DPRK boasts: "Will win nuclear war."

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-20 02:25am

Enforcer Talen wrote:of course its relevant. the fact that it has stopped nuke war in the past shows that it should be continued. if it is not, then the nuke wars will start.

if we back up our words, then we will be known not to be bluffing - in which case only the mad would attack us in that manner.

You truly dont get it do you? If you back up your words then you are no better than Hitler, or Saddam or Kim Jong il {sp?} These people are not logical, they dont care if they nuke or get nuked, but it is the very opposite of that that has kept the use of nukes to two occations in 1945. These people would happily nuke Seattle, or Washington, but if you stopp to that then you become no better than they!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-20 02:28am

Shinova wrote:To Stuart:

You spent two and a half pages saying something that Wong took a single post to say. At least now I understand your point.

I fail to see why you would not grasp what I was saying. Mike has in this post a degree of objectivity that I do not, given that he has been able to veiw it in its entirity it rather than respond to its individual posts.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-02-20 02:32am

Again i'll say it. If the nuke was near enough to where you lived to irradiate you and probably ruin the rest of your life and make it a painful rest of your life, what would you do if the country pansied out and let them get away with it? What would you say if you had relatives and friends in most of the major targets? What would you say if you were in my shoes? I live near NYC. If they use a nuke smuggled in that will be a major target. I have relatives in San Fran. I have more relatives in Arlington RIGHT NEXT WASHINGTON DC!!! I live close enough to NYC that their crappy nuke would send enough fallout to practically ensure my death. And I'd be really angry if we didn't respond in kind. They aren't gonna look out for our citizens so why should we look out for theirs?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-02-20 02:39am

darthdavid wrote:Again i'll say it. If the nuke was near enough to where you lived to irradiate you and probably ruin the rest of your life and make it a painful rest of your life, what would you do if the country pansied out and let them get away with it? What would you say if you had relatives and friends in most of the major targets? What would you say if you were in my shoes? I live near NYC. If they use a nuke smuggled in that will be a major target. I have relatives in San Fran. I have more relatives in Arlington RIGHT NEXT WASHINGTON DC!!! I live close enough to NYC that their crappy nuke would send enough fallout to practically ensure my death. And I'd be really angry if we didn't respond in kind. They aren't gonna look out for our citizens so why should we look out for theirs?

Ask the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that survived the two nukes used in 1945. As I understand it, Japanese people abhorre nukes in general, and do not wish that on anyone, which is understandable as they [/i]were nuked.
Its easy to say what you would feel or do in a theoretical situation when you are living a nice comforatable life, quite another to have that situation happen to you and those closest to you.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-20 09:21am

Stuart you want a real life situation?
Fine, It has been the US policy since the 50s that any use aginst American of Nuclear Weapons would be met with overwhellming response

You can say we won't be any Better than Hitler, Saddam or Kim Jong but its not true

Simple fact is, We are not the agresses in this senarior. We have the right to defend ourselves... Agreeded?

There is nothing Moral about Nuclear weapons, but there is rarley anything Moral about War anyway
If you want your people to be able to live where they want and go to work at their jobs and enjoy nice peaceful lives, Sometimes its nessary to do terrible things to protect this

Second your example is a terrible one, In a country engaged in war, Their are few innocents, Children are trained to lead the country after they grow up, Doctors make sure the people stay heathy so the people can supply the Military, Be it in food, water or metalwork.
We like to tell ourselves there nothing but innocent people but there are few Innocents in War, and rarley do they live in Citys.

They are the ones who stay there and support the Country, many of them work directly for it and live in relativly luxrity for it

But back to the bigger picture, Are not Morals nothing more than an invention of Humanity? Its moral to this but not do that, What is right and what is not depends mostly on the Culture envolved

And in this case if America wishs to surive it must set an example, There is not "We are better than them"
Might does not make right but it provides a hellava aurgment

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-20 09:42am

I understand the "Turn the other cheek" phrase, but it cannot stand up to the light of international politics. There are people and countries who do not like us :> If we do not stand up for our civilians then the system falls apart. If we cannot trust our Gov to protect us then it is worthless..

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-20 11:57am

theski wrote:I understand the "Turn the other cheek" phrase, but it cannot stand up to the light of international politics. There are people and countries who do not like us :> If we do not stand up for our civilians then the system falls apart. If we cannot trust our Gov to protect us then it is worthless..

"Turn the other cheek," is a personal response by an individual, and it does not apply to national defense and war.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-02-20 01:40pm

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: get real, dropping a nuke on a city of unarmed civvies is not murder? I think you need to reexamine your life. There is no differencebetween killing unarmed civillians in a concentration camp to dropping a nuke on unarmed civillinans ina city, for the result is the same. That you would sugget otherwise tells me that you are a moral retard.
of course it's murder. but atomics or carpet bombings or machine guns, it's to kill someone who's actively trying to bring about your destruction. that's war. extermination camps, on the other hand, is the annhilation of life which has no interest in you.
As I suspected, you are a moron. Plese demonstrate how a average civillian is going to activly bring about the death and destruction of America?

the same way an american citizen will produce the destruction of any other country

. you'll note we dont have a complete military state, but people fear us nontheless. why? because we have an amazing economy (due to civilians), the means of production to bring about large armies (due to civilians), a large nuke armory (guess who made them?) and a large population base for new armies composed of. .. civilians!

you ignore civilians as targets, you extend the war by only facing his armies - which can be replaced with ease.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-20 04:41pm

jegs2, I understand the personal reference, but it was an analogy for the "if NK drops a nuke, we are supposed to hold are collective genitals and take it" I just do not agree with Sturat

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-20 05:00pm

theski wrote:jegs2, I understand the personal reference, but it was an analogy for the "if NK drops a nuke, we are supposed to hold are collective genitals and take it" I just do not agree with Sturat

I presume that by "hold our collective genitals and take it", you mean declaring war, forcing the surrender of their government, and initiating war crimes trials? Because no one said we should just ignore it and carry on. It was only said that retaliatory nuking of civilian targets would make us no better than them.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-20 05:20pm

theski wrote:jegs2, I understand the personal reference, but it was an analogy for the "if NK drops a nuke, we are supposed to hold are collective genitals and take it" I just do not agree with Sturat

As I mentioned before, the resultant nuclear retaliation would most likely be against Iraqi military and/or industrial targets. Civilans working in those targeted industries would of course expire, but those are the breaks.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-20 05:22pm

Lord Wong, I am just not a believer in the Peace at any Cost. Which after reading all of Stuarts posts on the issue, I think he belives in.. As always just a different perspective. BTW best BBS I have ever been on.. Almost everyone is intelligent and helpfull.. Thanks

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-02-20 05:25pm

theski wrote:Lord Wong, I am just not a believer in the Peace at any Cost. Which after reading all of Stuarts posts on the issue, I think he belives in.. As always just a different perspective. BTW best BBS I have ever been on.. Almost everyone is intelligent and helpfull.. Thanks

Damn, what are you not understanding? Stuart is defending the destruction of NK regime and invasion of the country, but without using nukes.

Or are you denying the U.S having the capability of doing it using only its massive array of conventional goodies?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-02-20 05:31pm

Colonel, Yes we can do this with conventional means, but I think the American people would want the quickest way to avenge the millions of dead. This is the equal or greater force opion that is policy..