In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Who will nuke the USA or its allies?

tccoxtccox Member Posts: 7,379 ✭✭
edited September 2006 in General Discussion
What dingbat dictator in his own mind would ever nuke us or one of our allies?

What would it accomplish but instant retribution? They or their country would not survive. Iran drop a nuke on Israel? Not a very smart move.

All these countries are doing is spending their national treasure on weapons that can only destroy themselves. And starving their own people in the process. North korea has starved at least two genorations to death to produce whatever they have. And we can take it out in a matter of hours.

I have been out of the intelligence field for a long time now and am not up to date on latest REAL world intelligence. But, I don't think the NKoreans or Iranians want to tangle with us or our allies.

Whenever I see American bodies dragged down streets with people cheering, I personally would like to send down a few B52 strikes to sort of discourage that sort of behavior.

Almost like gatherings in some parts of California when the American flag has been replaced with another country's. Lets nuke them before they nuke us!! Tom

PS I have had a few adult beverages and will claim whatever?? T
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • EVILDR235EVILDR235 Member Posts: 4,398 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The leaders of the countries that don't like us have no love for their country or people.Soon as they push the button,they will be on a plane with all the wealth they have stolen from that nation and it's peoples.Plenty of other dictators will greet them with open arms.Maybe someday people will wake up and realize it's their leaders that have them living in poverty and hungry and sickness and not America.Do you think Fidel goes to bed hungry ?
    EvilDr235
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sharpshooter039sharpshooter039 Member Posts: 5,897 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    if/when we get nuked it will not be by missles flying in where we can see who sent them to shoot back,it will be from within,bombs slipped inside cargo ships,or the so called suitcase nukes carried in over the border,they will take out several major cities at once including washington dc collapsing our government and killing all leaders in one swipe.the only thing that will be left to hold the wolves at bay will be some military leaders that take charge and gunowners like us
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NeilTheBritNeilTheBrit Member Posts: 390 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    They don't have to be dingbats, or have nukes.


    Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

    [stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE

    [stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4

    [Seal of Prime Minister]

    10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]

    GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]

    1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.

    2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women.

    3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring their bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a heavy toll.

    4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This they could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.

    5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks, from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops and civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the mind whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse which rule in this.

    6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline] that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now.

    7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits.

    [signed] Winston Churchill [initials]

    6.7.44 [underlined]

    Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W. Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp. 249-251

    Churchill also advocated the use of poison gas against the Kurds in Iraq back in 1920, quote.

    *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.*


    http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    And while we're fretting about who will be the first to use a nuke on us, why don't we wet ourselves over who will be the first to forge a military alliance with the Martians against us?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mrseatlemrseatle Member Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    1BEAR3.GIF
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hughbetchahughbetcha Member Posts: 7,801 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    And while we're fretting about who will be the first to use a nuke on us, why don't we wet ourselves over who will be the first to forge a military alliance with the Martians against us?


    Probably those guys on Jupiter. I've never trusted them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nemesisenforcernemesisenforcer Member Posts: 10,513 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    And while we're fretting about who will be the first to use a nuke on us, why don't we wet ourselves over who will be the first to forge a military alliance with the Martians against us?


    off the meds again I see. . .
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    Nemesis,

    Hey, I'm not the one suffering from paranoid delusions about "suitcase nukes" and red mercury or whatever the hell else is being touted as the next America-killer in an easy-to-stow package.



    Hugh,

    My votes is for those pesky Venusians... they hate freedom, don'tcha know?[:p]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    It won't be a country, dictatorship or otherwise. It will be some whacko terrorist who happens to somehow get his grubby mits on an old soviet bomb or something, puts it in the bilge of a ship, and blows up NYC, Boston, etc. Or one SOLD to such a man underhandedly and with plausible deniability by an Iran, N. Korea, China, Syria, etc.; they don't care if we don't fully fall, i.e. they don't want to CONQUER us per se, they just want to see as many of us die as possible, in as short of a time as possible. They might be seen as anarchists, too, I suppose.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nemesisenforcernemesisenforcer Member Posts: 10,513 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    Nemesis,

    Hey, I'm not the one suffering from paranoid delusions about "suitcase nukes" and red mercury or whatever the hell else is being touted as the next America-killer in an easy-to-stow package.



    Neither am I for the record.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • The TinmanThe Tinman Member Posts: 928 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Any ground-detonated nuke will not have the same effect as did the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. True, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were no where near as powerful as the thermonuclear hydrogen bombs of today, but the destructive power of a nuclear blast is in the pressure-wave and ensuing firestorm that follows. A ground-based nuke would send almost half of its destructive potential skyward, damaging very little past the first 50 blocks or so. The idea that a ground-based nuke destroying several cities is fantasy.
    Regarding those so-called suitcase nukes from the old Soviet Union, (1) I seriously doubt that they ever existed in the first place, and (2) if they do exist, unless they have been properly maintained, after 6 months or a year, the plutonium in them will have degraded to the point where they won't go critical. The Soviets experimented with nuclear land mines, and decided against deploying them, as the mines needed maintenance every 90 days. Who wants to go out and dig up a deployed land mine 3-4 times a year? I seriously doubt any Soviet-era nuclear device would ever work as designed either, unless the nukes were properly maintained.
    What worries me most is China or North Korea placing some of their modern nuclear devices on the market that anyone with a few million bucks can purchase, but again, unless that person can deploy (and trigger) the device at least 2500 feet in the air, we won't be losing whole cities to a nuclear device. Yeah, it would suck for those people in the 50-block kill zone, and the damage would make 9-11 seem trivial, but I suspect that if it were going to happen, it would have happened soon after the Soviet break-up.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.