Sum of All Fears...

[12th Doctor]

So here it is, the question of questions.  Would you ever use the Atomic bomb?

To be honest, there are a few extreme senarios under which I believe that, if president I would order a limited nuclear attack.  I do believe that Truman was right to use the bomb on Japan, but I I think that I could only do so if the you had a circumstance where:

1) Not doing so would cause an exponetially greater loss of life.

2) The U.S. was in a war for it's very existance and US forces were being totally over-run.

3) We were defending an allied nation and our forces were totally over-run.

It wouldn't be an easy decision, but if I had to make it, I would under any of those three circumstance.

[bullmoose88]

So here it is, the question of questions.  Would you ever use the Atomic bomb?

To be honest, there are a few extreme senarios under which I believe that, if president I would order a limited nuclear attack.  I do believe that Truman was right to use the bomb on Japan, but I I think that I could only do so if the you had a circumstance where:

1) Not doing so would cause an exponetially greater loss of life.

2) The U.S. was in a war for it's very existance and US forces were being totally over-run.

3) We were defending an allied nation and our forces were totally over-run.

It wouldn't be an easy decision, but if I had to make it, I would under any of those three circumstance.

Eh. Now that nuclear weapons are possessed by a few countries...in large numbers...I don't think there can be such a thing as a limited nuclear attack...especially in scenarios two and three...

if the US or an ally (probably NATO or former SEATO) were fighting for its very existance, the foe must be one strong entity--and probably has nukes of its own...in which case a limited nuclear attack eventually results in all out nuclear armageddon.

as for scenario one...I'd possibly agree to it, depends on the estimates and the target.


but the only use I'd agree to is a retalatory strike. Hit em with everything you have.

[7,052,770]

i'd use them in the first 2 scenarios, maybe the 3rd

[12th Doctor]

So here it is, the question of questions.  Would you ever use the Atomic bomb?

To be honest, there are a few extreme senarios under which I believe that, if president I would order a limited nuclear attack.  I do believe that Truman was right to use the bomb on Japan, but I I think that I could only do so if the you had a circumstance where:

1) Not doing so would cause an exponetially greater loss of life.

2) The U.S. was in a war for it's very existance and US forces were being totally over-run.

3) We were defending an allied nation and our forces were totally over-run.

It wouldn't be an easy decision, but if I had to make it, I would under any of those three circumstance.

Eh. Now that nuclear weapons are possessed by a few countries...in large numbers...I don't think there can be such a thing as a limited nuclear attack...especially in scenarios two and three...

if the US or an ally (probably NATO or former SEATO) were fighting for its very existance, the foe must be one strong entity--and probably has nukes of its own...in which case a limited nuclear attack eventually results in all out nuclear armageddon.

as for scenario one...I'd possibly agree to it, depends on the estimates and the target.


but the only use I'd agree to is a retalatory strike. Hit em with everything you have.

Your right, I'm putting it forward as a possibility, not a praticality.  There are certainly a couple of instances (in theory) where we would be over run by a country that has massive conventional force, but little nuclear capability (i.e. India).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

killing is killing.  what difference is there in which weapon is chosen?  The modern rules of warfare are simply in place to make war more acceptable to democracy.

[12th Doctor]

Just like to add I would never under any circustances, ever order a massive nuclear stike (using "city-buster" ICBM's) under any circumstance.  Even if we were attacked first.  What would be the point?  ICBM's are there to tell other nations "we do have them, and we can use them, in an effort to keep other nations from strikeing us.  They are a deterent.  If that deterent fails, I would see little value in using it.  Chances are that we, and most of our allies would be dead anyway, so what would be the point in destroying all other life?

[Nation]

This is a question I hope serious presidential candidates ask themselves before running. I certainly could never order the drop of an atomic bomb (or any bomb) which is why I definitely couldn't be President. This isn't to say I don't think there are situations where it may be necessary -- but I do hope that if anyone does run for president, they have the ability, so to speak, to "drop the bomb."

[The Duke]

There is only one circumstance I can envision where I would do it, as a retaliation.  I would have to, since deterrence depends upon it, and in the future, no one would take deterrence seriously if I didn't.

[12th Doctor]

There is only one circumstance I can envision where I would do it, as a retaliation.  I would have to, since deterrence depends upon it, and in the future, no one would take deterrence seriously if I didn't.

But if some one launched a massive nuclear strike on the US and it's allies and then you countered by launching a massive strike against hat country and it's allies, what future would we have left to disscuss?

[12th Doctor]

Unless of course we are talking about a counrty like Iraq, where they would only have one or two, so that retaliation wouldn't mean the end of humanity.

[The Duke]

My assumption is that neither Russia nor Cina would launch an attack, after all, we aren't going to fight Russia, and if we fought China over Taiwan, we'd be in a defensive war.  China would never be in a position where they'd feel a need to launch a nuclear attack evene if defeated, because there is no immediate threat to their existence.  So, yes, I assume we are really dealing with rogue states only.

[12th Doctor]

My assumption is that neither Russia nor Cina would launch an attack, after all, we aren't going to fight Russia, and if we fought China over Taiwan, we'd be in a defensive war.  China would never be in a position where they'd feel a need to launch a nuclear attack evene if defeated, because there is no immediate threat to their existence.  So, yes, I assume we are really dealing with rogue states only.

Okay, I wasn't sure.

[Gustaf]

Hm, there are circumstances, yes. I also think Truman made the right, or at least the best, decision. However, as Bullmoose pointed out, the fact that so many countries have nukes makes it tricky.

There is always Operation Opebo, or 'The Ultimate Nuke Attack', of course...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Would you ever use the Atomic bomb?

No, I wouldn't.

Everyone knows now what the long-term effects of atomic bombs are.

[12th Doctor]

This is a question I hope serious presidential candidates ask themselves before running. I certainly could never order the drop of an atomic bomb (or any bomb) which is why I definitely couldn't be President. This isn't to say I don't think there are situations where it may be necessary -- but I do hope that if anyone does run for president, they have the ability, so to speak, to "drop the bomb."

Good for you! I admire your candor and honesty.

Why don't you admire my candor and honesty?    

 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just like to add I would never under any circustances, ever order a massive nuclear stike (using "city-buster" ICBM's) under any circumstance.  Even if we were attacked first.  What would be the point?  ICBM's are there to tell other nations "we do have them, and we can use them, in an effort to keep other nations from strikeing us.  They are a deterent.  If that deterent fails, I would see little value in using it.  Chances are that we, and most of our allies would be dead anyway, so what would be the point in destroying all other life?

Nukes are only a deterent if your willing to use them.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But if some one launched a massive nuclear strike on the US and it's allies and then you countered by launching a massive strike against hat country and it's allies, what future would we have left to disscuss?

Doesn't your Christian faith teach you that there won't be an all out nuclear war?  If so, then why waste time worrying about it?

[12th Doctor]

Just like to add I would never under any circustances, ever order a massive nuclear stike (using "city-buster" ICBM's) under any circumstance.  Even if we were attacked first.  What would be the point?  ICBM's are there to tell other nations "we do have them, and we can use them, in an effort to keep other nations from strikeing us.  They are a deterent.  If that deterent fails, I would see little value in using it.  Chances are that we, and most of our allies would be dead anyway, so what would be the point in destroying all other life?

Nukes are only a deterent if your willing to use them.  

Not true.  They a deterent is only a detererent when it effectivly stops people from doing so.  The need to use them would mean that they are no longer a deterent.  They failed in purpose.

You need only to present the image that you will use them.  That's what Reagan did, although he clearly never had the intent.