads to 200. Everyone will agree that 200 is a huge number of warheads, able to destroy any country on the face of the Earth.
Now imagine a scenario where China and Russia make an agreement to each launch 200 warheads against the US. In a situation like this, the US will be unable to respond in kind. Obviously the US would want to launch at least a similar attack against China and Russia - but there is absolutely no possible way that would be possible. Nuclear strategy dictates holding some of your arsenal back to attack targets after bomb damage assessment, as well as for some sort of future deterrence. Yet how would the US respond? Lets say they decide to allocate 100 of their 200 warheads for a counter-attack, 50 for China and 50 for Russia, while holding the remaining 100 warheads for a future deterrent. As you can see, the power of the United States' traditionally large nuclear arsenal to provide deterrence will be eliminated with the unilateral warhead reductions. Not only would the US be unable to inflict as much damage on its adversaries, but it would forever be at the mercy of countries with larger arsenals. While a large arsenal will prevent any country from launching an attack due to the certainty of an overwhelming response, an arsenal of say 200 warheads provides no deterrence for countries with larger arsenals than the US would have.
Another scary scenario following massive US unilateral warhead cuts is what would happen if China or Russia was able to develop and deploy an effective missile defense program. A large deterrent force would be hard to defend against; but what if China or Russia believed their missile defense shield would be able to stop most or all of the US missiles? Once again the US would be fucked.
So as you can see, the power of our arsenal providing a deterrence will be destroyed with the massive unilateral cuts that Obama wants. Instead of providing a peaceful utopia like Obama dreams of , instead it would actually make the world much more dangerous, especially for the US.
And what amazes me is his timing. Russia is currently developing new missile subs; improving their missiles etc. Even worse, they have resumed long range nuclear armed bomber flights - circling Guam and flying off of California and Alaska. And their rhetoric towards the US has deteriorated in recent years (Im not saying this is or is not warranted). And China has spent the past 20 years modernizing their military...and is engaging the US in a cyber war. Yet the Obama admin wants to unilaterally cut US warheads now.
Prior to Obamas state of the union address, the New York Times published an article detailing how the president planned to use the state of the union to announce his plans for huge unilateral cuts. This bothered me so much that I wrote a letter to one of my senators - Blumenthal - who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his lengthy reply, I was amazed that Blumenthal failed to mention Russia or China even once; instead he focused in Iran and North Korea. If all the US had to worry about were Iran and North Korea, then obviously the US does not need anywhere close to the number of warheads that it currently holds. But unfortunately Iran and North Korea are not the only countries that the US has to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
I am so fucking sick and tired of every discussion about nuclear weapons devolving into "the US is the only country to have ever used them." Is that the best argument you people can come up with? It was a different time. We were in the middle of a World War that cost millions of lives. And Japan started it in the Pacific. Do I need to remind the people who always feel the need to point out that the US used nukes first that in WWII, Japan started it? They did a sneak attack on the US. So the US ended it after a brutal and costly campaign of retaking all the islands that Japan had conquered. Whether or not using the bombs on Japan saved a million US soldiers' lives that would have been lost by invading Japan is debatable. But the bombs wouldn't have been dropped on Japan at all had they not taken over the entire Pacific and parts of Asia and attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. It was Japan's own fault and IMHO El Presidente was wrong to apologize for it. Now on to Iran - I just don't understand how anyone other than a radical muslem could argue that Iran should have atomic bombs. They have openly stated their desire to use them to wipe another country off the face of the Earth. And do you really want the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world to have nukes?? Irans targets wouldn't just be the two countries most of you on here despise the most - Israel and the US...but also most Western European countries too - any country populated by infidels. You supporters of an Iranian bomb must be crazy. Would you also be comfortable with a coup in Pakistan resulting in Taliban control of its nuclear weapons? If you answer yes you're either a radical muslem or you are stupid. Because if that were to happen I guarantee you that not long after Indian MIRVS will be launched and the sites where Pakistani missiles and bombs are stored will be destroyed. So do you really want a regional nuclear war??
These arguments as to why there is a second ammendment will never end. Youll believe what you want to believe and so will I. In reality it was designed to be a check against tyrany from taking hold in the US.
You can clean it a million times but if we ever get hit by an EMP - arguably the time when you would need the weapon to protect you the most - it woukd more than likely be useless unless you store it in a faraday cage. Or get this - maybe the govt puts a kill switch in it....and when and if they ever go all the way and repeal the 2nd ammendment, like my home state of CT is in the process of doing, all the "smart" guns could be rendered useless. I don't know if having a remote kill switch in it is even possible but I'm just speculating here. I don't like this idea at all.
I really want an electronic gun so if the USA is hit with an EMP my gun is useless. Give me a break.
It would be one of the dumbest moves in the history of the world if the US were to unilaterally cut their warheads to 400, leaving China with 400 + and Russia with 5000+. Overnight the balance of power in the world would be changed, and it would actually make the world a much more dangerous place. Imagine a scenario where Obama unilaterally cuts US warheads to 200. Everyone will agree that 200 is a huge number of warheads, able to destroy any country on the face of the Earth. Now imagine a scenario where China and Russia make an agreement to each launch 200 warheads against the US. In a situation like this, the US will be unable to respond in kind. Obviously the US would want to launch at least a similar attack against China and Russia - but there is absolutely no possible way that would be possible. Nuclear strategy dictates holding some of your arsenal back to attack targets after bomb damage assessment, as well as for some sort of future deterrence. Yet how would the US respond? Lets say they decide to allocate 100 of their 200 warheads for a counter-attack, 50 for China and 50 for Russia, while holding the remaining 100 warheads for a future deterrent. As you can see, the power of the United States' traditionally large nuclear arsenal to provide deterrence will be eliminated with the unilateral warhead reductions. Not only would the US be unable to inflict as much damage on its adversaries, but it would forever be at the mercy of countries with larger arsenals. While a large arsenal will prevent any country from launching an attack due to the certainty of an overwhelming response, an arsenal of say 200 warheads provides no deterrence for countries with larger arsenals than the US would have. Another scary scenario following massive US unilateral warhead cuts is what would happen if China or Russia was able to develop and deploy an effective missile defense program. A large deterrent force would be hard to defend against; but what if China or Russia believed their missile defense shield would be able to stop most or all of the US missiles? Once again the US would be fucked. So as you can see, the power of our arsenal providing a deterrence will be destroyed with the massive unilateral cuts that Obama wants. Instead of providing a peaceful utopia like Obama dreams of , instead it would actually make the world much more dangerous, especially for the US. And what amazes me is his timing. Russia is currently developing new missile subs; improving their missiles etc. Even worse, they have resumed long range nuclear armed bomber flights - circling Guam and flying off of California and Alaska. And their rhetoric towards the US has deteriorated in recent years (Im not saying this is or is not warranted). And China has spent the past 20 years modernizing their military...and is engaging the US in a cyber war. Yet the Obama admin wants to unilaterally cut US warheads now. Prior to Obamas state of the union address, the New York Times published an article detailing how the president planned to use the state of the union to announce his plans for huge unilateral cuts. This bothered me so much that I wrote a letter to one of my senators - Blumenthal - who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his lengthy reply, I was amazed that Blumenthal failed to mention Russia or China even once; instead he focused in Iran and North Korea. If all the US had to worry about were Iran and North Korea, then obviously the US does not need anywhere close to the number of warheads that it currently holds. But unfortunately Iran and North Korea are not the only countries that the US has to worry about.
http://www.solarstorms.org/CanadaPipelines.html I don't know if anyone else here has posted this link yet...