~WinGz~ Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 over past years weve had our problems with iraq,korea, lybia, and iran.. with all those terrorist countries should we hesistate to nuke, them, or wait for them to nuke us, our intellegence says iran is a while away from nuclear capabilities, but korea could already have stockpiled several if not plenty of missles with nuclear armanets.. should we wait to nuke them and await our own fate of being nuked, or should we take action attack those countries, and totally obliterate them.. theres no perfect or right answer i just want to see where people stand on this issue... nuke or be nuked? i feel we should nuke a city in iraq to set and example, becuase the entire country hates us and in a moment would attack us if they had a chance. based on their religion they would proudly die to kill us? shoudl we set an example and destroy a town and repeat a hiroshima. or should we just keep sending countless marines to their deaths...thats my opinion, nuke them and set an exmaple to all terrorists that we dont play softball any longer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹ Posted June 10, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted June 10, 2005 man i am a pretty liberal thinker and i am very open minded. but your thought on "nuke a city in iraq" are disgusting. that is a kind of thinking which gets america in trouble in the first place. the thing is - you personallly support you country's actions for all the wrong reasons. all the righteous motives are full of it. :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3xis Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 this may be me, but i think all of those countries are all talk. usa and the rest of the world needs to isolate korea, especially. we don't need to give into their petty demands and beg for them to change their nuclear program. kim jung il is nothing more than an attention ###### and there's no sense in our own government scaring us into believing korea has any power over us. libya, on the other hand has agreed to cooperate with the us over its nuclear talks so i'm not really sure why you included it as a potential threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 this may be me, but i think all of those countries are all talk. usa and the rest of the world needs to isolate korea, especially. we don't need to give into their petty demands and beg for them to change their nuclear program. kim jung il is nothing more than an attention ###### and there's no sense in our own government scaring us into believing korea has any power over us. libya, on the other hand has agreed to cooperate with the us over its nuclear talks so i'm not really sure why you included it as a potential threat. 586043374[/snapback] Well the unfortunate reality is that N.Korea does have a degree of power, or at least influence over us - not because of a direct threat to our homeland but to our allies and tens of thousands of troups in the region. It's a delicate situation and should be resolved sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beh Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 over past years weve had our problems with iraq,korea, lybia, and iran.. with all those terrorist countries should we hesistate to nuke, them, or wait for them to nuke us, our intellegence says iran is a while away from nuclear capabilities, but korea could already have stockpiled several if not plenty of missles with nuclear armanets.. should we wait to nuke them and await our own fate of being nuked, or should we take action attack those countries, and totally obliterate them.. theres no perfect or right answer i just want to see where people stand on this issue...nuke or be nuked? i feel we should nuke a city in iraq to set and example, becuase the entire country hates us and in a moment would attack us if they had a chance. based on their religion they would proudly die to kill us? shoudl we set an example and destroy a town and repeat a hiroshima. or should we just keep sending countless marines to their deaths...thats my opinion, nuke them and set an exmaple to all terrorists that we dont play softball any longer! 586043275[/snapback] Wow, horrible opinions. You act like this is some sort of strategy game where nuking people is just part of it. Nuking cities doesn't make them respect us any more, not even out of fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Is that your final solution? I thought they sent in the army to stop WMDs...or was that liberate the people? Or was that to start a democracy? Oh well, who am I to remember. Fallujah looked pretty wrecked last time I saw it, it just encourages the survivors elsewhere to fight harder and gain new recruits. I'm sure nuking anything will go over well with purple ink finger crowd. Anyway war supporters should enlist in the army, as recruiters are having a tougher time meeting their goals. It's so easy to say "KILL THEM ALL" from the comfort of one's chair and desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yeah, that'd be REAL smart wouldn't it, nuke North Korea... :no: Still, it WOULD solve all the worlds problems, cause it would trigger a world nuclear war and we'd ALL BE DEAD! :cry: Jeez... Some people really need to engage their brains before posting... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 Wow, horrible opinions. You act like this is some sort of strategy game where nuking people is just part of it.586043474[/snapback] I fully agree. Nuking a city is totally... There's no words to describe what I want to say. NO! How about that one? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 Terribly stupid idea. I would have not posted to this but I was worried there weren't enough negative replies. And sorta off topic but I don't see how threatening a person, allready prepared to give his life, with a nuke will really curn terrorism. If we win the war but lose ourselves and our morality along the way than what was it worth? I don't know about you but I'd rather risk getting nuked myself, than have the blood of millions of innocents on my hands and living a long terrible life haunted by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Suraci Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yes, because I'm sure missles flying everywhere will make the USA look MUCH better. ;) That's sarcasm, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 over past years weve had our problems with iraq,korea, lybia, and iran.. with all those terrorist countries should we hesistate to nuke, them, or wait for them to nuke us, our intellegence says iran is a while away from nuclear capabilities, but korea could already have stockpiled several if not plenty of missles with nuclear armanets.. should we wait to nuke them and await our own fate of being nuked, or should we take action attack those countries, and totally obliterate them.. theres no perfect or right answer i just want to see where people stand on this issue...nuke or be nuked? i feel we should nuke a city in iraq to set and example, becuase the entire country hates us and in a moment would attack us if they had a chance. based on their religion they would proudly die to kill us? shoudl we set an example and destroy a town and repeat a hiroshima. or should we just keep sending countless marines to their deaths...thats my opinion, nuke them and set an exmaple to all terrorists that we dont play softball any longer! 586043275[/snapback] So you advise that the United States out-terrorize the potential terrorist nations? I believe that to be a completely morally-bankrupt idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 Come on guys, we're Americans remember? We are violent, savage, evil people who will stop at nothing to win our total world domination goal. gg nukes! :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yeah man, let's man, like, that would be, like totally cool! Peace out bruv. (I've tried to imitate your level of idiocy but I'm afraid I've failed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pencilmonkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Do we need any greater indication that this entire thread is nothing more than flamebait than the fact that the OP hasn't popped his head back in? I mean it's an obviously ludicrous statement engineered to elicit an extreme response. It begins with a basic flaw, that possession of a few nuclear weapons inevitably indicates their use. The US has had tens of thousands of warheads without using them, neither did the USSR during the cold war, even in extremely tense situations. The leaders of those respective countries are not idiots, they realize the inevitable consequences that would arise from a nuclear strike. That, and hes 18. Thats an age specifically designed for extreme viewpoints. Need more be said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~WinGz~ Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 (edited) just close my thread.. i dont know S*** bout nukes i guess... since im a nieve 18yr old.. thnx Edited June 10, 2005 by WinGzX17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 i dont mean go around and nuke the hell out of everyone, i was just stating that, like while we carry nuclear arms and stuff, doesnt mean other countries wouldnt just use them on us. like a simple nuke that could level a city block or something be brought into a city anywhere in teh united states. im just saying that we get nuked, we F*ed, but since im 18 its probably just my way of thinking. but i didnt mean this thread to be flamed, it was just to hear others thoughts on how they thought of a situation, where we get nuked. what should we do sorta thing... 586045735[/snapback] You obviously don't know that much about nukes. There isn't one that will level a city block. Try a city (a big one at that). N Korea doesn't have enough nukes to **** USA as you state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pencilmonkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 just close my thread.. i dont know S*** bout nukes i guess... since im a nieve 18yr old.. thnx 586045735[/snapback] Well, this response hardly goes to counter my point. You propose a 'solution' that makes the US a terrorist nation due to the indiscriminate nature of nuclear attack, a solution that would permanently alienate you from the international community, and essentially commit an overt act of genocide. Yes, that is naive. And that's the danger with extreme thinking. If you actually have an argument then feel free to post. And if I was harsh in my response then my feeling was well communicated. Hateful proposals need to be put down hard. And do unto others before they du unto you hardly makes for good strategy. And for the record, justified or not, there is only one country that has ever used a nuclear weapon aggresively....care to guess which one? feel we should nuke a city in iraq to set and example, becuase the entire country hates us and in a moment would attack us if they had a chance. based on their religion they would proudly die to kill us? shoudl we set an example and destroy a town and repeat a hiroshima. or should we just keep sending countless marines to their deaths...thats my opinion, nuke them and set an exmaple to all terrorists that we dont play softball any longer! And might it not be a twist to perhaps find out why they hate you? My views on the invasion of Iraq are well documented in these forums....look there perhaps. And by nuking a city, you don't discriminate between civilian or combatant, between children, old and infirm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersaiyanjericho Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 well I've read some comments from liberals on another website and they said NK doesn't have the capabilities to launch a nuke to the U.S. but are able to hit the Asian countries and they are saying that the U.S. is making a big deal out of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 well I've read some comments from liberals on another website and they said NK doesn't have the capabilities to launch a nuke to the U.S. but are able to hit the Asian countries and they are saying that the U.S. is making a big deal out of this. 586045928[/snapback] And we shouldn't? :blink: If some loser nobody wants attention and threatens to kill your friend, are you going to just ignore them? Even if it's not one of your friends, I hope you try to reason with the person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 Actually I would make the point that the US isn't making a big deal out of this. Over the past several years the US hasn't done much other than to bribe North Korea with cash, food, oil and nuclear plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pencilmonkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 But let me see... Iraq has the possibility of WMDs, although even intel officers claim otherwise. US sends in inspectors, ignores their findings and invades. Another country is known, by their own admission as well, to have nuclear weapons capability, is part of the 'axis of evil' and has little love for the US, but invasion is largely discounted as an option. Basically my gripe is a lack of consistency here. You invade a country that is, for all intents and purposes, harmless but play hands off with one that actually does have weapons. Hmmm....wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palin Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 just close my thread.. i dont know S*** bout nukes i guess... 586045735[/snapback] "Nukes" kill people. Lots of people. Millions of people. A nuclear explosion causes a shock wave that, if it doesn't kill you through sheer force, (or say, knocking a building down on top of you in the process of levelling your entire city) causes fatal hemorraging and/or air embolisms. Then of course, you've got your thermal radiation, causing everything from flash-blindness to freakishly hideous third-degree burns, to your basic full-body conflagrations. Finally, there's the effects of radiation overexposure ? which range from immediate death, to slow and painful bleeding/pus/infection/skin falling off in half-dollar-sized flakes over months and months-type death, to even slower deaths by cancer, to getting to see mutations and birth defects in any of your potential children due to your DNA damage. Sucks, huh? I know you probably didn't mean any harm, but seeing a topic named "Korea: 2 nuke or not 2 nuke," as if it were as arbitrary a decision as who to bet on for the Bud Bowl is, frankly, chilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o_87 Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Wow. This has got to be the most idiotic thread ever. Just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisPa1243 Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 (edited) And its north korea <snipped>, not the entire korea sheesh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted July 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 4, 2005 Thread Closed by Request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts