quote:

Although it states that a danger of these weapons is that the US may use them to attack terrorist bases, but that idea is ridiculous. There would be no tactical purpose to use such weapons.

Against terrorist bases, it would seem unnecessary. But Bush is no longer planning to attack a terrorist base, he is planning an invasion of a whole country, and here tactical nukes can be useful.

___________________
1+1=10

I sincerely appreciate everyone's pitch in on the matter. I especially appreciate those opinions and articles outside the U.S. It's painfully obvious that Bush has done a swell job of alienating many countries with his idiotic foreign policies, and is continuing to do a swell job of alienating his own people with his idiotic economic "stimulus" policies as well.

It's difficult to decifer what's really going on when reading and listening to US media. I always found it rather ironic when I hear conservatives call our media liberal, when in fact the US media are mostly run by huge corporate conglamorates with ties to corporate money and lobbyism. The propaganda that's being run is starting to wear on many people here in the states, and I think many are beginning to see through it. The % of people thinking it's wrong to go to war in Iraq without UN backing increasing tremendously is just 1 example. But all this is a little off the subject.

I'm not sure what the war of words will do either side much good. But it seems that N. Korea really doesn't give a sh#t either way. To even make the threat of WWIII is absolutely crazy! Yet their leader makes it as if they're ready and willing to have millions killed. Did the previous Korean War not teach anyone anything? Why did either side fight that war if it brings us to such times of turmoil? Even though it looks as though things may be avoided with the headlines today, both sides better wake up soon!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Against terrorist bases, it would seem unnecessary. But Bush is no longer planning to attack a terrorist base, he is planning an invasion of a whole country, and here tactical nukes can be useful.

Sure they could be useful but think about it ... using them would be more trouble than they're worth. First of all ... the US would NOT use nuclear weapons unless attacked first with weapons of mass destruction, it would go against their own self-interest. Secondly, tactical nuclear weapons would only be useful if US forces were tactically outnumbered and outgunned on the battlefield. The scenario those weapons were designed for would be 50+ soviet tank divisions crossing into western Europe, numerically outgunning the US and European divisions. Although the US had better technology that advantage is diminished by the multitude of tanks the Soviets had. Similar to how the superb German tiger tanks couldn't match up to the number of shermans and t-34 tanks they faced up against. However in the present day ... we have supremely better technology, and numerical superiority in air and sea if not land. What's the point of using a bazooka when a bb gun would suffice?

quote:

the US would NOT use nuclear weapons unless attacked first with weapons of mass destruction, it would go against their own self-interest.

Well, suppose that Iraq has WOMD, and attempts to use them as a last resort.

quote:

we have supremely better technology, and numerical superiority in air and sea if not land. What's the point of using a bazooka when a bb gun would suffice?

A tactical nuke could disable whole military base that contains WOMDs with one shot. Especially useful if the weapons are underground.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, suppose that Iraq has WOMD, and attempts to use them as a last resort. A tactical nuke could disable whole military base that contains WOMDs with one shot. Especially useful if the weapons are underground.

So are you saying that if Iraq attempts to use weapons of mass destruction as a last resort that the US should stand by and do NOTHING? What if the US has tried everything to prevent such an instance and Iraq chooses to use them in an act of vengeance? You may critisize the US for not taking the moral highground but what if that highground sinks down to below sea level?

With regards to your second statement, that situation would not happen. Iraq doesn't have battlehardened nuclear silos capable of withstanding a 4000 pound bunker busting bomb. They don't have nuclear silos period. Their capabilities are short ranged, mobile scud missile launchers and air dropped bombs. Either of which can be dealt with using conventional weapons.

Look Tito, I respect your arguments, and I feel that you always make a valid point backed up by facts, but I feel that you're barking up the wrong tree on this nuclear issue. The US has had nuclear weapons in its arsenal for decades with its sole use as a DETERRANT against an attack of weapons of like kind (If you would like we could argue the the issue of Japan in a separate topic ... I could talk about WW2 for months). If Iraq were to aquire nuclear weapons there would be no telling what they would do with them. They are clearly anti-semetic would they use them to bomb Israel? They are clearly aggressive, would they use them to seize power in the Middle East? Finally Saddam appears to mentally unbalanced, sadistic, cruel, vengeafull, and unremorsefull. Granted Bush is an idiot but Saddam is ... a wild card. I would entrust 500 nukes in the hands of N. Korea than more than 1 in the hands of Saddam. There are some people that are approachable with discussion, and then there are some people that have almost hitler-like qualities about them. Argue what you will but the history and the legacy that that man has left behind is disturbing.

quote:

I would entrust 500 nukes in the hands of N. Korea than more than 1 in the hands of Saddam.

Well Occrider, ya had me there up to this point. I know you were making a point, and I don't want to play a game of semantics here, but the whole point of me starting this thread was to talk about the lunacy of N. Korea's leader. Are you by chance in the military? You both really started talking about military tactics there. I know you both have philosophical points being made when referring to tactics, but I guess I was thinking more diplomatically.

But that brings me up to my second question: will the U.S. continue to do things diplomatically with N. Korea, or will they "flex their bulging military muscle" and bully them around to get N. Korea to bend? Right now at this moment it seems that the U.S. is continuing to handle things diplomatically, but do you think with the current regime on both sides that this will last? Given our stance with Iraq (and the continual buildup of military presence over there), is Bush and his warmongering posse really the kind of people that knows how to handle anything diplomatically?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

its hard for the US to "flex its muscles" in that region. You have China and Russia that wouldn't be too happy having more US bases in the region...

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

That's why North Korea is taunting the US. They are calling America's bluff, exposing the US as weak and reinforcing the popular view that the US is interested in Iraq because it is oil-rich and a relatively easy target.

quote:

So are you saying that if Iraq attempts to use weapons of mass destruction as a last resort that the US should stand by and do NOTHING? What if the US has tried everything to prevent such an instance and Iraq chooses to use them in an act of vengeance? You may critisize the US for not taking the moral highground but what if that highground sinks down to below sea level?

I agree that if Saddam is about to launch WOMDs, and there's no other way to stop it, nukes should be used as a last resort. But I was more trying to make a point that tactical nukes still have their uses.
Anyway, in that scenario, Saddam would use WOMDs as a retaliation because of the US assault, so the moral high ground of the US is very questionable here.

quote:

I would entrust 500 nukes in the hands of N. Korea than more than 1 in the hands of Saddam.

I definitely wouldn't agree about this one. Kim Jong Il's sanity is highly questionable as well. Remember that his people were literally starving to death while he refused foreign aid. Also, he is launching his missiles into territorial waters of other countries, and is forbidding the separated families to rejoin for more than 50 years. Say all that you will about Saddam, but compared to KJI, he's pretty normal.

___________________
1+1=10

i'm just glad we dont see rederic like this in America
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../168/31f5s.html
i belive this shows something very powerful about the north koreans

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well Occrider, ya had me there up to this point. I know you were making a point, and I don't want to play a game of semantics here, but the whole point of me starting this thread was to talk about the lunacy of N. Korea's leader. Are you by chance in the military? You both really started talking about military tactics there. I know you both have philosophical points being made when referring to tactics, but I guess I was thinking more diplomatically. But that brings me up to my second question: will the U.S. continue to do things diplomatically with N. Korea, or will they "flex their bulging military muscle" and bully them around to get N. Korea to bend? Right now at this moment it seems that the U.S. is continuing to handle things diplomatically, but do you think with the current regime on both sides that this will last? Given our stance with Iraq (and the continual buildup of military presence over there), is Bush and his warmongering posse really the kind of people that knows how to handle anything diplomatically?

Hehe nope not associated with the military in any way whatsoever. As a matter of fact I was a dip(lomat) brat rather than an army brat and I grew up in Europe (and consider myself more Euroean than American) for the majority of my youth. I am simply a HUGE history buff that specializes in European history and military warfare in general. The only reason why I wasn't a history major in school was because I recognized the fact that historians don't make much money and that I could just as easily be learned in that field by reading rather than making it my job. I can assure you though that the use of nuclear weapons will always come from the political level rather than the military level. Nuclear weapons are now a weapon of politics. Under our current circumstances, everything that a nuke can accomplish can be acomplished through the use of conventional weapons. So despite Tito's declaration that there is still a TACTICAL use for nuclear weapons I think that that statement is false. There has not been a single loss of a US warplane since the gulf war, so what would prevent us from simply bombing any obstacle that presented itself to oblivion? What kind of advantage would the US gain from using such weapons? Tactical nuclear weapons are merely a throwback to the cold war that grew obsolete over time.