Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea of Nuclear retaliation is based on mutual fear. The attacking state is fearful of the retaliation, IMHO, because nukes kill politicians, emperors and generals along with everything else. The problem with using this retaliation against terrorists are they are not state supported and they do not fear being annihilated in a nuclear retribution. Actually they want a nuclear retribution because that serves their goal of igniting a global religious war to eliminate the infidels, Islam, Christian, Buddhist or what ever, from the face of the earth.
[
Pray tell, what strength is gained by telling others what rules you will be following in a war?
Peace through strength has largely kept the US from being attacked in the past. There is no strength through disarmament or showing one's cards. Where is the wisdom in announcing your military reaction to attack (by country classification) when it is from a position of weakness rather than strength?
Agreed! What the heck is happening to our country? What a freakin radical-marxist POTUS! Where the heck is Congress in all of this, I don't hear anything to oppose this - I stand corrected if something(s) was/were said to the contrary from someone/people in Congress.
We better start to learn "Duck and Cover" starting tomorrow.
Agreed! What the heck is happening to our country? What a freakin radical POTUS! Where the heck is Congress in all of this, I don't hear anything to oppose this - I stand corrected if something(s) was/were said to the contrary from someone/people in Congress.
We better start to learn "Duck and Cover" starting tomorrow.
I guess the ideas put forth in the Geneva convention were bad then to huh? I mean, rules for warfare. We told the world we wouldn't bomb civilians just because, or torture soldiers, and things of that nature.
I guess that hurt our national security to.
Just one more thing, I wonder how many of you second guessing our commander and chief actually served in the military. I have, and most people who have served don't see this as a problem. Seems to me, its just people who are anti anything Obama, and don't understand anything about warfare or strategy keep running their mouths, about things they have no idea about.
I guess the ideas put forth in the Geneva convention were bad then to huh? I mean, rules for warfare. We told the world we wouldn't bomb civilians just because, or torture soldiers, and things of that nature.
I guess that hurt our national security to.
What good will the Geneva Convention do when some idiot out there decides to us Americans because they just can and don't care about anything or anyone.
You're still side-stepping the point of what was accurately posted by lifelongMOgal.
What good will the Geneva Convention do when some idiot out there decides to us Americans because they just can and don't care about anything or anyone.
Is there some shortage of conventional weapons that we've missed?
Is there some shortage of conventional weapons that we've missed?
You mean the "pop-guns" compared to 1/3 Nuclear weapons reduction agreement that the Puppet POTUS will sign tomorrow with Russia who can opt-out of this.
The Puppet POTUS has the audacity to sign this without first ratifying this in Congress!
This country is losing respect around the world.
Impeach Obama for putting Americans safety in increased danger.
What good will the Geneva Convention do when some idiot out there decides to us Americans because they just can and don't care about anything or anyone.
You're still side-stepping the point of what was accurately posted by lifelongMOgal.
About lifelongMOgal's post.
I already answered it before, she simply clings to her opinion, and thats fine.
It eases countries into helping us, that would otherwise fear immediate retaliation against them, because one of their insane citizens decided to kill Americans.
If a Saudi national blew up Washington, Saudi would be much more quickly to help us discover who did it, than if they are worried about us blowing them up because of it.
It also encourages those with nuclear weapons, who haven't signed the non proliferation treaties, to do just that. If a North Korean, or Iranian bomb happens to get into a terrorists hands, we reserve the right to nuke them, because they haven't signed the treaties. However, if they do, and one slips out, we won't do that. If they have signed the treaty, it allows for stricter world wide penalties, if they continue to develop nuclear weapons.
What good will the Geneva Convention do when some idiot out there decides to us Americans because they just can and don't care about anything or anyone.
You're still side-stepping the point of what was accurately posted by lifelongMOgal.
So, according to your logic: the Geneva conventions are useless b/c it doesn't protect us from some 'idiot'. Don't we as the USA get enough flak for mishaps in oversea combat zones? Abu Ghraib and all? Isn't there a thread in P/C right now w/ the video showing the helicopter killing civilians and journalists?
According to the article, a non-nuclear state using biological weapons does not guarantee out not using nukes on them. There article clearly states provisions for tweaking this rule of engagement based on the threat.
Not for nothing folks, the US doesn't need to use nukes (AT ALL) to take out most (if not all) non-nuclear states. Just b/c conventional weapons don't have the overall collateral damage capability of nukes doesn't at all mean they're not deadly.
Pfft, it's like killing a fly with a grenade. Sure, it gets the job done, but and NUCLEAR FALLOUT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED.
I already answered it before, she simply clings to her opinion, and thats fine.
It eases countries into helping us, that would otherwise fear immediate retaliation against them, because one of their insane citizens decided to kill Americans.
If a Saudi national blew up Washington, Saudi would be much more quickly to help us discover who did it, than if they are worried about us blowing them up because of it.
It also encourages those with nuclear weapons, who haven't signed the non proliferation treaties, to do just that. If a North Korean, or Iranian bomb happens to get into a terrorists hands, we reserve the right to nuke them, because they haven't signed the treaties. However, if they do, and one slips out, we won't do that. If they have signed the treaty, it allows for stricter world wide penalties, if they continue to develop nuclear weapons.
I agree with lifelongMOgal as well.
It's a HUUUUUUGE mistake IMO to trust other nations (who otherwise don't give a ) who have an increased capability to nuke without care.
Puppet Obama is a secret agent - lol! Maybe not too far from the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What the heck is happening to our country? What a freakin radical-marxist POTUS! Where the heck is Congress in all of this, I don't hear anything to oppose this - I stand corrected if something(s) was/were said to the contrary from someone/people in Congress.
us Americans because they just can and don't care about anything or anyone.
