Welcome to PatsFans.com

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,830
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Is it me, or is launching nuclear bombs to prevent a nuclear war the dumbest thing you've ever heard of?

    What the flunk is going on?
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    ex:

    "They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008)

    "They [the group] believe that the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons."

    'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox," (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,662
    Likes Received:
    155
    Ratings:
    +482 / 1 / -9

    The secret to winning a street fight is to punch the other guy right in the face as hard as you can, before he does it to you, the first punch usually wins the fight.

    :bricks:
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,830
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    maybe you are reading it wrong.....using your logic:

    you would punchg a man in the face to stop a fight?

    it makes no sense.

    what if he gets up?


    he might be angry....you might have a fight on your hands.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2008
  4. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If the United States punches - and I mean really punches - someone, they ain't getting up. And I'd rather see a mushroom cloud over Tehran than over New York, wouldn't you...?
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,830
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    interesting choice of words....


    "Mushroom Cloud"


    we all know how AWESOME that turned out when we launched a 'pre-emptive war' hoping to stop weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    -------------------------------------------------
    Shurly you can' be serious......

    I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!
    -------------------------------------------------
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Lucky for us the Soviets never had that as their policy. You better hope the Russians or Chinese adopt that for a policy or we all die. And suppose the Iranians nuke Israel? Do we nuke the Iranians? Suppose the Russians have agreed to back up the Iranians the way we say we'd back up Israel?.....

    See where I'm going?
  7. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's right, because for all their bluster, we could count on the Soviets to act rationally.
    Sounds a lot like another cold war to me... Maybe we should have abandoned West Germany and Turkey because hey, what if Russia invaded..?

    And if Iran were to nuke Israel, Israel would wipe Iran off the face of the planet for about the next 4,000 years or so.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,507
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +389 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    It seems logical to me that if a country could drop one nuke which would prevent the nuked country from dropping, say, 5, that it's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,507
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +389 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    That's the beauty of nukes - they won't get up :D
  10. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,830
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    So...

    you'd be cool with Russia adopting this policy, and see the logic in them attepting to prevent this NATO doctrine?


    its called a viscious circle.
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    There's nothing "beautiful" about nukes. But for you to say something so short-sighted is hardly surprising. Again, one nuclear explosion in any major metropolitan city anywhere in the world, and I can guarantee you a world-wide economic depression the likes of which we've never known.

    And that's in the very unlikely event that just one doesn't lead to dozens, hundreds or thousands. You'd better hope your hawkish heroes don't resort to something so stupid.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>