by Trauma_Hound 64 Replies latest jw friends
They (the US) have got nuclear mini-bombs since MANY years. Soviet Union already had it (nuke in a suit-case, didnt you hear of? Read the technology magazines!)What they are going NOW is to develope nukes with extremely low radioactive fall-out. Thats all.
so? what is your point?
PS: by the way...where in germany are you? were you a witness?
Edited by - realist on 7 February 2003 7:32:10
Edited by - realist on 7 February 2003 7:40:14
@realist.
Yes I am. Undisfellowshipped;-)
ohhh you are an active JW????????
you can'T reveal your location because of that?
Yes, I`m living in South Georgia, because of this;-) Un-habitated island, only sea-elephants and pinguins... Very boring;-)
E.
There is an expresion in my country:PEOPLE GET THE LEADERSHIP THAT THEY DESERVE
Dont' be an ass, justhuman. Contribute if you have something to contribute.
I agree with all you guys.....this is scary. What balls bush has!
ash
Senator Edward Kennedy is not my choice for "man of the year", but here he makes alot of sense.
Our Nuclear Talk Gravely Imperils Us"
Senator Edward Kennedy
Los Angeles Times - January 29, 2003
Notion of a first-strike use in Iraq carries the seed of world disaster.
A dangerous world just grew more dangerous. Reports that the administration is contemplating the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in Iraq should set off alarm bells that this could not only be the wrong war at the wrong time, but it could quickly spin out of control.
Initiating the use of nuclear weapons would make a conflict with Iraq potentially catastrophic.
President Bush had an opportunity Tuesday night to explain why he believes such a radical departure from long-standing policy is justified or necessary. At the very minimum, a change of this magnitude should be brought to Congress for debate before the U.S. goes to war with Iraq.
The reports of a preemptive nuclear strike are consistent with the extreme views outlined a year ago in President Bush's Nuclear Posture Review and with the administration's disdain for long-standing norms of international behavior.
According to these reports, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has directed the U.S. Strategic Command to develop plans for employing nuclear weapons in a wide range of new missions, including possible use in Iraq to destroy underground bunkers.
Using the nation's nuclear arsenal in this unprecedented way would be the most fateful decision since the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. Even contemplating the first-strike use of nuclear weapons under current circumstances and against a non-nuclear nation dangerously blurs the crucial and historical distinction between conventional and nuclear arms. In the case of Iraq, it is preposterous.
Nuclear weapons are in a class of their own for good reasons-their unique destructive power and their capacity to threaten the very survival of humanity. They have been kept separate from other military alternatives out of a profound commitment to do all we can to see they are never used again. They should be employed only in the most dire circumstances-for example, if the existence of our nation is threatened. It makes no sense to break down the firewall that has existed for half a century between nuclear conflict and any other form of warfare.
A nuclear bomb is not just another item in the arsenal.
Our military is the most powerful fighting force in the world. We can fight and win a war in Iraq with precision bombing and sophisticated new conventional weapons. The president has not made a case that the threat to our national security from Iraq is so imminent that we even need to go to war-let alone let the nuclear genie out of the bottle.
By raising the possibility that nuclear weapons could be part of a first strike against Iraq, the administration is only enhancing its reputation as a reckless unilateralist in the world community-a reputation that ultimately weakens our own security. The nuclear threat will further alienate our allies, most of whom remain unconvinced of the need for war with Iraq. It is fundamentally contrary to our national interests to further strain relationships that are essential to win the war against terrorism and to advance our ideals in the world.
This policy also deepens the danger of nuclear proliferation by, in effect, telling non-nuclear states that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter a potential U.S. attack and by sending a green light to the world's nuclear states that it is permissible to use them. Is this the lesson we want to send to North Korea, Pakistan and India or any other nuclear power?
The use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in the absence of an imminent, overwhelming threat to our national security would bring a near-total breakdown in relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world. At a minimum, it would lead to a massive rise in anti-Americanism in the Arab world and a corresponding increase in ympathy for terrorists who seek to do us harm. Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression.
In the introduction to his national security strategy last fall, the president declared: "The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology." On that he was surely right -- and the administration's radical consideration of the possible use of our nuclear arsenal against Iraq is itself a grave danger to our national interests, our nation and all that America stands for.
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy represents Massachusetts.
More on nuclear weapons policy
I think that Saddam's regime must go. But, to use any type of nuke is just plain madness. Please, not again! Haven't we learned anything from the horrors of the past?
Mrs. Shakita
I'll tell you, if we use a nuke of any kind, we're all dead, because every country in the world would turn against us. China is just waiting for an excuse to nuke us. North Korea wont nuke us, but you had better believe that they would sell a few nukes to bin laden.
Using nukes, hell, even TALKING about using nukes is madness.
ash
I am for using nukes, when it is the last resort. I am afraid that Mini nukes will not be used in last resort in this conflict.
The US had all these WMD since years and never took advantage of other countries with them. Now our own survival is at stake. The time has come to use them because we may not survive without them.
JH,
The US had all these WMD since years and never took advantage of other countries with them. Now our own survival is at stake. The time has come to use them because we may not survive without them.
??????????? i am tempted to ask if you are insane! HOW IS THE SURVIVAL OF THE US THREATENED????
With satelite photos the US governement knows where potential dangers are around the world. Like the nuclear reactor in N.Korea which could be used to make nuclear bombs for terrorists.
That is a big problem for us and the world. The governement doesn't tell us all the dangers, because it could cause chaos.
I am just telling you in advance, what will happen. I am not a prophet, but I can see that nukes will be used. Can't you?
Yes our survival is at stake
I am for using nukes, when it is the last resort. That is far from being insane. They were used in 1945 and that was brilliant. It saved many lives, and it will save even more.
Edited by - jh on 7 February 2003 9:17:51
