Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Half a Hiroshima OK!?

Foochar (129133) writes | more than 11 years ago

User Journal 6

This article makes me even more concerned about the current state of the U.S. Presedential Administration. This is just one more indication of just how hawkish our current administration is. Why would you want to do anything to make nuculear weapons more usable.

Afganistan I could agree with. Iraq I could understand. But this goes too far.

This article makes me even more concerned about the current state of the U.S. Presedential Administration. This is just one more indication of just how hawkish our current administration is. Why would you want to do anything to make nuculear weapons more usable.

Afganistan I could agree with. Iraq I could understand. But this goes too far.

If we didn't have a congress composed of Republican "yes men" I wouldn't be so concerned. What good is a seperation of powers when congress simply provides a rubber stamp for whatever the president wants to do. When the Dems try to exercise some caution they get accused of using delaying tactics and circumventing the intentions of the constitutional framers.

cancel ×

6 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No, Half a Hiroshima is *not* okay. (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6009757)

It is not enough to have half the firepower of the enemy, we must have overwhelming firepower capabilities. Otherwise, what is to stop the terrorists?

I'm glad the government is Republican controlled. I get the feeling that if the Democrats controlled the goverment like the Republicans do, they'd just stand back and let the terrorists roll over the border. They don't seem to be interested in the life and liberty of the US people, but are willing to give them away without a fight.

My elected officials are all Republican finally execpt for one. I've got to live with that for 4 more years, but then I am looking forward to a complete Republican representation in government. And boy, will it be joyful.

-Brent

Re:No, Half a Hiroshima is *not* okay. (1)

red5 (51324) | more than 11 years ago | (#6010820)

Do you really think nuclear weapons are the answer *against* terrorism? Do you really think Iraq was about terrorism? If so I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.

Re:No, Half a Hiroshima is *not* okay. (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6010919)

Do you really think Iraq was about terrorism?

So, tell me, what was Iraq about again?

-Brent

Re:No, Half a Hiroshima is *not* okay. (1)

red5 (51324) | more than 11 years ago | (#6011186)

Well, thats simple what did we secure first upon invading? What were we accoss the street gaurding while the museum containing the oldest know human writing was sacked?

Re:No, Half a Hiroshima is *not* okay. (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6014451)

Well, thats simple what did we secure first upon invading?

You think that we should have been more concerned about looters, then terrorists? There were plently of looters in the US, but we didn't to anything about them. It's a shame really, I would have arrested all of them, and built temporary camps to hold them in.

But you know, the looters have to learn to be more mature if they want to live in a free country. If the oil fields would have been destroyed, Iraq would have been doomed to a poverty nation for a long time to come.

I'm proud that my president liberated a country from an evil tyrant, gave freedoms to the citizens that we have enjoyed forever, and even protected their most important resource for them. Why anyone would not be proud, I don't understand.

-Brent

Re:No, Half a Hiroshima is *not* okay. (1)

Foochar (129133) | more than 11 years ago | (#6012911)

I not 100% anti nuke. I don't have a problem with the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine. At the same time, I don't see where a low yield nuke makes any sense when we have things the the MOAB (Massive Ordinace Air Burst).

Nuculear weapons are inherantly messy. There is radation damage for decades if not centuries after their use. They require special shielding for storage and transport. In order to handle them you have to be on a Personel Reliablity Profile list. The rules for being on this list are so strict that you can be taken off of it while taking certain cold medicenes that have the potential to impair your judgement. That kind of stuff does not come cheap.

The other problem is that this has the potential to kick off another nuculear weapons race, this time for small yield tactical weapons. Keep in mind that the smaller an item is the easier it is to steal, transport, hide, or even lose. What do you think the chances are of a North Korean general selling one of these to a terrorist organization, I'd say its a lot more likely then finding a way to sell a multi-megaton weapon.

While I may not agree with them, I can at least see the logic for things like a missile defense network. I can't see the logic for this.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>