Posted on 11/14/2015 5:49:41 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
I got really good grades in school.
We have nukes, but it’s been 70 years since we used them. Nobody thinks we will ever use them again, so the threat is no longer there. We absolutely need to nuke someone so that the world believes us when we speak.
I’d even applaud the Rooskis if they nuked ISIS right now.
Anyone who honestly has to ask this question is ignorant of history and the true nature of the world outside our national boundaries which is void of our constitution and individual rights.
I don’t blame you. I blame our education system and delusional liberal culture.
We need nuclear weapons at the very least to keep warfare on the scale of WW2 from our shores, and probably many times worse. Conventional warfare was ten times more destructive from WW1 to WW2. Just imagine large scale conventional warfare today.
Nuclear warfare is existential in nature. If you want to prevent it the only way to ensure someone won’t nuke you is to have a similar existential capability to return the attack. That is called deterrence. And it has
To be credible, modern, unstoppable and overwhelming. A few B-29s with “little boys” today is not a deterrent.
And if you really don’t think there will ever be another Hitler, Stalin, Nepolian, Ghengas Kahn, then let me introduce you to Vladimir Putin.
And on top of that, every other nuclear weapons owning country is producing new warheads and weapons, while Obama. Wants to unilaterally disarm in a very dangerous world.
Then start by learning about nuclear weapons. They are, to a significant extent, responsible for the fact that, for the past 70 years, we've had no major direct armed conflict between the Great Powers - and have perhaps thus "saved the world."
Then study the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, WW I and WW II - oh, heck, why not go back to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest?
My point is that, because there is no college class called "How We Save the World 101," you'd better not deliberately restrict your curriculum.
Regards,
What you're advocating would be more like cutting the head off of a starfish.
1. Starfish don't have heads.
2. Even if you cut up a starfish into several pieces, each piece can regenerate into a whole new starfish.
Regards,
Trust me, FRiend....they do.
There is a story that during the 1973 war, then-Prime Minister Golda Mier ordered some Israeli air force planes to be armed with nukes and put on stand-by alert. She did this because it was looking grim for Israeli forces and the US hadn't yet committed to help (we eventually did and things turned around). She was ready to activate the "Samson Option" if Israel looked like it was going to be over-run.
Israel has (pretty much) admitted that they DO have nukes, but not as an offensive weapon. They're surrounded by countries that wish them to disappear. They are a very small nation, and they have a history that shows them what happens when someone decides they want to kill them. They have vowed "Never Again"....and they mean it.
Along with that...I don't think any RATIONAL nation wants to be "the one" to use a nuke first. If one is ever used, it'll likely be a rogue terrorist organization OR a country that cannot be described as "rational"...like Iran. Any use of them after that will probably be in retaliation AND with the hope that the retaliation will be enough to deter any escalation.
Excellent post. Rational players are the ones nuclear weapons deter for the most part.
Jihadists maybe not so much, but major war between major powers has been avoided for 70 years now thanks to the “unthinkability” of nuclear weapons.
Another excellent post.
History and the lessons of power, and its absence when confronting evil, seem to be a recurring theme over the ages. The world is not as good natured as many want to believe.
Because we don’t want to be fried bacon.
If you want to ask Socratic questions, make sure you are ahead of your pupils.
Socratic question? ROFL
You are overthinking this.
We are on the same page. Sad we have to wait for Russia to protect us.
I can't eliminate ISIS, Obama is a supporter of it and only says he is fighting it. Obama has tried to eliminate our nuclear weapons to make the ISIS attack on the us successful.
Russian Generals did not want their Grandchildren dead any more than we did, so M.A.D. works with “civilized” people.
Doesn’t work with Kamikazes or Muslims as others have said. The 12th Imam comes out of his well/cave to participate in the final battle to kill Jews and Christians...the Final Battle is the end game for Muslims.
The two atomic bombs worked well for my father and myself.
After helping to defeat Hitler, my father was on a ship heading for an airbase probably on the southern Japanese island according to plans when the two atomic bombs helped to end WWII. The Japanese still had 5,000 airplanes and could have continued to build some...fuel might be another question ... . I wasn’t born until 1949.
BTW...if the U.S. had not developed atomic bombs...we were preparing to use poison gas on Japan...and starvation...Both nations got off easy. Japan was facing a threat to its existence as a nation with Soviet Russia on the way.
We have them since they might just come in handy at some point.
Reflect on the fact that 0bama wants a “nuclear weapon free world”. Why would he want that? It would be right back to World Wars - nuclear weapons have been the greatest force for peace in history.
“But we won’t.”
That’s just your opinion.
“How many Japanese were killed by the atomic bomb?
280,000.”
How much does that bother me? So little it’s immeasurable.
The amount of armchair quarterbacking around the use of nuclear weapons in Japan is appalling. The US was looking at losing up to a million servicemen during an invasion of the islands.
Further, the total casualties in WWII were in the tens of millions. More died in the firebombing such as those of Dresden and Tokyo than died from nuclear weapons. It was total war, against ruthless and often barbaric enemies. The Allies had no choice but to accept they would have to cause civilian casualties.
Nuclear weapons are now a fact of life. There is no way to unring the bell, and as technology progresses it will get easier and easier to produce them secretly. Therefore, a “nuclear weapon free world” is simply an empty-headed pipe dream of the uninformed, ignorant, and stupid.
“MAD” is an acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction
Of course you are right.
Why do we have nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances are they to be used, if ever?
I went back and read your article. I still miss the part about ISIS.
Under what circumstances are they to be used, if ever?
Actually they were used to end WWII. Putin said one exploded 800 miles form Charleston but that is a different story.
100
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.