Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Mix   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,837
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 13 days, 16 hours
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4994268 - 11/29/05 01:31 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
is it a bluff?




Could be, and hopefully no will ever call us on it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,837
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 13 days, 16 hours
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #4994279 - 11/29/05 01:32 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Madtowntripper said:

If in 10 years China decides to roll across the straits towards Taiwan, we're not going to have much choice other than to nuke the invasion force or give up....




I hope that never happens, Taiwan is not worth it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: bukkake]
    #4994481 - 11/29/05 02:29 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

bukkake said:
Who voted for "cities and large civilian targets" besides looner?




I did, probably the vote that provoked your response since it was the second one cast on that that option.

I believe the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has been a powerful force for peace between the nuclear nations, that has allowed globalization to start and allow humanity to progress across the world. Perverse as it may sound the specter of the mushroom cloud has probably been the greatest driver for world peace.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: gregorio]
    #4994654 - 11/29/05 03:15 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

gregorio said:
Quote:

bukkake said:

And look how well that turned out. For the Japanese civilians, I mean. Why do it again?




I'm not trying to get off topic here but I think a case can be made that it did work out better for the Japanese civilians. Had we not used the atomic bombs we would have invaded their mainland and continued to firebomb their cities. More lives were lost in the firebombings of Tokeo than were lost due to the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

And my concern wouldn't be with the Japenese civilians but with the lives of American soldiers that were not needlessly wasted by a war that the atomic bombs helped to shorten.



That's such a load of crap. Please do yourself a favor and read this.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4994694 - 11/29/05 03:25 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

There has been no dearth of historians who say Lew Rockwell is full of shit. As far as any rationale goes total war is total war. There were no civilians in WW2. Tough shit Jap scum. You broke it, you bought it. Bombing H & N was justified if it saved 1 American soldier's life. That's right 1.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4994789 - 11/29/05 03:53 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
Quote:

gregorio said:
Quote:

bukkake said:

And look how well that turned out. For the Japanese civilians, I mean. Why do it again?




I'm not trying to get off topic here but I think a case can be made that it did work out better for the Japanese civilians. Had we not used the atomic bombs we would have invaded their mainland and continued to firebomb their cities. More lives were lost in the firebombings of Tokeo than were lost due to the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

And my concern wouldn't be with the Japenese civilians but with the lives of American soldiers that were not needlessly wasted by a war that the atomic bombs helped to shorten.



That's such a load of crap. Please do yourself a favor and read this.




That article alone is full of half truths and whole lies so it came as no surprise to me when i found out that Rockwell read Alperovitz's piece of trash books. Telling half the story is a fucking cop out. I suggest you read "Japan's Longest Day" by the pacific war research committee if you want learn about how lucky we actually were in choosing to drop the bombs.

And i checked the spot for civilians targets. If the shit hits the fan and all out nuclear warfare begins i hope America covers the world in glass. Humans had their chance and they lost. game over


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,837
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 13 days, 16 hours
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4994810 - 11/29/05 03:57 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
That's such a load of crap. Please do yourself a favor and read [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html]




What is such a load of crap, that the author of your link states that Truman was one of the major war criminals in WW II?I will except the figures of anticipated American causalities of 46,000, though from many other sources I find that to be grossly understated, but even so, better them than us.

I didn't find any mention in link of what the projected Japanese causalities would have been in the same invasion which was one of my points as to my a case could be made that the Japanese civilian population could have actually benefited from not being invaded.

Other points that I made that you called a load a crap were not even mentioned in your link. One being the massive causalities inflicted on the Tokeo residents during the fire bombings of that city, more than the atomic bomb inflicted in the folks of Hiroshima. And those firebombing would have been inflicted all across the entire Japanese mainland in an event of an mainland invasion.

The only other thing that I stated in my post was that I was concerned with the loss of American lives more than I was with the loss of Japanese lives. Now 46,000 American killed, not to mention other causalities might not be big deal to you but it is to me. And I for one dont have a problem with the loss of Japanese lives even if meant only 10,000 American lives lost. They started the damn war and we finished it, so the hell with them.

Nothing in your link refuted any thing that I have said, so i ask of you; who is the one full of crap, is it me or is it you?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: gregorio]
    #4994847 - 11/29/05 04:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Just FYI gregorio a casualty is any dead, injured, missing, or captured soldier so its not the same thing as a death.

Still i find the 46k dead estimate by some of the allies' top officers to be incredibly underestimated and I believe they had a reason to understate their guess. i'll see if i can find it


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,837
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 13 days, 16 hours
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: d33p]
    #4994872 - 11/29/05 04:15 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Your right dp33, about what you said concerning causaulties and I do know better than that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: gregorio]
    #4995066 - 11/29/05 05:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

gregorio said:
Quote:

bukkake said:

And look how well that turned out. For the Japanese civilians, I mean. Why do it again?




I'm not trying to get off topic here but I think a case can be made that it did work out better for the Japanese civilians. Had we not used the atomic bombs we would have invaded their mainland and continued to firebomb their cities. More lives were lost in the firebombings of Tokeo than were lost due to the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

And my concern wouldn't be with the Japenese civilians but with the lives of American soldiers that were not needlessly wasted by a war that the atomic bombs helped to shorten.




i would question whether any soldiers' lives are saved by genocide bombings..nuclear or non-nuclear..against civilian targets...did nixons' 1972 xmas bombing save any US soldiers in vietnam??...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Edited by Annapurna1 (11/29/05 05:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4995190 - 11/29/05 05:37 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

familiarize yourself with the concept of "total war"... while you're at it, "genocide" as well.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4995231 - 11/29/05 05:45 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

fine...ill rephrase the question ..does bombing large numbers of civilians to death avoid military casualties?...personally..im a bit skeptical...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4995252 - 11/29/05 05:50 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

it can in certain circumstances, one being total war.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4995339 - 11/29/05 06:07 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

"total war" is simply justification for such actions..which IMAO are acts of revenge and/or racial/religious bigotry with little if any bearing on military casualties...one could even argue that they have had the opposite effect in vietnam and iraq...and if you can produce even one example of such a bombing that was incontravertibly proven to have reduced US military casualties..which could not have been achieved otherwise..then i would like to hear about it...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4995378 - 11/29/05 06:15 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

by definition, a situation of total war is one in which the civilian population is engaged in the war effort. it is therefore certainly strategically expedient and perhaps morally sound to attack the enemy's civilian population in a total-war scenario. that's why one of the hallmarks of total war is the targeting of civilians and civilian property.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4995667 - 11/29/05 07:04 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Whatever it takes to make the enemy surrender


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4995944 - 11/29/05 07:57 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

wilshire said:
by definition, a situation of total war is one in which the civilian population is engaged in the war effort. it is therefore certainly strategically expedient and perhaps morally sound to attack the enemy's civilian population in a total-war scenario. that's why one of the hallmarks of total war is the targeting of civilians and civilian property.




"engaged in the war effort" is so vague as to be arbitrary...the only exception is when the civilians actually take up arms..in which case they become combatants...otherwise..it is never "strategically expedient" to shoot at (bomb..gas..etc) someone thats not shooting at you...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewilshire
free radical
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4996001 - 11/29/05 08:08 PM (18 years, 4 months ago)

it's not vague nor arbitrary. waging a modern war requires huge amounts of supplies and equipment, which is produced by civilians using civilian-owned equipment. attacking civilian targets to weaken the enemy's ability to produce war materials is a perfectly reasonably tactic in a total war.

you bomb the factories that build the tanks. you bomb the homes the worker's live in. you bomb the trains, bridges, and harbors used to transport the tanks. you bomb it all. that is total war.

the allies did not engage in strategic bombing against german centers of population and industry out of racial bigotry or hatred. they bombed them because it served a military purpose.... reducing germany's capacity to produce and transport war materials. we didn't expend valuable resources (including the lives of thousands of airmen) because we just liked killing germans.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4997402 - 11/30/05 03:33 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

theres two(2) problems with that arguement ..first of all..i very much doubt that its necessary to napalm an entire population in order to destroy the arms factories..railroads..etc...second of all..even if that sometimes is the case..it still doesnt explain cases such as rotterdam and dresden (or more recently..hanoi and the US shelling of markets in baghdad) where there was no such military infrastructure...these can only be explained as acts of vengeance..or in the case of rotterdam..naked agression...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,302
Re: The Nuclear Option [Re: wilshire]
    #4997448 - 11/30/05 05:09 AM (18 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

you bomb the factories that build the tanks. you bomb the homes the worker's live in. you bomb the trains, bridges, and harbors used to transport the tanks. you bomb it all. that is total war.




Agreed, but would you use a nuclear weapon for that? Bombing infrastructure can readily be accomplished by conventional means.

If you decide to use a nuclear weapon against an industrial area you in my view have the wrong mentality. We must not underestimate that radiation is the main effect in the lower and subkiloton range, and that thermal effects are the predominant effect in multikiloton and megaton bombs.

If you destroy an infrastructure you would probably go for a surface explosion in which case you get large amounts of localized fallout.

The human effects of atomic bombs in my view make them the most inhumane weapons known to man, prone to cause either radiation poisoning as well as having a huge area of severe burns. It's not like an artillery shell which smacks your ribcage to gravel or gores you with one-inch shrapnel. These are slow, agonizing ways to die inflicted on larger populations than are killed outright.

If you look at the biggest bomb ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba



had a yield of 50 million tons of TNT, brought about by 2 tons of thermonuclear fuel in a 25 ton casing.

The Tsar, although more a political weapon than a practical one, would give anyone in an area 100 miles across third degree burns. Suppose you are at 25 miles distance. Your synthetic clothing and tennis shoes will turn into globs of boiling tar, your cottons burst into flames and the shockwave would take a full two minutes to arrive and probably would toss you about and fan the flames as a mighty gush of wind rather than kill you outright.


A suitcase nuke



or a nuclear artillery shell on the other hand will leave a disproportional number of people sick from radiation poisoning from the neutron/gamma burst and the fallout in its aftermath.

In my view nuclear weapons can NEVER be used as antipersonnel devices, and the nuclear bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki in my view were unforgivable war crimes, comparable to killing someone's family to get to them but then on a megascale.
To me citybusting is unnecessary as well as morally indefensible.

I can see a few uses of nuclear weapons:

Firstly, we should position six thermonuclear devices of one gigaton yield in orbit around the sun to blast earth-endangering asteroids into particularly small smittereens. At a sufficient distance this can be done without any (zero) negative effects for the population and integrity of our solar system. These devices should be rigged such that they are incapable of approaching Earth or other planets & moons to a dangerous proximity. All the fancy solar sails and super laser beams just aren't happening. We can however build and position Gigaton thermonuclear devices to meet Toutaris-sized asteroids head on and give them a one milisecond shove equivalent to a trillion kilos of TNT which can pound even a sturdy asteroid into coarse sand which will be scattered in all directions evenly, leaving only a very small amount of radioactive debris to enter the earth's atmosphere, no more radioactivity than a smoke detector holds if you put enough lightseconds between us and the blast. Smaller nuclear devices exploded far from an asteroud may be used to deflect asteroids into useful orbits and fuse them into solid lumps for engineering purposes such as conversion into ceramic space vessels.
So outer space engineering might make acceptable use of nuclear devices and in my view outer space engineering is the only sane use of nuclear devices. They are too big for this world and its effects on life are too devastating.

I reject all military use but being realistic I would say nuclear weapons might be used as a last resort as either an EMP weapon at very high altitude (depriving an entire geographic region from use of electrical equipment, as seen in the video clip I attached to the first post in this thread) with minimal fallout and population effects.

Another military use would be to cull a greater evil, and the only greater evil around would be to destroy military installations capable and in the process of nuclear attack. Using a nuclear weapon against a nuclear submarine or silo complex not just halts or prevents its nuclear weapons to spread apocalypse over its targets but also, rationally speaking, scatters their plutonium rather than having it convert into the extremely radioactive fission products of their own nuclear detonations.

Use against chemical weapons facilities is useless: chemical weapons are very small scale WMD and their arsenals can be destroyed with conventional bombs leaving a very localized contaminated area that quickly decontaminates itself as the chemical agents decay.

Biological weapons facilities really should not be subjected to nuclear attack because of the high risk of attaching the biowarfare to the fallout dust and thereby dispersing them rather than destroying them. A light conventional bombing followed by a particularly heavy napalm run will be more suitable to take care of biological arsenals, if there is no option other than destruction.

So for me the only use of these devices lies in outer space engineering in peacetime, where it would be an invaluable megascale engineering tool.

In wartime it would in my view only be useful as an anti-material device to halt a nuclear attack or through EMP, and in their stockpiled form as a deterrent, which I believe them to be quite efficient for. If nuclear weapons exploded with concussion as its major effect (such as conventional bombs) and had no radiation effects they would doubtlessly have been used in many conflicts and that would have been unspeakably atrocious.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Mushroom-Hut Substrate Mix   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* China: We will use a "nuclear option" dollar sell off.
( 1 2 all )
The_Red_Crayon 1,863 24 08/13/07 11:12 AM
by johnm214
* North Korea Threatens to Fire Nuclear Missile if U.S. Won't Commit to Talks
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 3,206 37 10/13/06 07:15 PM
by quiver
* May 1, 2005: No More Nuclear Excuses for War! march in new york
( 1 2 all )
starptv23 2,085 29 04/03/05 04:31 AM
by Silversoul
* north korean nuclear test confirmed
( 1 2 all )
wilshire 3,323 38 10/25/06 01:52 PM
by SlashOZ
* Did Japan deserve to have two nukes dropped on them in WWII?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Baby_Hitler 4,392 65 08/04/04 11:11 AM
by silversoul7
* Evidence shows use of US Chem. weapons against Fallujah civilians
( 1 2 3 all )
SquattingMarmot 6,596 59 11/10/05 03:06 PM
by Phred
* N.Korea: Japan Sanctions Would Be War Declaration Great_Satan 909 5 12/18/04 12:26 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan phreakyzen 856 6 09/13/05 06:50 AM
by Asante

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,433 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.