You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #11: When they do it first [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-14-07 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. When they do it first
That's about it. Not doing it after being nuked by a foreign power would set the stage for it to happen indefinately. Look how pardoning Nixon has led to the presidential crimes committed by Reagan, Bush41, and Bush43, with few held accountable.



Unless there was a military so powerful conventionally that we would be unable to resist sucessfully when they invaded us. That is hard to imagine, considering how well-armed our civilian population is, but it is possible.

The problem is that population centers feed the mechanisms of war. That is where the arms and equipment are made, where food and munitions are processed, stored, and shipped. Where the economy is managed, where the power plants are, where the administrative processes are performed.

Can you imagine how much our country would be screwed up in Chicago was nuked? Major land, sea, and air arteries flow through there. How would our food move around? How would manufactured products cross the country? Refined petroleum products?

Nuking a city attacks all of these things. Unfortunately, it also kills a hell of a lot of non-combatants.

Which is why you should not really do it if you don't have to. One of the reasons that so many civilians were bombed in World War Two was because the high-altitude bombers, the B-17s and B-24s and B-29s and Lancasters, only had accuracy of about a quarter-mile on a good day. Throw in marginal weather, German smokescreens, flak, and opposing enemy fighters and that could really make accurate bomb dropping a dicey prospect.

Nowadays, with all the fancy guidence systems and fire-control systems, dropping a 500-pound bomb on a specific house is easier and more probable than a WWII heavy bomber hitting a particular city block. So there is no excuse for it nowadays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -QUESTION for those who support the use of atomic weapons on civilian populations Matsubara  May-13-07 11:58 PM   #0 
  - Oh, and a sub-question:  Matsubara   May-14-07 12:01 AM   #1 
  - Notice how everybody ignored your question.  Bornaginhooligan   May-14-07 04:46 PM   #63 
  - Two things they are useful for  Socal31   May-14-07 12:03 AM   #2 
  - Everybody dies. What a great idea.  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:07 AM   #4 
  - Not possible at all  Socal31   May-14-07 12:13 AM   #5 
     - That's why these weapons are a waste of money and energy.  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:14 AM   # 
     - So for you, revenge is sweet?  Matsubara   May-14-07 12:20 AM   #9 
        - It wouldnt be sweet  Socal31   May-14-07 12:22 AM   #10 
        - Believe me, if they start launching nukes, NO ONE  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:24 AM   #12 
        - What would we have to lose?  krispos42   May-14-07 12:32 AM   #14 
           - What do you think "they" would occupy?  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:38 AM   #17 
              - They would occupy the areas outside of ground zero  krispos42   May-14-07 01:09 AM   #27 
                 - I would have to assume that a comet would not spew  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 01:15 AM   #29 
                    - No, it wouldn't  krispos42   May-14-07 01:33 AM   #38 
                       - Gore-tex and MREs?  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 01:37 AM   #40 
                          - Is it a wooden desk?  krispos42   May-14-07 02:07 AM   #48 
                             - Yes, it is wood.  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 04:47 PM   #64 
                                - Part of a Lewis Black album  krispos42   May-15-07 04:08 AM   #66 
  - MADD is non-use by definition.  Matsubara   May-14-07 12:18 AM   #8 
  - The U.S. is the ONLY country who killed innocents with nuclear devices  Erika   May-14-07 12:49 AM   #20 
     - Actually...  Rev. Mother Ramallo   May-14-07 01:20 AM   #32 
     - A lot of our ordinary citizens are armed, too.  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 01:25 AM   #34 
     - That's a different situation...  Rev. Mother Ramallo   May-14-07 02:41 AM   #53 
        - And you don't think our citizens would fight back if we were  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 04:45 PM   #62 
     - Would American civilians have taken up arms too if the continental US were invaded?  Selatius   May-14-07 01:32 AM   #37 
     - I'm sure they would.  Rev. Mother Ramallo   May-14-07 02:43 AM   #54 
     - They armed them with BAMBOO SPEARS.  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:53 AM   #46 
        - Yes  Rev. Mother Ramallo   May-14-07 02:44 AM   #55 
     - Not quite.  spoony   May-14-07 01:46 AM   #43 
  - My answer is "NEVER", also.  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:03 AM   #3 
  - I would support a nuclear strike only after one has been launched on us.  MiltonF   May-14-07 12:14 AM   #6 
  - What is laughable is that no ME countries have the capability  Erika   May-14-07 12:53 AM   #21 
  - That's why the pro bomb people are trying to come up with  Warpy   May-14-07 12:17 AM   #7 
  - When they do it first  krispos42   May-14-07 12:23 AM   #11 
  - Aside from?  Blashyrkh   May-14-07 12:27 AM   #13 
  - Easy to Say  rwenos   May-14-07 12:37 AM   #16 
  - My Dad served in WW II also.  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:41 AM   #19 
  - But the ME never attacked us n/t  Erika   May-14-07 12:54 AM   #22 
     - I know that the ME (I assume you mean the Middle East)  Kool Kitty   May-14-07 12:59 AM   #24 
  - Because innocent civilians were killed n/t  Erika   May-14-07 12:55 AM   #23 
  - Your Point Is Relevant to What?  rwenos   May-14-07 01:04 AM   #25 
     - "Innocent civilians are killed in all wars"  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:31 AM   #36 
  - Excuse me?  Blashyrkh   May-14-07 01:12 AM   #28 
  - Your father's emotional state is irrelevant.  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:27 AM   #35 
  - Here's why he was wrong  dave_p   May-14-07 05:55 AM   #56 
  - They didn't surrender after the first bomb. nt  MookieWilson   May-14-07 06:06 AM   #57 
     - ... nor after the second  dave_p   May-14-07 07:00 AM   #61 
  - Why would have the US even had of invaded Japan?  SayWhatYo   May-14-07 06:16 AM   #58 
     - I'm personally glad the the US insisted on reforming the Japanese government.  Matsubara   May-14-07 06:26 AM   #59 
  - That is most certainly NOT my premise.  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:21 AM   #33 
  - It WASN'T and never will be justifiable..  whoneedstickets   May-14-07 12:35 AM   #15 
  - Easy to Say  rwenos   May-14-07 12:40 AM   #18 
     - I had a relative who was killed and probably tortured by the Japanese.  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:54 AM   #47 
  - Never acceptable, not only for the human casualties  48percenter   May-14-07 01:07 AM   #26 
  - We introduced cancer into the innocents in Japan  Erika   May-14-07 01:18 AM   #30 
  - No, we should not have nuked Vitnam. Unless you think my parents were fair game in that war.  Selatius   May-14-07 01:20 AM   #31 
  - Rest assured, that was facetious.  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:35 AM   #39 
  - poo-tee-weet?  hfojvt   May-14-07 01:42 AM   #41 
  - I'm going to venture to say that most anti-nuke folks would like to end war, too.  Matsubara   May-14-07 01:46 AM   #42 
     - Yeah, I learned that firsthand.  Selatius   May-14-07 01:51 AM   #45 
     - you could ask wiki  hfojvt   May-14-07 02:07 AM   #49 
        - Those numbers are widely accepted figures.  Matsubara   May-14-07 02:11 AM   #50 
           - a beef with wiki?  hfojvt   May-14-07 02:16 AM   #51 
              - Thank you.  Matsubara   May-14-07 02:21 AM   #52 
  - Well if the nuke would prevent more lives from being killed  gravity   May-14-07 01:49 AM   #44 
  - One thing I'd add to that  dave_p   May-14-07 06:28 AM   #60 
  - They're not supposed to be used. It's supposed to be a threat  rockymountaindem   May-14-07 04:51 PM   #65 
  - Never should they have been used, before in history nor in the future  madokie   May-15-07 05:38 AM   #67 
     - Unfortunately, madokie, the path toward sanity was between the big boys  maine_raptor   May-15-07 06:02 AM   #68 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC