Acceptable Casualties

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-04 01:16am

Jacques Chirac
Favorable - 12%
Unfavorable - 57%
Not familiar - 29%

...So much hatred for France, and yet 29% of Americans don't know who he is...

...though I'd ESPECIALLY like to meet the 2% of American society who doesn't know who Bush is!

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-04-04 01:18am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Jacques Chirac
Favorable - 12%
Unfavorable - 57%
Not familiar - 29%
...So much hatred for France, and yet 29% of Americans don't know who he is...

...though I'd ESPECIALLY like to meet the 2% of American society who doesn't know who Bush is!

To be fair, some of those people probably just think they don't know enough about him to make a judgement one way or the other.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-04-04 01:22am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: That yes is a tad high for my taste.
It's a bit low for my taste, considering I know what the US response will be, which is using tac nukes.
The U.S. would never use tac nukes unless we were attacked by overwhelming conventional forces or nuked ourselves.

Replace "nuked ourselves" with "attacked with weapons of mass destruction" and you have the US policy on nukes for the past decade or two.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-04 01:23am

I don't recall us nuking the Army lab that the Anthrax in envelopes came from.

And realistically they'd never use tac nukes.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-04 02:18am

Illuminatus Primus wrote: The U.S. would never use tac nukes unless we were attacked by overwhelming conventional forces or nuked ourselves.

Targets have already been picked in case of a chem strike against our troops.

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2003-04-04 06:34am

In the first Gulf Conflict it was stated by both Bush Sr. and Margret Thatcher(the Iron Maiden) that if Iraq used WMD both the US and Brit. would respond with nuclear weapons.

However this doctrin has not been mentioned during the current operations. I do not think the US will use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attack during this conflict.(I refuse to call it a war because Congress has NOT declared war, officialy)

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2003-04-04 06:41am

jegs2 wrote: Targets have already been picked in case of a chem strike against our troops.

That is the truth. However, now that the main focus is Bagdad itself, there are no "real" targets anymore. If Saddam unleashes Bio or Chem weapons in the Bagdad area(which I beleave will be his plan of last resort, a la "If I can't win I'm takeing everyone with me"). I do not think the US or Britain will respond in kind.

You must remember that this campaign is to "liberate" Iraq. How liberated would a country be when releativly large portions of the country are nuked in response to the last gasps of a falling regiem?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-04 11:11pm

congress has allowed force against iraq - so thats all the declaration that is needed.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-05 01:44am

Enforcer Talen wrote:congress has allowed force against iraq - so thats all the declaration that is needed.

If you're referring to using nukes, we still have to worry about public opinion. Using nukes against Iraq would be political suicide, and a bit unecessary, in my opinion.

As for the main topic, the war might have to be ended because of military and civilian casualties, but because that would lead to falling public support for the war.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-05 01:49am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:congress has allowed force against iraq - so thats all the declaration that is needed.
If you're referring to using nukes, we still have to worry about public opinion. Using nukes against Iraq would be political suicide, and a bit unecessary, in my opinion.

As for the main topic, the war might have to be ended because of military and civilian casualties, but because that would lead to falling public support for the war.

conceeded on the first.
the second, the casualties would have to be abnormally high - too many political careers are invested in this war.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-05 01:31pm

jegs2 wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: The U.S. would never use tac nukes unless we were attacked by overwhelming conventional forces or nuked ourselves.
Targets have already been picked in case of a chem strike against our troops.

Do you REALLY think they would allow a PR clusterfuck of apocalyptic order like that to go through?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-04-05 02:01pm

Oh non-existant god, those poll results are appalling-

In general, do you think the media are acting responsibly or irresponsibly in their coverage of the war in Iraq?
Responsibly - 62%
Irresponsibly - 31%

WTF? Then again it depends on your definition of "responsible"

If the US removes Saddam Hussein from power, but does not capture or kill him, would you consider the military action a victory for the US?
Yes - 34%
No - 62%

Ok, we accomplished our objectives, and he is no longer a threat. Who really gives a damn? Most people in the US have not really been affected by Saddam, yet just swallow everything coming out of politician's mouths. If/when we fail to capture/kill him, the pols are going to be regretting.

Like has been said before, casualty answers are extremely idiotic.

And like I said before, I have no more hope for the intelligence of people in our nation.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-04-05 06:24pm

"War is all hell...."-General William Tecumseh Sherman

Who was best buddy with a guy who didn't let massive casualties get to him(At least not in battle). Regurgitated food for thought.....

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-05 06:29pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote: If you're referring to using nukes, we still have to worry about public opinion. Using nukes against Iraq would be political suicide, and a bit unecessary, in my opinion.

And not responding to a WMD attack with one of our own when there is a clearly responsible party is committing suicide in a real way. Deterrence doesn’t work if you don't back it up. And so far the world has believed we will.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-04-05 08:27pm

Darth Gojira wrote:"War is all hell...."-General William Tecumseh Sherman

Who was best buddy with a guy who didn't let massive casualties get to him(At least not in battle). Regurgitated food for thought.....

Good 'ole Hiram Ulysses quickened the war's conculsion by having more casualties. Hey, it works man.