people believe nukes will be used within 5 years.

Billnew said:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-nuclear-fears_x.htm

I thought, all the time I was growing up, that the Russians and America would have a nuclear war.

Another sad point: 60% adults in agreed with using the nukes at the end of the war(WWII). Now only 40% of adults beleive it was right.

Currently, I do believe an isolated nuke might be used by terrorists, but nuclear holocaust is alot less likely now.

Click to expand...

Less likely, but still quite possible. The real danger nowadays is accidental launches, and of course, even the use of one nuke by anyone could lead to a larger escalation. We should never take it lightly.

I would think the possibilty of small nuclear arms being used is much more likely then ICBMs or something of that nature. I really don't know the likelyhood. Nuclear weapons have immense power, and people know that once they open up that pandora's box, that it may be hard to close, and that the destruction could be incredible.

Was it right to use Nukes on Japan during WW2? I have always believed so. In order for people to truly understand the scope of nuclear power, it had to be demonstrated, and not just a test. This display, combined with the fact that no other nation had nuclear weapons at the time, showed military superiority that brought the war to a close. If we had not done so, the continuing war would have killed many more then those 2 bombs ever would.

Today a nuclear attack would not hold the same shock. It has been seen before, and many other nations possess its capability. Nations who have just developed nuclear arms may seem threatening, but consider the fact that when they test those bombs, they will remember that we have more then a thousandfold their arsenal, and that ours are more powerful, precise, and have the capability of hitting them anywhere in the world. Those still in the infancy of nuclear arms are likely to respect that power. The greatest risk of course comes from terrorists. The more desparate the terrorist, the more likely they will consider its use. "If you are going to lose, make sure they win less". A frightening mentality, but when you have nothing else to lose, many will lash out with everything they have.

Billnew said:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-31-nuclear-fears_x.htm

I thought, all the time I was growing up, that the Russians and America would have a nuclear war.

Another sad point: 60% adults in agreed with using the nukes at the end of the war(WWII). Now only 40% of adults beleive it was right.

Click to expand...

If the 60% of adults cited who supported using nukes lived at the time of the war, or at the dawn of the cold war, it would make sense that they would represent a greater support for the use of the atom bomb as a means to end the war. If the 60% who disagree (the inverse of the 40% cited who still agree) with the decision to use the nukes are babyboomers or children of babyboomers (contemporary adults, if you will), their mindset would be effected differently as they have had the benefit of hindsight and can base their views from an historical perspective, rather than having their attitudes effected by the reactionary and emotionally charged atmosphere of the earlier times.

Respectfully.

Vylo said:

Today a nuclear attack would not hold the same shock. It has been seen before, and many other nations possess its capability. Nations who have just developed nuclear arms may seem threatening, but consider the fact that when they test those bombs, they will remember that we have more then a thousandfold their arsenal, and that ours are more powerful, precise, and have the capability of hitting them anywhere in the world. Those still in the infancy of nuclear arms are likely to respect that power. The greatest risk of course comes from terrorists. The more desparate the terrorist, the more likely they will consider its use. "If you are going to lose, make sure they win less". A frightening mentality, but when you have nothing else to lose, many will lash out with everything they have.

Click to expand...

Your correct. Nations may take pause in using nukes against another nation, especially if that nation has a far superior nuclear strenght and capabiltiy. The deterent in this scenario is that the aggressor is aware that the probability of his nation being vaporized offsets anything he tends to gain by striking first.

The same does not apply if we insert a terrorist group into the equation in the place of the aggressor nation. Now there is no deterent effect as the terrorists have no society, geography or institutions in harms way and, therefor, this eliminates risk as a consideration. If they set off a device in New York, where, and who, would we strike in retaliation? This is the West's Achilles heel, and the terrorists are quite aware of it.

Respectfully

Sorry, accidently posted twice

McPaper, USA Today, is as insipid as usual.

Surprised it hasn't run on poll on how many people think a tsunami will hit in the next five years and if the Indian or Pacific Ocean would be a better place for it to happen.

Readers of this swill see the world through a subjective, inductive and experiental lens.

"What do you feeeeel will happen? What do you feeeeel is right? What do YOU want?"

Personally, I'd suggest that as the target date of June to attack Iran for their alleged nuclear weapons program ("No, not under here! Gosh, I know they're here somewhere!") approaches, the likelihood of a nuclear attack for which they can be blamed increases accordingly.

Voegelin said:

McPaper, USA Today, is as insipid as usual.

Surprised it hasn't run on poll on how many people think a tsunami will hit in the next five years and if the Indian or Pacific Ocean would be a better place for it to happen.

Readers of this swill see the world through a subjective, inductive and experiental lens.

"What do you feeeeel will happen? What do you feeeeel is right? What do YOU want?"

Click to expand...

haha

We get the NYT, Plain Dealer, and USA Today for free in every residence hall. The first two stacks go quick. Nobody touches USA Today. Their commercials suck too.

I'm sure if everyone's obedient enough, they'll be safe from nukes.

*starts stockpiling things to be prepared for a nuclear war*

Zoot said:

I'm sure if everyone's obedient enough, they'll be safe from nukes.

Click to expand...

Shut up and show me your papers

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534058079.html?oneclick=true
Well in 2003 the news said:

The White House has again refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq if Saddam Hussein launches a chemical or biological attack.

Asked about the latest claims in the Los Angeles Times that the US was considering using a "nuclear bunker-buster" bomb in Iraq or "mini-nukes", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said: "It's well known that the United States' long-standing policy about the use of nuclear weapons is that we don't rule anything in and we don't rule anything out."
....
But in reality, a US nuclear attack on Iraq is highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

Nobody ever builds or buys anything that they don't intend on using at some point.

A nuclear attack is the only thing terrorists can use to seriously cripple the US. Aside from the obvious, the next worst thing about that would be how the US would decide which country(ies) to strike back.

Neverstop said:

A nuclear attack is the only thing terrorists can use to seriously cripple the US. Aside from the obvious, the next worst thing about that would be how the US would decide which country(ies) to strike back.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats going to be a heck of a day if it happens. It'll make the stress and anger over 9/11 look like a picnic. I would hope we contain our response to conventional methods, if its nukes, it could be lights out for everybody.

I'd better start building a fallout shelter and stuff.

SoupySayles said:

Yeah, thats going to be a heck of a day if it happens. It'll make the stress and anger over 9/11 look like a picnic. I would hope we contain our response to conventional methods, if its nukes, it could be lights out for everybody.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely not trying to be a downer, but in all the war and terrorism talk we hardly hear of people saying that is a possibility. Actually, they would probably have an easier time of getting chem/bio stuff, and deployment for those is much easier than a nuke. Think why I'm saying this is I seriously doubt al-quaeda or related groups will never retaliate. It could be just as damaging to the US to attack its allies. My fear is that the terrorists (they may be insane, but they are not stupid) have been waiting for the US to extend its military as far as possible; once that happens, the US is fairly limited on its response, thus bringing in serious effort on allies, thus triggering responses from other countries, thus...blah don't even want to think about it.

One CIA official who tracked and studied bin Laden for years (something like 15) has said he believes 9/11 was calculated not just in the timing of the planes on the buildings, but more specifically on how the Bush admin would react. bin laden knew the US would invade afghanistan and iraq, and in the eyes of many muslims who were on the fence w/ bin laden, those invasions made him look like a true prophet.

Redneck said:

I'd better start building a fallout shelter and stuff.

Click to expand...

Not me, I'd let those warheads kiss me on the nose and send me home.

Neverstop said:

Nobody ever builds or buys anything that they don't intend on using at some point.

A nuclear attack is the only thing terrorists can use to seriously cripple the US. Aside from the obvious, the next worst thing about that would be how the US would decide which country(ies) to strike back.

Click to expand...

They'll probably just use the same method they used after 911, you know get bush to wear a blindfold and pin the nuke on the donkey...

Redneck said:

I'd better start building a fallout shelter and stuff.

Click to expand...

Build enough space for me, buddy

I'll bring the canned beans.