Quote:
Originally posted by nirol
I think these things are being developed to counter the threat of N Korea, where we may need to strike comprehensively to eliminate any retaliation upon Seoul.
I find it disheartening that Nukes have gained such a reputation as a weapon of last resort. I see no reason to risk our air crews numerous times, when one of these can achieve the objective.
A weapon of mass destruction is very relative, if you are in the way, it will definitely be mass destruction.
|
at what cost?
not to mention that both China and Japan AND south korea will be non-too pleased to be in the way of the radioactive plume.
with your kind of attitude, I'm almost tempted to root for the 'terrorists'.
Anything that can cause millions of casualties should be weapon of last resort. What are you talking about? are you on crack?
hmmm... lets ask ourselves why nukes have a reputation as a weapon of last resort... hmmm....... perhaps because they inflict horrific injuries and can cause millions of instant deaths? or could it be because they cause radioactive fallout that affects many future generations.
And whats the point of these weapons if you don't know where to aim? I mean, if you had used a 10000000000000000000 tonne bomb on Iraq to turn it into one radioactive crater, you would have destroyed... hmm.. lets see.... ZERO WMD??
I see it as a weapon of deterence.... although this might not hold against terrorists.. North Korea, on the other hand, is a state. He might be delusional, and a dictator, but Kim Jong Il is not stupid. There's only one place he'll end up if he starts using nukes. Right now, the nukes are being used as a tool of diplomacy. pretty scary diplomacy, but .....
Again, more hypocrisy. You want to invade other countries to prevent nuclear proliferation? but want to develop nukes to nuke them???????????????????????