Nuclear warfare just stepped closer

Nanfeishen

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
9,166
Reaction score
3,026
Location
Neither Here Nor There
A group of former armed forces chiefs from the United States, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insists that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world" (Herald, January 23).

The group includes General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, and Field Marshal Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff in Britain. They have presented their arguments to the Pentagon and NATO.

They believe that the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons. They paint an alarming picture of the threats confronting the West, arguing that its values and way of life are under threat and that we are struggling to summon the will to defend them. They consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction".

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-warfare-just-stepped-closer/2008/02/10/1202578598972.html

Nuclear war might soon become possible, since when is it plausable let alone possible WTF :eek:
Are these f@ckers running on all cylinders?
First Strike :sick:
They talk about nuclear war as if it will be a simple thing, like a quick strike, or raid, the fact that they even consider this sort of scenario, involving nuclear weapons is just insane.
 
i am hoping that they took their opinions with them when they retired :(

and that their replacements are a bit wiser
 
Sounds like they have watched "Dr. Strangelove" a few too many times LOL!
 
Got to agree with them. If Iran and their cronies get their hands on nukes then what? They will not hesitate to wipe out certain countries. Sorry guys and I welcome your hate speech but I agree with this sentiment. I for one will not stand by and wait for terrorists to destroy or wipe out my home or any other place and yes I DO believe they are going to do it eventually. This is a war for survival to the bitter end
 
Nuke war is becoming more likely thanks to this crazy 'free for all' attitude and the rise of Islamic extremism:o
 
IMHO the threat of a nuclear attack is the reason why we have not experienced WW III -IV and maybe V already. That whole issue have changed with the idea that Islamic extremists is very close to acquire a dirty or even Nuclear bomb from their sympathizers. So somehow the whole threat will have to be escalated to keep them at bay. But unfortunately we all know that Nuclear war will be inevitable unless some things changes drastically in this world. But alas as per predictions it wont.
 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-warfare-just-stepped-closer/2008/02/10/1202578598972.html

They believe that the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons.

Is this just very badly written or are they saying the West should just go ahead and nuke any country ( unfriendly ) who 'is considering' building nuclear weapons' ?!

Nuclear weapons should long have gone the way of the dodo, the mullet and democracy in America.
 
Nuclear weapons should long have gone the way of the dodo, the mullet and democracy in America.

LOL then what's stoping large scale conventional warfare :o

Oh how would go about making them go away? Lastly you need to take your meds cause the delusions are returning
 
Last edited:
imo nukes should be concentrated in the US and Russia.

to keep things "balanced"

MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction
 
Last edited:
Is this just very badly written or are they saying the West should just go ahead and nuke any country ( unfriendly ) who 'is considering' building nuclear weapons' ?!

Nuclear weapons should long have gone the way of the dodo, the mullet and democracy in America.

If all the major players get rid of their nuclear bombs, do you believe for 1 second that that will stop Iran and their extremist partners to do the same? You can destroy the bomb but never the knowledge or technology.
 
imo nukes should be concentrated in the US and USSR.

to keep things "balanced"

MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction

There's a lot of 'should' in the posts in this thread. There 'should' be peace on earth, there 'should' be no corruption and there should be no poverty.

Sounds so noble and easy but in reality it's not possible.

EDIT in BlueG's defence his is more plausable than dave's :D
 
LOL then what's stoping conventional warfare :o

Oh how would go about making them go away? Lastly you need to take your meds cause the delusions are returning

Are you saying the US and Britain are no longer capable of winning a conventional war ?

You may actually be right - they haven't actually won a fight since the Falklands - so they are going for the quick and easy press the red button and kiss the world goodbye.

Yep, that makes sense.

I'm simply saying one can't go around nuking countries because of a perceived, possible , future threat . That's like shooting someone who rings your doorbell 'cos you think he may want to rob you next year.

I'm not prepared to risk the world on the say so of the geniuses who said Iraq was covered with WMD. How many did they find again - oh yes, none.
 
Are you saying the US and Britain are no longer capable of winning a conventional war ?

You may actually be right - they haven't actually won a fight since the Falklands - so they are going for the quick and easy press the red button and kiss the world goodbye.
Ever heard of Desert Storm?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X