StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stuart Mackey wrote:

theski wrote:Stuart, By your thinking, If a US city is nuked then we should not retaliate in kind. In my opinion, world approval would not be a factor. This would be a gut reaction from the american people. I think they would settle for nothing less than a total response. It would take his head on a pole in Washington to make this right.

So you support the idea of mass murder I see. Well done, feel free to join the ranks of Adolf anf your freind Saddam.

Did you not read Sea Skimmer's post? American policy is to respond to a WMD attack with nuclear weapons so as to discourage anyone with so much as the slightest glimmer of a survival instinct from ever using them on us. To not respond to the destruction of an American city with a nuclear-tipped ICBM with a nuclear counterstrike would be throwing open the gates to the barbarians. It would be inviting every pissant country with a grudge and enough plutonium to use nuclear weapons on us or our allies. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat scary enough to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike (after all, if you're enough of a magalomaniac, you can convince yourself you can survive a conventional war with the United States--the Vietnamese did, after all). Not responding to a Korean attack in kind would effectively neuter the deterrence policy which has maintained the peace for fifty-eight years.

hitler said he would have stopped at the rhineland if france had done *anything*.

and, in a conventional war, we might lose troops too. as war goes, that's generally not what one is to aim for.

Stuart--millions of INNOCENT civillians will have died if a NK nuke had hit a populated American center.

And you're saying that even though that happens, we have no reason to do the same to NK???

Just cause those millions died were AMERICAN civillians gives NK civillians some kind of privelage not to be nuked cause they're not American????



Are you discriminating between American and NK civillians here??

Enforcer Talen wrote:false analogy. responding to force and setting up extermination camps are two different things.

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.

he's playing the roll of all life is valued, which is pretty, but has no place in realpolitik.

Stuart Mackey wrote: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.

I seem to recall you saying there is a difference between nuking some civillians and conventionally killing some civillians.

Now you say slaughtering them in concentration camps is no different from killing them with a nuke.

What's going on?

RedImperator wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

theski wrote:Stuart, By your thinking, If a US city is nuked then we should not retaliate in kind. In my opinion, world approval would not be a factor. This would be a gut reaction from the american people. I think they would settle for nothing less than a total response. It would take his head on a pole in Washington to make this right.

So you support the idea of mass murder I see. Well done, feel free to join the ranks of Adolf anf your freind Saddam.

Did you not read Sea Skimmer's post? American policy is to respond to a WMD attack with nuclear weapons so as to discourage anyone with so much as the slightest glimmer of a survival instinct from ever using them on us. To not respond to the destruction of an American city with a nuclear-tipped ICBM with a nuclear counterstrike would be throwing open the gates to the barbarians. It would be inviting every pissant country with a grudge and enough plutonium to use nuclear weapons on us or our allies. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat scary enough to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike (after all, if you're enough of a magalomaniac, you can convince yourself you can survive a conventional war with the United States--the Vietnamese did, after all). Not responding to a Korean attack in kind would effectively neuter the deterrence policy which has maintained the peace for fifty-eight years.

That America has this policy does not make it right. Were you not at school the day they taught why murder is wrong?. Also, please refrain from slippery slope falicys, Americas ability to destroy a government that attacks it via conventional force is quite goodenough, one need only look at 11/9

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:false analogy. responding to force and setting up extermination camps are two different things.

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.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: So you support the idea of mass murder I see. Well done, feel free to join the ranks of Adolf anf your freind Saddam.

Did you not read Sea Skimmer's post? American policy is to respond to a WMD attack with nuclear weapons so as to discourage anyone with so much as the slightest glimmer of a survival instinct from ever using them on us. To not respond to the destruction of an American city with a nuclear-tipped ICBM with a nuclear counterstrike would be throwing open the gates to the barbarians. It would be inviting every pissant country with a grudge and enough plutonium to use nuclear weapons on us or our allies. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat scary enough to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike (after all, if you're enough of a magalomaniac, you can convince yourself you can survive a conventional war with the United States--the Vietnamese did, after all). Not responding to a Korean attack in kind would effectively neuter the deterrence policy which has maintained the peace for fifty-eight years.

That America has this policy does not make it right. Were you not at school the day they taught why murder is wrong?. Also, please refrain from slippery slope falicys, Americas ability to destroy a government that attacks it via conventional force is quite goodenough, one need only look at 11/9

11/9? -snicker- Im sure.

and right doesnt enter into nation relations. what matters is if it works, and the u.s. policy has kept the nukes from flying. which has saved the most lives.

I know if they nuke a city near me and i have to live with debilitating cancer i'm gonna storm the white house if they dont turn NK into a smoking, molten rubble heap.

Enforcer Talen wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Stewart,

Please explain the difference if the US kills 250,000 North Koreans in a single nuclear strike, or 250,000 in an invasion? Dead is dead, wether is is grenade shrapnel or a blinding flash of heat.

First. learn to read.The correct spelling of my name is splattered on the screen for the world to see, its not hard to get it right.
Second: Are you another person who is unable to grasp what genocide is? if NK were to nuke an American city that does not give you the right to do the same, what do you not get about this? an invasion of NK is not the same as the deliberate attack on a city who's inhabitants who are noncombatants, at least in an invasion you can attempt to not fire on civvies, you do not get that option with nukes, and civvies have the chance to leave a city befor a conventional attack.

nonsense. when they've done an act of war, a nuke of a city, they are subject to the full might of the nation attacked. that's war. and war being what it is, that entails doing as much damage to the enemy as possible. and that very definitly includes civilians. as taxpayers, factory workers, and spear carriers, they are targets. why spend our troops when a mushroom cloud ends it much quicker and more finally?

As I have said, any one who supports such a policy, supports genocide, what do you not grasp about this? its quite simple. That a nation can do this does not mean that a nation should.


Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group


and of course

Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Why do you think that Nazi's were tried and found guilty of war crimes, you ass? It should be noted that many people on the allied side should have been on the stand as well.
concession accepted moral imbecile.

I just it's murder. dude, read my posts.

nations shouldn't do this. I agree. but they do. and the only way to respond, as always, is in equal measure.

Stuart,


So it's okay if millions of innocent american civllians die but bad if millions of innocent NK civillians die?


You've been continuously saying that although NK nukes an American city, the US shouldn't nuke back. Why is this?

Enforcer Talen wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

RedImperator wrote: Did you not read Sea Skimmer's post? American policy is to respond to a WMD attack with nuclear weapons so as to discourage anyone with so much as the slightest glimmer of a survival instinct from ever using them on us. To not respond to the destruction of an American city with a nuclear-tipped ICBM with a nuclear counterstrike would be throwing open the gates to the barbarians. It would be inviting every pissant country with a grudge and enough plutonium to use nuclear weapons on us or our allies. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat scary enough to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike (after all, if you're enough of a magalomaniac, you can convince yourself you can survive a conventional war with the United States--the Vietnamese did, after all). Not responding to a Korean attack in kind would effectively neuter the deterrence policy which has maintained the peace for fifty-eight years.

That America has this policy does not make it right. Were you not at school the day they taught why murder is wrong?. Also, please refrain from slippery slope falicys, Americas ability to destroy a government that attacks it via conventional force is quite goodenough, one need only look at 11/9

Enforcer Talen wrote: 11/9? -snicker- Im sure.

yes, 11/9, you see I am from one of those logical nations that write dates correctly and use metric. Also, do you seriously think that any government wants to be deposed as the Taliban was?.

Enforcer Talen wrote: and right doesnt enter into nation relations. what matters is if it works, and the u.s. policy has kept the nukes from flying. which has saved the most lives.

That past US policy has stopped nuclear warefare is irrelivant to this given the senario. dont use strawmen.

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.

Shinova wrote:Stuart,

So it's okay if millions of innocent american civllians die but bad if millions of innocent NK civillians die?

I think that's a pretty monstrous strawman, and if Stuart were a hot-button type, he'd be flaming the shit out of you now. Neither is OK. However, he's just saying that if you murder millions of civilians in retaliation for an act of the government which oppresses them (and which has basically no say in the government's actions, I might add), you're morally no better than that government. If someone commits murder, do you execute him, or his whole family?

MAD is Machiavellian, and it worked during the Cold War. That does not mean that the act of nuking a city full of civilians is moral.

mm. morals and international politics rarely talk to each other.

Shinova wrote:I'm sure a few others here have already said this, Stuart, but if the US didn't respond to a NK nuclear attack promptly, terrorists and other dictatorial nations around the world would think, "Hey, look! They nuked a US city and the Americans aren't doing anything about it! Let's go attacking the Americans and lots of other people!!"

Proof?

Shinova wrote:One reason why Hitler made such a mess out of Europe back in WW2 was because all the other nations kept on trying to appease him instead of opposing him. Many historians have said, IIRC, that if Britain and some other European nations had stood up against Hitler when he had made his first offensive move, WW2 may not even have had occurred. (This is what I remember).

You would be correct in that if Britain, but more probably, France had moved against Germany in 1938 during the Chech crisis, Germany would have lost. However that does not mean that that is now the case as the relitive situations are different.

Shinova wrote: Oh and what someone else said here: 250,000 dead by nuke or conventional methods. The end results are both the same.

If you cannot tell whats wrong with this reasoning then please have a look at the differnce between the lead times of a Nuke arriving at a city and a artillery shell arriving at said city.

Shinova wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: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.

I seem to recall you saying there is a difference between nuking some civillians and conventionally killing some civillians.

Now you say slaughtering them in concentration camps is no different from killing them with a nuke.

What's going on?

Whats going on is that those dead civillinas never had the choice. Are you incapable if seeing this?

Enforcer Talen wrote:I just it's murder. dude, read my posts.

nations shouldn't do this. I agree. but they do. and the only way to respond, as always, is in equal measure.

Do you seriously not grasp what is wrong with this?

Enforcer Talen wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:false analogy. responding to force and setting up extermination camps are two different things.

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?

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.

Shinova wrote:Stuart,


So it's okay if millions of innocent american civllians die but bad if millions of innocent NK civillians die?


You've been continuously saying that although NK nukes an American city, the US shouldn't nuke back. Why is this?

Idiot. Do you not grasp the concept of two wrongs dont make a right? Of course its not right that Americans should be murdured like that, but the same is true of NK civvies.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Shinova wrote:Stuart,


So it's okay if millions of innocent american civllians die but bad if millions of innocent NK civillians die?


You've been continuously saying that although NK nukes an American city, the US shouldn't nuke back. Why is this?

Idiot. Do you not grasp the concept of two wrongs dont make a right? Of course its not right that Americans should be murdured like that, but the same is true of NK civvies.

Wong clarified everything for me. All this was the result of poor communication. I apologize for my past behavior in this thread.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: So you support the idea of mass murder I see. Well done, feel free to join the ranks of Adolf anf your freind Saddam.

Did you not read Sea Skimmer's post? American policy is to respond to a WMD attack with nuclear weapons so as to discourage anyone with so much as the slightest glimmer of a survival instinct from ever using them on us. To not respond to the destruction of an American city with a nuclear-tipped ICBM with a nuclear counterstrike would be throwing open the gates to the barbarians. It would be inviting every pissant country with a grudge and enough plutonium to use nuclear weapons on us or our allies. Nuclear retaliation is the only threat scary enough to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike (after all, if you're enough of a magalomaniac, you can convince yourself you can survive a conventional war with the United States--the Vietnamese did, after all). Not responding to a Korean attack in kind would effectively neuter the deterrence policy which has maintained the peace for fifty-eight years.

That America has this policy does not make it right. Were you not at school the day they taught why murder is wrong?. Also, please refrain from slippery slope falicys, Americas ability to destroy a government that attacks it via conventional force is quite goodenough, one need only look at 11/9

Did you miss the part where I explained WHY the U.S. government has the policy that it does? If the United States does not respond with nuclear weapons to a nuclear attack, deterrence fails and it's open season, on us and, incidentially, you and the rest of our allies. You notice how the Taliban thought it could survive a conventional attack, how Saddam Hussein thinks he can survive a conventional attack (or else he would have thrown open the bunker doors and given the inspectors a guided tour of all his WMD facilities by now), and how the North Koreans believe they can survive a concentional attack? The threat of a conventional response to a nuclear attack is not enough to maintain deterrence if countries with demonstrably inferior armed forces think they can defeat the United States in combat. Nuclear attacks are inestimably more frightening than any conventional attack could ever be, because they cannot be defended and their effects are instantaneous and devastating. If Anchorage or Seattle or Los Angeles or Honolulu go up in a fireball, there MUST be a nuclear response against a vital North Korean asset (perhaps their nuclear facilities, though the fallout from that would be horrendous). It doesn't necessarily have to be a city--in NKs case, Pyongyang probably isn't worth the bomber fuel it would take to get there. It might take the form of dozens of small attacks against troop concentrations or supply depots. But there HAS to be a nuclear response, even if it means innocent civilians will die, or else deterrence will collapse and the world will be a much less secure place.