Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
B.J. couldn't be bothered with such trivia, he had important things on his mind...such as where his next "happy ending" was comin' from....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
They waz stolen! Stolen I say! 'Twas the 'vast right-wing conspiracy!!!'

That was the most serious fumble of his career ... .. :shocked: :ek: :shocked:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
Bill Clinton had no respect for the Office of President, because he knew darn well he wasn't really President, just a party puppet.

Obviously his master's didn't want him to play with DANGEROUS things.

Geoff
Who is not a Clinton fan.. :ek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,432 Posts
Bill had no respect for the Office, but he wasn't anyone's puppet.

Bill's problem was that he's not an adult. He never bothered to grow up and become an adult.
He was always a party guy, and Bill's partying was more important than anything or anyone else.

I always said that Bill would have been far happier if he'd been a rock star. Then he could have behaved any way he wanted and everyone would have excused him.
Because he came up in Arkansas politics where anything goes if you're a Democrat and the local press will help cover for you, he figured, AND DID get away with anything he wanted from financial corruption to being a possible rapist to being a sloppy party guy all over Little Rock.
He just didn't understand that on a national level people weren't as understanding or willing to help cover it all up.

With Bill it's always ALL about Bill. He puts little real thought into things that don't interest him, and the location of something he'd never had used anyway wasn't an issue. That was something the help were supposed to take care of.

A common trope is that whoever is President is just some puppet for some "they". No one fights and claws his way to the office by being anyone's puppet. You may owe people, but they don't get to run things. The ego needed to be president won't allow that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
dfariswheel said:
Bill had no respect for the Office, but he wasn't anyone's puppet.
A common trope is that whoever is President is just some puppet for some "they". No one fights and claws his way to the office by being anyone's puppet. You may owe people, but they don't get to run things. The ego needed to be president won't allow that.
The guy we got now doesn't even listen to himself while he reads his teleprompter.

Geoff
Who doesn't think the Chicago machine ever cuts the strings. :ehsmile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Clinton just didn’t take such matters as nuclear holocaust seriously. Clinton and especially Hillary were greatly offended by the military and were very anti-military. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was his quiet way of protesting the presence of something so offensive as The Football. Come to think of it, it is a very obscene thing knowing you have someone following you around who, at a moment’s notice will allow you to unleash the largest genocide in human history.

I really don’t think he would have launched a counter attack even if someone else attacked us first…that is, unless it was campaign season…if he was campaigning then it was genocide-on dude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The scary part is, Monica could have taken it home to show her friends that she really was in the [s:1ji9ea95]Oral[/s:1ji9ea95] Oval Office. :argh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Fortunately, since the early ‘80’s there was never a time where it’s use was a likely scenario (which is why I’m sure he took such a candid attitude). It would take one hell of a happening for everyone to be talking about launching nuclear missiles. One of the things Obama did right in my opinion (tommy will kill me for this one) is codify what was America’s policy for the past 50 years regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I thank GOD slick Willie had the luxury to be so careless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
. One of the things Obama did right in my opinion (tommy will kill me for this one) is codify what was America's policy for the past 50 years regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
My recollection is fuzzy, but IIRC, you're not entirely correct. Our policy, after various weapons treaties, was that all weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) were equal and our nuclear response (since we didn't have any B or C catagory weapons for equal retalliation :bolt: ) would follow use of any WMD. Saddam was pointed advised as much since he was known to not only stockpile gas, but to have used it repeatedly.

The way the new policy is written does pretty much follow practice, SFAWK. That is, while the previous response may have been technically automatic by policy, the Prez still had to authorize the strike. The problem, is that the new policy appears to establish dithering as policy and potential enemies may look at the occupant of the oval office at the time and decide the stones are lacking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Yes you are correct. The part that made sense to me was codifying that an attack by another nation with a WMD; in the past, the immediate response was to turn to a nuclear response. Such a response is really not logical and having that as a written policy (whether anyone followed it or not), was not a great idea. From an international standpoint, one of the greatest things you can do for peace is be as predictable as possible.

In a Cold War world, the policy made a little (only a little) sense because almost all WMD policies were designed around the Soviet Union, who has massive amounts of WMD’s. In today’s world, the threat is from either a rogue nation or rogue elements in conjunction with a rogue nation. To codify a nuclear response to an attack from a WMD is not very wise, moral, or ethical in my opinion.

The US increasingly needs to be taking the higher moral ground. Even if the US is nuked, we really shouldn’t respond in kind unless that’s the only viable course of action. For example, if Iran nukes us, or one of our allies, we not NEED to resort to nuclear weapons to deal with Iran by a long shot, we can decimate that nation conventionally with a minimum of risk to our military personnel. We should be taking the high road whenever we have the opportunity to do so. During the Cold War our main strength was that we were on the right side. World perception now is that we’re not always the good guys, and we need to be doing everything we can to change that perception.
I think the new policy recognizes these things and is more appropriate to a post Cold War world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
Fortunately, since the early '80's there was never a time where it's use was a likely scenario (which is why I'm sure he took such a candid attitude). It would take one hell of a happening for everyone to be talking about launching nuclear missiles. One of the things Obama did right in my opinion (tommy will kill me for this one) is codify what was America's policy for the past 50 years regarding the use of nuclear weapons. I thank GOD slick Willie had the luxury to be so careless.
Stand in line -- behind every democrat politician in America! :neer: :poke:
Kevin Gibson said:
The part that made sense to me was codifying that an attack by another nation with a WMD; in the past, the immediate response was to turn to a nuclear response. Such a response is really not logical and having that as a written policy (whether anyone followed it or not), was not a great idea. From an international standpoint, one of the greatest things you can do for peace is be as predictable as possible.
The one thing that is important for an enemy to know (and yes, this is my Machiavellian opinion popping up here) is that if we are attacked, our response will be immediate and completly devastating. This leaves the potential enemy with only one possible counter; that is to become so powerful as to be able to launch a first strike that will be, not partially disabling, but completly obliterating.
Of course, this causes problems when they can't count on knocking out all our ICBMs at once. It causes further problems when "Boomer" submarines come into play with SLBMs ... and the advent of the MIRV (Multiple Independant Reentry Vehicles) again amplified the problem. And then when we began the SDI program, another wrench was thrown into the matter. While critics, probably correctly, claimed that any such system was shortsighted because it would never be able to catch or defeat every enemy missile, such criticism was in itself (ironically) shortsighted, because it threw an enormous wrench into enemy calculations that they could hit enough of our missile silos and other important targets to make a difference.
Other factors come from the human equation -- and from unexpected places. Soviet leaders would (after the collapse of the U.S.S.R.) state that Reagan really caused them to sober-up a bit when he did something that had no military relevance at all -- that is, when the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike, and Reagan followed through on a promise he'd made to fire them if they did that. In the Soviet's mind it marked him as a man who said what he meant and meant what he said. This probably was seen as a rare commodity in American politicians in the Soviet's opinion .... though I have a hard time imagining why. :ek: :mrgreen: :neer: /sarcasm off.

Does Obama have the intestinal fortitude to use nukes? :?
I really don't know .... I sorta read his alteration of policy as a willingness to accept an enemy first strike and if memory serves this was a capital mistake of the highest magnitude.
A bad, bad, bad message to telegraph, and absolutly unforgiveable while we are trying to deal with Islamo-Nazi thugs and when we're worried about "suitcase nukes" and other possible WMDs they may try to employ.
We long ago dismissed lessor weapons such as biological and chemical weapons -- atleast ostensibly -- from our arsenal as being inhumane. A strange and bizarre opinion to hold while expanding and/or maintaining an arsenal of nuclear bombs very capable of wiping out civilization north of the equator, and God-knows what in the southern hemisphere.
In any case, having done so, we have eliminated a response that is less-than-nuclear. Probably not really a good idea to flush out something from the middle of your force continuum; all it really does is make your more serious response look even more attractive ...or, conversely, make you look like a wimp or a pushover.
So, my estimate is Obama=pushover. Atleast in so far as a true nut-shriveling WSHTF scenario is concerned.
Now, Obama has done some good things ... his use of Predator drones in Pakistan is good, and I approve of him targeting and knocking out AQ leadership or safehouses in Pakistan. But we're not going to win the war by this alone and we simply are beginning to spin our wheels in so far as really dealing with the underlying Islamic problem. Bush wasn't perfect but atleast he approached the problem from the standpoint of someone who took the effort to off the Islamo-nazis seriously; Obama does not. He approaches the matter as a milquetoast building up the courage to have a root-canal. It's a bother too him; he wants to substitute a "pro-stitution" in place of our Constitution, wipe out insurance companies through his Obamacare program, and further socialize the American economy so Americans will become more dependant upon Big Government.

So ultimatly I don't think what Obama did regarding our nuclear strategy was good. I also don't think it was enormously bad. But obsessing with nuclear strategies really sidesteps the real problem, and that is, Obama =/= Reagan. An enemy can take Reagan seriously .
Obama .... not so much. Only to the degree, I suppose, that they realize that it isn't so hard to press a button and drop a bomb, and only mildly more difficult to order eighteen year olds into battle, but that's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
. ....codifying that an attack by another nation with a WMD; in the past, the immediate response was to turn to a nuclear response. Such a response is really not logical ...... From an international standpoint, one of the greatest things you can do for peace is be as predictable as possible.
On the contrary, it's completely logical: if you use WMD on us, we'll nuke your ass! That's perfectly predictable.

The US increasingly needs to be taking the higher moral ground. Even if the US is nuked, we really shouldn't respond in kind unless that's the only viable course of action. For example, if Iran nukes us, or one of our allies, we not NEED to resort to nuclear weapons to deal with Iran by a long shot, we can decimate that nation conventionally with a minimum of risk to our military personnel.
See above: I'm not really sure how you're intending to counterstrike with conventional weapons, but it surely will not be done "at minimum risk to our military personnel". See above again. Your preferred course of action works only with opponents who share your frame of reference and are willing to compromise to achieve a mutally agreeable state of existance. Faced with opponents convinced of the righteousness of their cause and with no regard for human life, it invites attacks. Hell, it virtually gurantees them.

BTW, bin Laden and his ilk don't really see us as deserving of life, much less moral.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,678 Posts
Nuclear weapons are a last resort weapon, NEVER a first resort weapon. It should always be that way and if it's not, then we're entering a state of serious institutional insanity. A balance will have to be weighed and measured as to when to employ. The risk to US personnel (in my opinion) was justified in WWII because all estimates were US casualties in the hundreds of thousands. But the state of weapons today is such that the US has been involved in a two front war for a decade with less than 10,000 US deaths; that's extrordinary. And while insurgent elements remain, those two wars completely eliminated the political elements and overthrew the governmental regimes of both nations. Had we nuked Afghanistan after 9/11, you'd be a fool to think that would have scared all the potential insurgents into hiding. Quite the contrary, the insurgents would be 5 fold, and most nations that are friendly with us would now stand completely opposed to the US.

Now I don't know what the "sweet spot" number is, but I'm not willing to nuke a nation if we have the full capability to neutralize them conventionally. What's more, every last US president since Truman (and I'm sure Truman can be included) has had the same mentality. Regardless of whether our old policy was to nuke in kind, I don't believe for a second that even Reagan would use nukes for some tiny nation in response to a WMD attack. You cannot make blanket statements where nuclear weapons are concerned.

Each scenario that even considers the use of a nuclear weapon should be considered with the greatest of seriousness. Think about it, if 9/11 would have been perpetrated via a WMD (say, chemical weapon that killed 2,500+ Americans) rather than the aircraft, would it have been prudent to nuke Afghanistan?

If your answer is yes, then I don't think we have much else to discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Kevin Gibson said:
.... Each scenario that even considers the use of a nuclear weapon should be considered with the greatest of seriousness. Think about it, if 9/11 would have been perpetrated via a WMD (say, chemical weapon that killed 2,500+ Americans) rather than the aircraft, would it have been prudent to nuke Afghanistan?

If your answer is yes, then I don't think we have much else to discuss.
In that case I vote "yes" and thus endeth the thread. :mrgreen:

I am not so sure about it increasing the number of insurgents. Besides it's harder to hide in those dark caves when you glow in the dark. :shocked: There really won't be very many volunteers left when they're converted to free ions floating up in the stratosphere.....

Seriously ... while there might well be certain uses for nukes in A'stan, as when there is a large concentration of enemy & supplies ... I think we responded to the situation (as it really occured, not as theorists would postulate in the outer limits of the twilight zone) pretty well over all...except for being distracted by Iraq (a whole different story).
Remember; not all nukes are the big city destroyers such as those '80s horror movies like "The Day After" would have us imagine.

As for being a weapon of "last resort," no, that is wrong. They are a weapon to be used when the stakes are inordinatly great. The use of them in Hiroshima & Nagaski were justified because the alternate final strategy of the war, Operation Downfall, was deemed far too costly in American lives (the same would likely have been true in Japanes lives, incidently).
Being "last resort" was only true because they weren't ready until the time they were actually used.

Incidently, while we're on the topic, anyone who wants a video perspective of the development of nukes should buy rent or otherwise obtain a DVD of a movie called "Trinity and Beyond; the Atomic Bomb Movie." * William Shatner narrates, the footage is archival and restored to stupendously frightening crystal clarity, and a beautiful William Stromberg score accompanies the beautiful but disturbing video.
It'll scare your soul so deep Satan will run from it forever ...... :twisted:

* Link to where you can get the movie: http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Beyond-At ... 668&sr=8-1
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top