Terrorism in the London

Hazard · July 07, 2005, 12:04 PM

Nuking people isn't the answer just because there are less intelligent people out there with the bomb as well. If we drop one on somebody, even for a just cause, whats to stop India from dropping one on Pakistan and China to start lobbing them at Taiwan? Then we have North Korea, some really stupid bastards, with the bomb. Moral of the story is we'd wind up dropping more than one.

Banana fanna fo fanna · July 07, 2005, 12:33 PM

Didn't they set off a conventional explosive with the same power as the Nagasaki one?

DarkMinion · July 07, 2005, 12:43 PM

Yes...you can make a conventional bomb with as much yield as the "atomic" bomb nowadays.

QuoteMaybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons. France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean. Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.

I meant to say megatons, Jesus. I shouldn't type things when I just wake up.

Crazed, you're missing the most important point:

QuoteA) Nobody else had the bomb

And believe it or not, we have allies in the middle east...nuking the place isn't the answer. Plus it's a place of great beauty and world history, you don't just wipe something off the map like that.

Warrior · July 07, 2005, 12:59 PM

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Like TehUser pointed out we can think that they are evil but they think that we are evil.

Hazard · July 07, 2005, 01:02 PM

While I agree with most of that DM, I couldn't resist this one.

Quote from: DarkMinion on July 07, 2005, 12:43 PM
it's a place of great beauty

Hazard · July 07, 2005, 01:03 PM

Quote from: Warrior on July 07, 2005, 12:59 PM
Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Like TehUser pointed out we can think that they are evil but they think that we are evil.

I think your average neutral observer might agree that the bombing of innocent civillians, including women and children and non-combatant men, would be pretty much evil.

CrAz3D · July 07, 2005, 01:08 PM

Quote from: DarkMinion on July 07, 2005, 12:43 PM
Yes...you can make a conventional bomb with as much yield as the "atomic" bomb nowadays.

QuoteMaybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons. France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean. Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.

I meant to say megatons, Jesus. I shouldn't type things when I just wake up.

Crazed, you're missing the most important point:

QuoteA) Nobody else had the bomb

And believe it or not, we have allies in the middle east...nuking the place isn't the answer. Plus it's a place of great beauty and world history, you don't just wipe something off the map like that.

I agree, but what alternative to going in & looking for each terrorist is there? I'm sure no one wants to send our people to die fighting terrorism.

Personally, I'd rather have terrorists & their families die than my family.

Maybe not nuke the entire Middle East, I get worked up (obviously

) But maybe use the same tatic as Japan. Convince them to stop with force. Obviously taking them out 1 by 1 is going to take forever (literally maybe). Unless we can find some way to sit down with good ol' Bin Laden & say "Dude, what's with this, stop it eh?" & have him agree somehow there is no alternative than to remove the terrorists

R.a.B.B.i.T · July 07, 2005, 01:09 PM

I posted this on the same discussion at x86labs.org:

QuoteYou're stupid. Not every person in the middle east is a terrorist. Why should millions of lives be sacrificed to kill a few thousand?

Later:

Quote
Quote from: Newby date=1120756024
Quote from: R.a.B.B.i.T date=1120755819
You're stupid. Not every person in the middle east is a terrorist. Why should millions of lives be sacrificed to kill a few thousand?

Because that few thousand, if given an oppertunity, will kill millions.
So we should kill millions instead? You realize that less than two dozen people are required to drop a nuke (President -> Commaner -> Ground Crew -> Flight Crew)? Doing that would make us no better, and equally terroristic, which in turn would pave the path for other countries to nuke us. Wow. That's a good idea.

Warrior · July 07, 2005, 01:14 PM

If they are killing the evil and they see americans as evil people then the citizens must be followers of thier ways thus they must be killed.

Trying to talk on thier level is impossible, trying to force a government is impossible.
They hate our fucking guts. We need to step in when we need to not try to turn them all into
yankees fans.

CrAz3D · July 07, 2005, 01:19 PM

I spose now that the initial 'shock' is over I've settled down a bit.
But I still only see a few options.

1) Talk it out: "Dude, Bin Laden, what do you have against us?...we buy your oil, let's work it out eh? You stop bombing us we'll, leave the Middle East"
2) Take out terrorists 1 by 1: This could literally take forever, that doesn't sound like a good plan to me
3) Hiroshima approach (non-nuclear): Just flatten a small city until Bin Laden (& whomever) agrees to sit down & talk

As for them dying vs. us dying....I'd rather have the terrorists & their family die than me & my family.
As for the 'kill them with kindness' theory, I think they'd just hate us even more for trying to impose our ways upon them ("our ways" being new medicines & money & such)

R.a.B.B.i.T · July 07, 2005, 01:21 PM

That would only fuel propaganda for Bin Laden. IE:

QuoteThe evil Americans bombed and destroyed a city for no purpose. They must be stopped. We will increase our efforts.

Good job, Cr4z3D, you've just given them more vigor than they had before.

CrAz3D · July 07, 2005, 01:22 PM

What's your suggestion?

Mephisto · July 07, 2005, 01:31 PM

Crazed, you are complete moron. I realize you are quite angry about terrorist actions, but think about what you're saying. You also make it seem like you could give a shit about anyone in the Middle East, as if everyone in the Middle East were worthy of the same fate as terrorists, just because they may not like the USA or not. I suppose they'd call you a very ethnocentric person, eh? Besides, nuking the Middle East would cause far more problems that it'd fix. You'd have a lot of blood on your hands, you'd have to give explanations as to why and convince people that the devastation caused was for the greater good, and deal with all the politics involved, etc. etc. etc.

nslay · July 07, 2005, 01:55 PM

Quote from: TehUser on July 07, 2005, 11:57 AM
Maybe in the 50's, the average yield was around 100 kilotons. France set off a 15 megaton bomb a couple years back in the ocean. Huge difference between the weaponry we used in Japan and the weaponry available now.

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 07, 2005, 11:55 AM
Point being?...if the entire Middle East feels the consequences so be it. They need to stop the evil that is breeding in their region. If they won't, we should because we are the ones suffering.

Evil is pretty subjective. They think we're evil. We think they're evil. What you seem to be saying is that because we have the power to do so, we should dictate what is right. I disagree with killing of millions of innocent people to stamp out a few extremists.

We ARE evil. But they are too... LOL!

EpicOfTimeWasted · July 07, 2005, 01:57 PM

Quote from: CrAz3D on July 07, 2005, 10:43 AM
Your method still leaves way for terrorists ... I am dead serious when I say this, nuke the middle east. Just a few cities, like in Japan, it stopped them.

I'd assume these terrorists are Iraq related, no? Syria seems (from what I know) like a good country to nuke somewhere.

Congratulations, you're a fucking moron, and so is anyone else that honestly believes that dropping a nuclear warhead on ANY piece of land on this planet is a good idea. I especially enjoy how you rationalize your motives by throwing the ole "they're all terrorists anyways" blanket over an entire section of the globe. Kill 'em all, and let god sort it out, huh?

Yeah, and Americans can't seem to understand why the rest of the world fucking hates them.