U.S. Military Told to Prepare Nuclear Weapons: LA Times

Danny · #1 03-12-2002, 09:25 PM

I am very scared...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r_dc_1&cid=578

Reactions, anyone?

Melvin:squeeking paramite · #2 03-12-2002, 09:30 PM

That's damned scary, Dan... I have no faith in George W. Bush... Being an American, I'm incredibly scared. He's a moron, and he'll probably end up bombing America, and then blowing up the rest of the world. Remember, Dan... you should be very scared when he says, "We's Americanites is gonna bomb them damn dirty Britishians! Ya'all!" He is a frigging war-monger...

Sl'askia · #3 03-12-2002, 10:52 PM

From the very first line I had serious doubts as to the authenticy(sp) of this report. It stated this came from a 'classified' source...now being military meself, I know that unless there was a SERIOUS secruity breach...we (the general public)would have NEVER have known about this until the first nuke went off.
*crosses fingers in hopes that it is a false report...*
No want nuke war...nope nope...

Doug · #4 03-12-2002, 11:09 PM

This is the military response to that report (as reported by CNN.com). Supposedly this is some kind of general "Congressionally mandated nuclear posture review" that occurs every six years rather than a specific attack contingency plan.

CNN story next day

I'm not sure it makes this all any less scary.

Sl'askia · #5 03-12-2002, 11:37 PM

Thank you Doug, I KNEW that report was a bunch of bullocks.

abe22 · #6 03-13-2002, 03:22 AM

It's not true at ALL!
You really don't think that the congress will agree and say "Yes let's go bomb all these places!"
Honestly If they did bomb China and Russia (which they won't because this article is a load of crap) They, Russia and China can do as much damage as America can. It won't happen though because America is not that stupid (all though sometimes I think they are

)

Surfacing · #7 03-13-2002, 10:03 AM

Yeah i have heard alot about this, but why egsactly does America want to target these 7 countries? How would America feel if they were target for weapons of mass destruction? I can bet all my money they would hate it, and i'm sure that's how the 7 nations feel about Bush's plan. I think the America is a big bully just cause they are the strongest nation on earth, they don't have to keep going around acting like it. I mean if America wants to start getting reed of weapons of mass destruction why don't they start by getting reed of there own, why are they so concerned about other nation's using them? Sure i can understand why America is targeting Iraq cause of So damn insane, but that should not give them the right to go picking on other countries.

Ever since Sept 11 America has been hungry for revenge and blood, but what America does not understand is what the terrorist did there acts for, Blood and revenge! America will not stop until a world war has started, Why does it have to be this way? America can not really blame a country for the terrorist acts, but more just a group of terrorist. I read this poll at a American site, the poll was "Should we just nuke people" 64% replyed YES!i could'nt believe it! The government is really getting to the people with all this nuke bussiness. Don't you think America has gone far enough with declaring a war on terroism? I know this war has made the u.s go even further, as far as talking about nukes. I'm not really blaming this all on the u.s government but most of it on Bush, ever since he came into office it has been hell, i mean look how far he has gone, Nukes! does anybody relize how deadly a nuke is??? The way the u.s just seems to brag about it's just like some ordinary bomb, and if the u.s starts the nukes other countries will aswell. I personally think that nukes should be illigal world wide! I sincerely hope that Bush does not resort to nukes other wise we are looking at WW3.

Sorry for rambling on so much i know i may have drifted from the topic but i just had to say all that.

Doug · #8 03-13-2002, 11:51 AM

:

Originally posted by Surfacing
why egsactly does America want to target these 7 countries? How would America feel if they were target for weapons of mass destruction?

Your post indicates to me that you are not fully informed on this topic. Apart from that, America is the target of weapons of mass destruction and has been for several decades.

You and I have had a long back-and-forth about nuclear weapons, and I'm not going to get into another one, particularly with someone who seems to have a blind hatred for the United States. If you want the United States to just lie back and get attacked again, get over it; it's not going to happen.

On the lighter side, some younger forumers and most non-US forumers are probably unfamiliar with the work of singer/songwriter Randy Newman, although you may have noticed that he writes a lot of film scores. Here are the lyrics to one of his songs that always cracks me up. (Note to those with no sense of humor: It's satire! That means it's ridiculing the attitude reflected within, not promoting it.)

Political Science by Randy Newman

No one likes us -- I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money -- But are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us -- so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't want to hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin' too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

Surfacing · #9 03-13-2002, 07:37 PM

:

Originally posted by Doug

You and I have had a long back-and-forth about nuclear weapons, and I'm not going to get into another one, particularly with someone who seems to have a blind hatred for the United States. If you want the United States to just lie back and get attacked again, get over it; it's not going to happen.

Are you suggesting i'm Anti American? How dare you, all i'm saying is i don't agree with what Bush's is doing not what America as a whole is doing. When the u.s got attacked there were no nukes involved at all, and no i don't think America should just lie back and get attacked again, and even if America did get attacked again i can gurantee you no nukes would be involved. I just don't think the u.s should be targeting other countries that were not involved in the sept 11 attacks. I think it's wrong and immoral those countries had nothing to do with it, why can't the u.s just leave them out of it? Sure they may host terrorist but so does every freakin nation in the world! Including the u.s, the u.s should be more concerned about it's terroism and it's nukes before it goes to other nations.

And what the hell is up with that poem? It just shows that all the u.s wants to do is drop nukes and take over the world ( which actual is not far from the truth at all)

Doug · #10 03-13-2002, 08:15 PM

:

Originally posted by Surfacing

1. I just don't think the u.s should be targeting other countries that were not involved in the sept 11 attacks.

2. And what the hell is up with that poem? It just shows that all the u.s wants to do is drop nukes and take over the world ( which actual is not far from the truth at all)

1. Read all the relevant news. As I said, you're not fully informed on this topic.

2. Read my post again; carefully, this time.

Surfacing · #11 03-13-2002, 08:29 PM

:

Originally posted by Doug

1. Read all the relevant news. As I said, you're not fully informed on this topic.

2. Read my post again; carefully, this time.

Well why don't you fill me in, if i'm so wrong?, I personally do not have that much time to read it, i'm really basing all this on what i have seen on the news.

And i still can't see anything different with that poem.

Danny · #12 03-13-2002, 09:26 PM

Ok, call me paranoid, but I am even more scared having read that second report. The second report is pure military propaganda. In what way are we meant to feel comforted by the fact that the US makes reports like that every six years?

I am considerably worried, especially in light of the recent war against Afghanistan. The US attack one of the poorest nations in the world, totally unprovoked, and then discover that nobody dares to stand up and tell them that what they're doing is wrong (least of all Tony Blair, that smarmy wanker - it says something about the state of British Politics that Tony Blair is the lesser of two evils). Then Bush goes and makes his stupid "Axis of Evil" speech, which I think clearly shows that the US has learned from the Afghanistan attack that it can do whatever the **** it likes...

Now I agree that Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea may not have the most favourable governments in the world, but since when has that justified carpet bombing? Calling it "collateral damage" does not make it any less of an atrocity. Also, the US is far from innocent in matters of both dubious government and in the harbouring of terrorists. As one of the few parts of the Bible I agree with says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"... I think it was the Bible anyway... But anyway, I'm not going to get into this debate again, since we had it just a few months ago...

What makes this whole affair slightly more disturbing is that Bush clearly weilds no actual power in the US government. The day after the Axis of Evil statement, Colin Powell came out and almost literally told the press that (the press, in this case, being the Financial Times, which is not known for its sensationalism...). I think his exact words were "What President Bush says does not alter US Policy, nor should it ever be assumed that it does", or something along those lines.

This revelation begs the question: If Bush's power is just symbolic, why did Colin and the other real power-weilders allow the "Axis of Evil" statement to filter through, only to deny that it had any effect on US policy the next day? I put it to you that that statement was designed specifically to anger those particular nations, and make their people hate the US more, so that the US will feel justified when they finally decide to blow the shit out of them in an unprovoked manner. Hell, a few more statements like that, and the other countries might even attack first! Perfect! But, of course, the US can't have its "Allies" (read: Countries who are afraid of the US) thinking that it is so unreasonable and warlike, so they blame it on a stupid president, and deny it the next day...

I may be being paranoid, and all this may be bollocks. I hope to god that it is...

Sl'askia · #13 03-13-2002, 09:42 PM

They do those reports to determine the countries that pose the most threat to the USA I believe.

A bit off topic now.
I usually don't bother following anything political...politics make my head spin, so I usually only glance at such things if I even look at it at all...

Doug · #14 03-13-2002, 10:01 PM

:

Originally posted by Danny
The US attack one of the poorest nations in the world, totally unprovoked . . .

Huh ?!

Danny · #15 03-13-2002, 10:09 PM

:

Originally posted by Doug
Huh ?!

Unprovoked, yes. Afghanistan did not make any kind of aggressive overtures against the US. All it did was harbour terrorists. The US itself not only harbours terrorists, but also trains them, for f*ck's sake, so it is hardly justified in attacking someone else for doing the same...

Doug · #16 03-13-2002, 10:20 PM

You and I just see things differently, Danny.

I don't like heated arguments, and it was stupid of me to post something that I knew would make you angry.

I hereby withdraw from all of this.

Surfacing · #17 03-14-2002, 01:14 AM

Why back out now? Or is what Danny said so true, that you can't not respond to it? You know just cause your American you do not have to always agree with your government.

Doug · #18 03-14-2002, 03:02 AM

:

Originally posted by Surfacing
Why back out now? Or is what Danny said so true, that you can't not respond to it? You know just cause your American you do not have to always agree with your government.

I think to respond would be pointless, as it's pretty clear that Danny has his mind made up about this issue. That doesn't mean I don't have a response. In fact, I did respond, but I decided that I don't want to bicker about this, and changed my last post.

I never said that I always agree with my government, and we've only discussed one topic that has any connection to governmental policy, so how could you make that assessment? In fact, I voted against Bush, and I voted against his old man twice. A lot can happen in 2 years, but I'll probably vote against W again.

I don't even completely agree with my government about nuclear policy. I'm not going to discuss it with you, however, because as you've admitted you can't even be bothered to inform yourself on the topic or even read the posts all the way through. You just want to fight, as your latest post clearly indicates.

Surfacing · #19 03-14-2002, 08:03 AM

:

Originally posted by Doug

I don't even completely agree with my government about nuclear policy. I'm not going to discuss it with you, however, because as you've admitted you can't even be bothered to inform yourself on the topic or even read the posts all the way through. You just want to fight, as your latest post clearly indicates.

I don't want to fight at all, i just wanted to know why you agree, but obviosly you don't want to talk about it, so i'll just drop it ok?? Also that article had not much to do with afganistan, and Danny made a huge point in the war if Afgan, but like i said if you don't want to talk about that's fine with me.

Doug · #20 03-14-2002, 04:13 PM

:

Originally posted by Surfacing

i just wanted to know why you agree

The biggest problem that I see is that we haven't really established what we are arguing about. I haven't really "agreed" with anything, and you've read more into my position with respect to this news item than is there.

I am completely against the tactical use of nuclear weapons; I am completely against the defensive use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack. I haven't thought through the appropriate response to being attacked with nuclear weapons, and I guess I'd prefer not to think about it. Possessing nuclear weapons is not something I'm happy about, but neither do I believe in unilateral disarmament.

I want to personally apologize to you for getting pissy with you, Surfacing. I come to the forums for the friendly banter and sense of community, and while I sometimes get drawn into these controversial topics, I never really feel good about it afterwards. I avoided this topic at first, knowing that joining in could lead to no good, but alas, I lost my self-control.

Anyway, thank you for understanding that I just don't want to talk about this anymore; perhaps we can pick up with another conversation in a more friendly manner.

Danny · #21 03-14-2002, 07:54 PM

:

Originally posted by Doug
You and I just see things differently, Danny.

I don't like heated arguments, and it was stupid of me to post something that I knew would make you angry. I hereby withdraw from all of this.

I think you misinterpreted me there, Doug. I wasn't angry, I was just answering your question, or what I assumed your question was, anyway...

:

Originally posted by Surfacing:
Why back out now? Or is what Danny said so true, that you can't not respond to it? You know just cause your American you do not have to always agree with your government.

Bearing in mind that I was trying to have a civilised conversation with Doug, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say things like this that are designed to get him on the defensive...

:

Originally posted by Doug:
I think to respond would be pointless, as it's pretty clear that Danny has his mind made up about this issue.

I'll give you a chance to say that this was not intended to be as patronising as it was before I get slightly irritated...

:

In fact, I did respond, but I decided that I don't want to bicker about this, and changed my last post.

Why would it be bickering? Just because we disagree, doesn't mean we can't have a civilised debate... (I am choosing to forget certain incidents with other forumers, as you seem more reasonable that them, Doug...)

:

The biggest problem that I see is that we haven't really established what we are arguing about. I haven't really "agreed" with anything, and you've read more into my position with respect to this news item than is there.

I'm not with him, okay, Doug? I've never seen him before in my life...

:

I am completely against the tactical use of nuclear weapons; I am completely against the defensive use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack. I haven't thought through the appropriate response to being attacked with nuclear weapons, and I guess I'd prefer not to think about it. Possessing nuclear weapons is not something I'm happy about, but neither do I believe in unilateral disarmament.

Honest question: Why not? If there were no Nuclear Weapons, there could be no Nuclear Attacks, and I think we all agree that that would be a good thing...

:

I want to personally apologize to you for getting pissy with you, Surfacing. I come to the forums for the friendly banter and sense of community, and while I sometimes get drawn into these controversial topics, I never really feel good about it afterwards. I avoided this topic at first, knowing that joining in could lead to no good, but alas, I lost my self-control.

Hey, don't avoid controversial topics! Just do as I do, and try to stay calm and rational. Come to think of it, I don't think you lost self-control at all in this topic... Not unless your standards for "self-control" are amazingly high...

:

Anyway, thank you for understanding that I just don't want to talk about this anymore; perhaps we can pick up with another conversation in a more friendly manner.

Why don't you want to talk about this? There's no need to get uncomfortable just because someone disagrees with you. Apart from anything else, I want to hear what you think on the issue(s)...

SeaRex · #22 03-14-2002, 08:11 PM

:

Originally posted by Danny
Unprovoked, yes. Afghanistan did not make any kind of aggressive overtures against the US. All it did was harbour terrorists. The US itself not only harbours terrorists, but also trains them, for f*ck's sake, so it is hardly justified in attacking someone else for doing the same...

You understand, of course, that the US isn't actually attacking Afghanistan itself, but the Taliban. Oh sure, innocent non-terrorist Afghanistan residents are being killed, but such is the cost of war involving the Evil Empire. Dubya is trying his best (yeah, I know) to keep relations between the US and non-terrorist Afghanistan clean.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "harbouring and training terrorists". Are you refering to our Army, perhaps? No?

Danny · #23 03-14-2002, 08:22 PM

:

Originally posted by SeaRex
You understand, of course, that the US isn't actually attacking Afghanistan itself, but the Taliban. Oh sure, innocent non-terrorist Afghanistan residents are being killed, but such is the cost of war involving the Evil Empire. Dubya is trying his best (yeah, I know) to keep relations between the US and non-terrorist Afghanistan clean.

If you fire bombs into a country, it doesn't matter who you're aiming at inside the country, you're still attacking the country. Anyway, the Taliban didn't provoke the US either. The Taliban may be totally evil and corrupt Fudamentalists, but it wasn't them who started this conflict...

:

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "harbouring and training terrorists". Are you refering to our Army, perhaps? No?

No, I mean WHISC. Formerly the School of the Americas... I'll go and try and dig up the topic I made on it...

http://www.oddworldforums.net/forums...ighlight=whisc Here it is. Forgive the word "Whisc" for being highlighted in the text, it's the keyword I searched for...

Doug · #24 03-15-2002, 01:26 AM

:

Originally posted by Danny
I think you misinterpreted me there, Doug. I wasn't angry, I was just answering your question, or what I assumed your question was, anyway...

Sorry if I misunderstood, Danny. I just honestly thought a statement punctuated with "for f**ks sake" reflected anger. And I certainly did not intend to be patronizing.

:

Honest question: Why not? If there were no Nuclear Weapons, there could be no Nuclear Attacks, and I think we all agree that that would be a good thing...

I'm all for complete, multilateral disarmament. I'm all for the complete eradication of nuclear weapons. I just think unilateral disarmament by the US would be foolhardy. It would be nice to think we could just say: "OK, we'll go first. Then you go." I am naive; I freely admit it. But I'm not that naive.

Danny · #25 03-15-2002, 09:54 PM

:

Originally posted by Doug
Sorry if I misunderstood, Danny. I just honestly thought a statement punctuated with "for f**ks sake" reflected anger. And I certainly did not intend to be patronizing.

That was for theatrics' sake. It just seemed to fit...

:

I'm all for complete, multilateral disarmament. I'm all for the complete eradication of nuclear weapons. I just think unilateral disarmament by the US would be foolhardy. It would be nice to think we could just say: "OK, we'll go first. Then you go." I am naive; I freely admit it. But I'm not that naive.

Even so, the US currently has enough nuclear weapons to eradicate the Human Race four times over (if I remember my figures correctly), plus Bush has increased the US Defense Budget from $14 billion to $139 billion over the last six months. Call me naive if you like, but is that not a little excessive?

SeaRex · #26 03-15-2002, 10:57 PM

:

Originally posted by Danny
If you fire bombs into a country, it doesn't matter who you're aiming at inside the country, you're still attacking the country. (1) Anyway, the Taliban didn't provoke the US either. The Taliban may be totally evil and corrupt Fudamentalists, but it wasn't them who started this conflict... (2)

No, I mean WHISC. Formerly the School of the Americas... I'll go and try and dig up the topic I made on it... (3)

1. Very true.
2. I still don't get it! But didn't they kinda run airplanes into the WTC? So... they started it... I think. I'm sorry Danny, I must be missing something you said...
3. Hmmm... Interesting. But that's another topic, so I won't start.

Danny · #27 03-15-2002, 11:07 PM

:

Originally posted by SeaRex
I still don't get it! But didn't they kinda run airplanes into the WTC? So... they started it... I think. I'm sorry Danny, I must be missing something you said...

No. That was the Al-Quaeda, not the Taliban.

SeaRex · #28 03-15-2002, 11:13 PM

:

Originally posted by Danny
No. That was the Al-Quaeda, not the Taliban.

Oh yeah! I forgot we were killing them! ^^

Danny · #29 03-15-2002, 11:22 PM

:

Originally posted by SeaRex
Oh yeah! I forgot we were killing them! ^^

Beg Pardon? Didn't quite get that...

Doug · #30 03-15-2002, 11:25 PM

:

Originally posted by Danny
Even so, the US currently has enough nuclear weapons to eradicate the Human Race four times over (if I remember my figures correctly), plus Bush has increased the US Defense Budget from $14 billion to $139 billion over the last six months. Call me naive if you like, but is that not a little excessive?

Well, the budget gets set once a year, and I don't think he can increase it once it's been approved by Congress. He might be asking for or proposing increases over the months.

Just today, he said he planned to raise the defense budget $48 billion to a total of $379 billion. It would be the biggest increase in two decades, but it's not like a ten-fold increase. I guess whether it's excessive depends on what it's being used for.

More to the point about nuclear weapons, I agree; we don't need so many. The US has been reducing the number it has since the demise of the Soviet Union. On Tuesday, I believe it was, he discussed mutual reductions with the Russian defense minister, and said they had agreed to reduce the number in both countries.

I agree, no matter how many they have is too many. I just don't want to give up all of ours when other countries possess them as well.