0

Different rules of engagement, different time. If you wanna talk about today, let's talk about today. If you want to talk about past wars and all that, let's open a different topic.

0

Osama Bin Laden declared a Holy War on the United States. That's declared war too. Do you think no civilian have been killed in Iraq by American soldiers? (not an attack on the soldiers) Vietnam wasn't a declared war and we all know civilians were killed there by American soldiers.

0

Asymmetric warfare is tricky. As you may note, America remains undeclared as to the state of war against Al-Qaeda.

Dresden differed, because that situation is dissimilar.

Arguments can be made in either case. I believe discrepancies involved at the time may have been resolved.

0

Osama Bin Laden declared a Holy War on the United States. That's declared war too.

So in 1998 should the United States have presented its full capabilities to all countries in which known Al-Qaeda operatives were known to be present?

Do you think no civilian have been killed in Iraq by American soldiers? (not an attack on the soldiers)

I make no judgment about troops in harms way acting under rules of engagement.

But, sad as it is, collateral damage is presented to those who declare war from places that may not agree with it. I attribute the responsibility to those who asked for it.

0

Yet, it still fits your definition of terrorism. The same argument could be used to say that the United States government is at fault after the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden declared a Jihad after the United States stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. So one could make an argument that the United States government was asking for it.

0

So you believe that after Bin Laden's fatwa, that the United States should have nuked half the world?

[edit]Or do you still not realize that there was a dissimilarity with Dresden?

[edit=2]No, I get it. The US is vulnerable to attacks on civilians because we offer Coca-Cola.

0

I'm saying that by your definition the United States could be classified as terrorists.

We are intentionally targeting civilians with no military value at all times?

0

Well Well, that's quite a different definition now isn't it?

No, I don't see it. One side declared that all civilians and military are targets, the other side didn't. Are you suggesting that the side that didn't is somewhat less inhumane?

0

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

We are intentionally targeting civilians with no military value at all times?

Those aren't the same.

0

..which is why we should just nuke mecca or somethn before "American Hiroshima" does occur.

In the next post is when you are going to say: I'm just kidding?.

0

Isn't the bomb on Hiroshima just another example of America killing civilians for politcal reasons (limiting the power of the Emporer and encouraging him to end the war)? He said he couldn't see his people be hurt anymore. To me that seems as though a political decision was made due to the intentional killing of civilians.

0

Isn't the bomb on Hiroshima just another example of America killing civilians for politcal reasons (limiting the power of the Emporer and encouraging him to end the war)? He said he couldn't see his people be hurt anymore. To me that seems as though a political decision was made due to the intentional killing of civilians.

That's the best way to win wars.. kill the civilians. If the civilians fear for their lives, the government has failed, and it will ultimately crumble.

0

In the next post is when you are going to say: I'm just kidding?.

Naw, I was just proposing a somewhat ridiculous idea. If we were to declare a mass genocide on the muslims.. then we would win the war, no?

However, as you might imagine, very few people would agree that killing an entire group of people is worth destroying the few terrorists.

..and yes, I was obviously kidding..

0

That's the best way to win wars.. kill the civilians. If the civilians fear for their lives, the government has failed, and it will ultimately crumble.

What about Hitler's V-1's and V-2's? The United Kingdom didn't crumble.

0

What about Hitler's V-1's and V-2's? The United Kingdom didn't crumble.

There's a bit of a difference there I suppose.. V2 rockets can be detected and prepared for.. many died during the blitz.. but many also could seek shelter. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, cannot be prepared for.

0

Really? I thought America had defenses for a nuclear attack, given enough time (distance for it to travel that is).

0

Really? I thought America had defenses for a nuclear attack, given enough time (distance for it to travel that is).

wtf? I don't think so.. Once someone fires a nuke at us, we're f'd just as much as anyone else. Unless we rely on the patriot missile system, and ballistics.. but you know how impossible it is to hit a projectile with a missile..

but perhaps we do have some kind of shield.. I'm not really 100% certain..

0

I thought we had something like a laser program that would destroy a nuclear bomb in midflight. I wouldn't doubt that by now the technology exists whether it be known to us or not. I mean the bomb came out in the nineteen forties. Since then I'm sure people have been looking for a defense against them and more so during the cold war.

0

Isn't the bomb on Hiroshima just another example of America killing civilians for politcal reasons (limiting the power of the Emporer and encouraging him to end the war)? He said he couldn't see his people be hurt anymore. To me that seems as though a political decision was made due to the intentional killing of civilians.

The decision(s) to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made because the best available estimates indicated that fewer people would die from Fat Man and Little Boy than would die if the allied forces (mostly meaning America in the Pacific Front) were to attempt to invade Japan. Yes, the bombs killed a great number of individuals. However, it was felt that more would have died had they not been used; the bombs were dropped in an effort to bring the war to its end without any more deaths than absolutely necessary.

I thought we had something like a laser program that would destroy a nuclear bomb in midflight. I wouldn't doubt that by now the technology exists whether it be known to us or not. I mean the bomb came out in the nineteen forties. Since then I'm sure people have been looking for a defense against them and more so during the cold war.

You're thinking of the 80's era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, aka 'Star Wars') program. To my knowledge, the laser-driven portion has not been tested. (Note to the real experts: If I'm wrong about this, please link me to the evidence so I can look at it.) As I understand it, the missle-shield portion has been tested, but in the same way that a sledgehammer could batter down a normal shield, a strong enough missle strike could overwhelm the missle shield.

0

I thought we had something like a laser program that would destroy a nuclear bomb in midflight. I wouldn't doubt that by now the technology exists whether it be known to us or not. I mean the bomb came out in the nineteen forties. Since then I'm sure people have been looking for a defense against them and more so during the cold war.

Midflight? Asymmetric is not symmetric.

If only part of this is true...
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/post390587.html#post390587

0

wtf? I don't think so.. Once someone fires a nuke at us, we're f'd just as much as anyone else.

Theres the 3 minute warning, this was a big thing in the 50s and 60s but then kinda got phased out. Basically if the sirens sounded, you had 3 minutes to get to a fallout shelter

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.