When should the Yanks be able to use nukes?

[Dry Rot]

If the Republican Guards are very naughty and use serious chemical and biological weapons, should the Yanks be able to nuke them?

I don't have a problem using low yield weapons against these chaps. Can't wait till they get hit by Daisy Cutters.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
If the Republican Guards are very naughty and use serious chemical and biological weapons, should the Yanks be able to nuke them?

No, they have more than enough firepower to deal with them without resorting to that.

I don't have a problem using low yield weapons against these chaps. Can't wait till they get hit by Daisy Cutters.

I don't really want anyone to get hit by anything and am certainly not looking for the next screening time of the Killing Fields. I guess there is no chance of them surrendering though. Loss will be felt on both sides in a big way.

 

[Dr.Grouse]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
If the Republican Guards are very naughty and use serious chemical and biological weapons, should the Yanks be able to nuke them?

I don't have a problem using low yield weapons against these chaps. Can't wait till they get hit by Daisy Cutters.

You should run for Parliament ... I think you're probably sick enough.

 

[mantis]

It seems it is OK for the pro war people to "enjoy" people getting killed, guess only the invaders deaths matter.

OH & how come the US are p*ssed off with Iraq parading the US POW's on TV, when the Iraq POW's have been shown over & over.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

In all fairness, shots from aligned journalists in the expanses of fairly public desert (expanse wise) is probably not quite as inflamatory as actively questioning POW's effectively under closed door confinement and airing it. Was listening to accounts of the American POW's from the first gulf war today .... talk about fearing for your life.

Personally I would rather see my loved ones on TV and in public everyday as it would mean they are still alive!

 

[Diego]

What do we all think of the way the Iraqis go about searching for POW.

Loved the way they happily just shot away into the river parading in front of the cameras.

Show offs.

 

[bugman5]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
If the Republican Guards are very naughty and use serious chemical and biological weapons, should the Yanks be able to nuke them?

I don't have a problem using low yield weapons against these chaps. Can't wait till they get hit by Daisy Cutters.

God if you have such blood lust, why don't you just slaughter some POWs?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Might just disregard the nuke issue ... not even worth considering.

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
In all fairness, shots from aligned journalists in the expanses of fairly public desert (expanse wise) is probably not quite as inflamatory as actively questioning POW's effectively under closed door confinement and airing it. Was listening to accounts of the American POW's from the first gulf war today .... talk about fearing for your life.

Personally I would rather see my loved ones on TV and in public everyday as it would mean they are still alive!

There is quite a significant difference between a number of journalists being on hand when prisoners are surrendering, or being brought in, both of which at worst are a technical breach of the code of ethics, and deliberately parading captured prisoners in front of a camera in for purely propaganda's sake.

Personally, I think all of the networks ... BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN etc.. should keep well away from screening captured Iraqi prisoners ... even from a distance.

As for Iraqi television ... what else did we expect.

 

[mantis]

Re: Re: When should the Yanks be able to use nukes?

Originally posted by bugman5
God if you have such blood lust, why don't you just slaughter some POWs?

Or more to the point, how come he didn't join up & go over there to fight & risk his life, rather than sitting behind a computer looking forward to people getting killed.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
What do we all think of the way the Iraqis go about searching for POW.

Loved the way they happily just shot away into the river parading in front of the cameras.

Show offs.

Just think what you would do to the inhabitants of an enemy aircraft which was shot down in the Yarra or the Swan. Sorry people, this is war. There are no rules. These are the rules which have been established.

Guantanemo Bay is an exception. This is where the paragons of virtue and the adherents of rules of war do their stuff.

God bless America.

 

[rubberman]

Originally posted by skilts
Just think what you would do to the inhabitants of an enemy aircraft which was shot down in the Yarra or the Swan. Sorry people, this is war. There are no rules. These are the rules which have been established.

Guantanemo Bay is an exception. This is where the paragons of virtue and the adherents of rules of war do their stuff.

God bless America.

Thank god for the Geneva convention

 

[knuckles]

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Might just disregard the nuke issue ... not even worth considering.



There is quite a significant difference between a number of journalists being on hand when prisoners are surrendering, or being brought in, both of which at worst are a technical breach of the code of ethics, and deliberately parading captured prisoners in front of a camera in for purely propaganda's sake.

Personally, I think all of the networks ... BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN etc.. should keep well away from screening captured Iraqi prisoners ... even from a distance.

As for Iraqi television ... what else did we expect.

Good point. Sticking a gun up someones clacker, who is destined to die, and telling them to say "I don't want to kill anyone" is significantly different to taping a group of POWs who are actually relieved to be caught (as long as the job is finished and they are not sent back) Shouldn't tape anyone.

BTW, any shooters out there? I'm not, anti-gun. But my reading tells me its pretty hard to hit a target with an auto-rifle,in the dark 100-200M away, especially under the stress of incoming fire. Saw some Al Jazeera footage with marines with bullet wounds square centre in their foreheads. Great shot. Probably from 2 metres away. Respect POW rights my arse.

 

[Sherman]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
If the Republican Guards are very naughty and use serious chemical and biological weapons, should the Yanks be able to nuke them?

I don't have a problem using low yield weapons against these chaps.

The US should not use nukes unless Iraq uses them against the coalition.

It is bad strategy.

It is probably an unnecessary tactic.

It invites nuclear response.

It would further turn world opinion against the coalition.

The nuclear door has been closed since 1945. Once it is reopened, it may be a very long time before it is once again closed.

 

[Harry]

Originally posted by knuckles
Saw some Al Jazeera footage with marines with bullet wounds square centre in their foreheads. Great shot. Probably from 2 metres away.

Some special forces are trained to shoot for the head for an instant kill. That's only necessary in a hostage situation where you don't want a wounded bad guy spraying a room full of hostages with automatic fire. We're still only talking about a range of 5-10 metres (in the same room).

Most soldiers would be trained to aim for the chest. It's a bigger target and at a range of 100m, when the enemy goes down, he's unlikely to be a threat even if he's still alive.

The images you describe could be either a lucky shot, an execution or a shot fired into an already dead body for propaganda video.

 

[USFootyFan]

Originally posted by mantis
OH & how come the US are p*ssed off with Iraq parading the US POW's on TV, when the Iraq POW's have been shown over & over.

Maybe because there are stark differences in how they are shown. We are feeding and caring for their POWs while ours are shot through the head execution style and moved about in a mocking way. I haven't seen anywhere on all the coverage we get here in the states where we are interrogating their POWs and broadcasting it over and over again.

I would also like to say how impressed I am with the posture of our POWs. We haven't seen the whole tape, but they've shown Joseph Hudson (becasue his mother saw the tape on Filipino TV, before she was notified mind you) quite a few times, and this kid is a bonafide badass. Looking straight into the camera in absolute defiance to his captors.

 

[The Milkman]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
If the Republican Guards are very naughty and use serious chemical and biological weapons, should the Yanks be able to nuke them?

I don't have a problem using low yield weapons against these chaps. Can't wait till they get hit by Daisy Cutters.

As a "Yank" is for the war (which really doesn't mean a thing), the only way we should use nuclear weapons is if we're fired first using nuclear weapons. Even then, our military has enough firepower that a reprisal of daisy cutters and a well-placed MOAB would do the same thing without the long-term radioactive residue of a nuke.

I can't believe, though, that you would be waiting for the Iraqis to be hit by those things. Though I am pro war, I am not glued to my TV, waiting to see people die. The less casualties on both sides, the better.

 

[Dry Rot]

Congratulations to most posters on this thread for your caring and sympathy for the Republican Guards of Iraq.

Hope you just heard the latest reports of Kurds in the north taking to the local caves, from a fear of chemical attacks from who?

Who put electrical leads into the marshes during the Iran war and fried the Iranaian troops as they attempted to cross?

Who used chemical weapons against Kurd women and children?

Who committed some of the worst atrocities during the occupation of Kuwait?

Who are the brutal military enforcers of the regime?

If the Yanks give them the opportunity to surrender, it is a luxury they never gave their victims.

And if they don't, I hope they get blown to buggery, Daisy Cutters and all.

 

[El Scorcho]

Hammurabi strikes again.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by Dry Rot
Congratulations to most posters on this thread for your caring and sympathy for the Republican Guards of Iraq.

Hope you just heard the latest reports of Kurds in the north taking to the local caves, from a fear of chemical attacks from who?

Who put electrical leads into the marshes during the Iran war and fried the Iranaian troops as they attempted to cross?

Who used chemical weapons against Kurd women and children?

Who committed some of the worst atrocities during the occupation of Kuwait?

Who are the brutal military enforcers of the regime?

If the Yanks give them the opportunity to surrender, it is a luxury they never gave their victims.

And if they don't, I hope they get blown to buggery, Daisy Cutters and all.

Looks like "an eye for an eye" is alive and well.

Actually that should be "an eye for some third party's eye". As for your original question DR, the use of nukes would be completely anti the US stated aim of not killing civilians and targeted strikes. Even if you don't kill any civilians immediately (ie bombing an army base in the countryside), many would die from radiation related illnesses over the next 10 years or so.

Apart from that it would be hypocritical as hell for the US to use WMD in this war as they are going in on the basis of removing WMD from Iraq. They use nukes and you'll see the support for the war dissolve.

 

[skilts]

Originally posted by rubberman
Thank god for the Geneva convention

A serious question, which someone may be able to answer. If no war is declared what conventions of conduct are applicable? I would have thought the Geneva Convention on the treament of POWs would only come into play if a war had actually been declared.

This could also be used, if they ever bothered to give an explanation, as an argument in favour of the way the US has treated its prisoners from that other, undeclared war with the Taliban.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by skilts
This could also be used, if they ever bothered to give an explanation, as an argument in favour of the way the US has treated its prisoners from that other, undeclared war with the Taliban.

That does then beg the sticky question of what the legal status is of military action in the event war has not been declared? Could the military be legitimately charged with murder for instance? Would the incarceration of prisoners be state sanctioned kidnapping?

I can see a big can of worms here, and skilts, you've got the can-opener.

 

[BrisGirl]

Never!

They should never be used again in human history, because once that door is open......

 

[knuckles]

Originally posted by skilts
the US has treated its prisoners from that other, undeclared war with the Taliban.

Taliban weren't a country. Just drug dealers with lots of land know as Afghanistan.

 

[Frodo]

There is a line from throwing insults to dropping nuclear weapons in the way we deal with other people when confronted. I'm sure that there is an appropriate point along that line for using each and every weapon. However, what is appropriate for one culture is not the same for another. For example I have no doubt that if Saddam had a nuclear bomb capable of hitting Israel he would have done so and today he would have already wiped out the Allies when they were in Kuwait. He has no worries because he doesn't care about ordinary Iraqi citizens but the western world does and would not want to kill innocent Iraqis.
I don't think it appropriate to use them in this conflict, but neither do I want to see Saddam use them in two or three years time. That is why this conflict is right. It SAVES lives in the long term. The biggest sadness is that if it were not for the French and the peace protestors there is a very good chance that Saddam would have complied and none of this war need have happened. Blood has tainted many hands in this conflict.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by skilts
A serious question, which someone may be able to answer. If no war is declared what conventions of conduct are applicable? I would have thought the Geneva Convention on the treament of POWs would only come into play if a war had actually been declared.

I think the legal basis for this war would be the breach of the original ceasefire terms. I am not sure of the particulars but I would have thought that troops from a country entering a country without the express authority of that country is in itself a declaration of war.

Moomba