US rewrites nuke laws to allow for pre-emptive strikes

Do you really trust your government around phrases like 'pre-emptive strike'?
 
well the public out cry would be so overwhelming,I just think they would never do it
 
I don't like this one bit. Nuclear weapons scare the bajebus out of me.
 
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."
- NBC's "Meet the Press", February 8, 2004

Maybe we should be a touch concerned.
 
Ren.182 said:
The trouble is, if America launches, so does the rest of the world. Thats a lot of nukes flying about he place.
Click to expand...
"Fiah ze Mizziles!"
;)
 
And in Australia they're still like, "wtf mate ^^"
 
...

I resent that. Here, have a prawn. Straight from the barbie.
 
As long it keeps those damn commies from sapping and impurifying all of my precious bodily fluids.
 
Icarusintel said:
nukes rock!
personally, being nuked wouldn;t be such a bad way to go, it's very quick
Click to expand...

Unless you're caught anywhere in a non-lethal distance. Then you die of radiation.
 
I am pretty certain that this is only being done as a way for the US to say something like "we mean business" and is never meant to be used. However I am actually extremelly surprised that something like this was never done early on during the cold war.
 
What happened to the good old days when people were killed by shooting and stabbing eachother?
 
The Mullinator said:
I am pretty certain that this is only being done as a way for the US to say something like "we mean business" and is never meant to be used. However I am actually extremelly surprised that something like this was never done early on during the cold war.
Click to expand...

I kind of think this is what its for too... but its still scary. However, I do recognize that most of the people in the military and such are likely family men... with loved ones, and not mindless, inhuman, uncaring, unfeeling automatons... and wouldnt just launch nukes carelessly. It would likely require some SERIOUS, SERIOUS proof that something bad is going to go down to be launched pre-emptively. But still, I doubt that.
 
Doesn't matter wether it's likely to happen or what the underlying intent behind the rewriting was. All it takes is some idiot in the future to use this now legally-sanctioned tactic.

What this essentially does is put the "okey-dokey" stamp on a pre-emptive nuclear strike. It's only a matter of time before we become accustomed to it and the thought of its usage no longer seems so alien to us.
 
Absinthe said:
Doesn't matter wether it's likely to happen or what the underlying intent behind the rewriting was. All it takes is some idiot in the future to use this now legally-sanctioned tactic.

What this essentially does is put the "okey-dokey" stamp on a pre-emptive nuclear strike. It's only a matter of time before we become accustomed to it and the thought of its usage no longer seems like so alien to us.
Click to expand...


Well honestly, the ability to strike pre-emptively is a good thing. It can help save many innocent lives, when you absolutely know an enemy is going to attack and you beat him to it and catch him off guard.


However... we're talking about nuclear weapons... so its a whole different ballgame.
 
I was referring specifically to a pre-emptive nuclear attack.

Pre-emptive strikes aren't altogether bad. If you have sufficient, cross-checked, undeniable evidence of an imminent threat, then you have every right to take your enemy out before you get hit. That's common sense.

The nuclear option, however, is off-limits IMO. The amount of civilian casualties caused would never be worth it.
 
Absinthe said:
Doesn't matter wether it's likely to happen or what the underlying intent behind the rewriting was. All it takes is some idiot in the future to use this now legally-sanctioned tactic.

What this essentially does is put the "okey-dokey" stamp on a pre-emptive nuclear strike. It's only a matter of time before we become accustomed to it and the thought of its usage no longer seems so alien to us.
Click to expand...
Any idiotic leader could do it in the past. All this has done is make it legal on paper. In reality though it wouldn't make a difference whether that idiot is around before or after this is passed.
 
Absinthe said:
I was referring specifically to a pre-emptive nuclear attack.

Pre-emptive strikes aren't altogether bad. If you have sufficient, cross-checked, undeniable evidence of an imminent threat, then you have every right to take your enemy out before you get hit. That's common sense.

The nuclear option, however, is off-limits IMO. The amount of civilian casualties caused would never be worth it.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you... part of me still seems to scream out, "But that only leads to the mindset of 'Retaliate only when attacked first and destroyed'."

But... oh well. I dunno. I really abhor nuclear weapons.
 
The Mullinator said:
Any idiotic leader could do it in the past. All this has done is make it legal on paper. In reality though it wouldn't make a difference whether that idiot is around before or after this is passed.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it was an impossibility in the past. I'm saying that the legal system is just one less barrier in the way. One last thing to consider. One more step in the wrong direction.
The effect it has in the short and long-term is something I can't predict with any accuracy, but I'd prefer not to gamble it.
 
I agree with absinthe.

Just look at how the last pre-emptive strike turned out. There should be as many barriers as possible to prevent nuclear mistakes.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I agree with absinthe.

Just look at how the last pre-emptive strike turned out. There should be as many barriers as possible to prevent nuclear mistakes.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the WWII nukes, that's one area we're going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Pre-emptive Strike Definition:
"Striking someone before they looked at you funny"
 
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper


I would normally just laugh at him but this is actually serious and very frightening.
Not only does it go against the Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty, whereby a nuclear power would not use nuclear weapons against non nuclear states, and equally importantly would not promote or escalate its nuclear arsenal.

It also goes against the entire principle of having these dreadful weapons.
The entire world is sold on the principle that these weapons are a necessary evil to ensure world peace.

To introduce new weapons such as the bunk buster nukes and battle field tactical nukes is to some how install a mind set whereby these weapons are useful in everyday combat situations.

This document, as well as suggesting pre emptive strikes are justifiable also suggests the use of the nuclear weapons against “numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states” could be considered.

This is madness.
 
Fliko said:
Pre-emptive Strike Definition:
"Striking someone before they looked at you funny"
Click to expand...

In other words, Pre-emptive strike is a doctored word of Attack.

So instead of someone attacking a nation, they "Pre-emptive striked" a nation, which makes it ok. :hmph:
 
dream431ca said:
In other words, Pre-emptive strike is a doctored word of Attack.

So instead of someone attacking a nation, they "Pre-emptive striked" a nation, which makes it ok. :hmph:
Click to expand...

That's not what pre-emptive strike means.
 
shadow6899 said:
were ****ed, may we all live past 2012 D:
Click to expand...

You know that number, 2012 has always played in my head ever since I was in my early teens, as the end days date. Dunno why.
 
Wasn't 2012 something to do with Terminator 2? Or isn't that the year the Mayan Calander ends?
 
Sparta said:
Wasn't 2012 something to do with Terminator 2? Or isn't that the year the Mayan Calander ends?
Click to expand...

Wasn't at all influenced by that.
 
My god, my media project was set in 2012. And in it, the world ended. Co-incidence? :eek:
 
London olympic games in 2012? Coincidense, i think not!

:tinfoilhat:
 
I will tie my shoes in 2012, assuming I still have feet, or if I'm not using those bitchin' velcro laces.

THERE'S A CONNECTION HERE
 
Icarusintel said:
nukes rock!
personally, being nuked wouldn;t be such a bad way to go, it's very quick
Click to expand...
unless u are on the outskirts of the blast and become irradiated, that would be a pretty shit way to die, i mean necrossis and everything.

But i do agree with it actually, i mean it wouldnt have made sense in 2003 and be quite scary, but they knew saddam diddnt have effective bio-weapons anyway.
After all they knew pretty much everything going on in iraq and went in for oil. It would definately been unnecesary to a large extent, but i suppose if u think about it, it would definately been a sound way to passify the country. It would have been totally inhumane to do that anyway.

With that aside, todays eventualities are another matter, they invaded iraq, but if they were really removing the most evil regimes they would actually have concentrated on its neighbour iran. Having left it and left it futher, iran is definately a serious threat, it makes its own nukes now and god-knows what else, and ofcourse that they are really evil is self evident when they parade with banners saying we will crush america and the west and takeover the world.

They would need this pre-emptive stike for that reason. Also for that threat specific threat mentioned in the first post, for if they, or anybody else unleased a bioloical form of weapon in danger of wiping out humanity or the planet. Biological weapons are becomming ever more dangerous and could be one of the biggest threats, the only way to deal with an outbreak of whatever bio-strike, wether its bubonic plague, viral infestation of somesort or virus-disease, is indeed to nuke in the case of a critical situation, beacuse only the blast and radiation could kill the matter. I suppose it would be an efective response in such a major crisis, to destroy these things in case of them being an imminent threat.

Ofcourse wen it comes to nuclear war, if it was a full scale nuclear exchange and resulting holocaust, we would be all pretty much buggered. Most people would die, maybe in the aftermath of such a catastrophe some people would survive. Well in some form or another, maybe like a race of radioactive freaks and stuff like that, gone back to to being beasts in the oblivion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
US, Iranian students willing to take extreme measures when faced with own mortality
Replies
37
Views
1K
Llama
Llama
Back
Top