How do you feel about WMDs?

[Shie]

We can have guard set-up around the nation to watch movements but the times that we're watching the people will have to vary so we don't become predictable to terrorist groups. Next, implementing a curfew will allow us to see who's out at suspicious times. We've got night-vision technology while I doubt the taliban do so those breaking the curfew will likely be insurgents if we've already won the hearts and minds of civilians, a necessary step.

Two words: too late. The only reason we went there was to get bin Laden. We got him, though he wasn't in Afghanistan. Time to leave. The Taliban is not a direct threat to the US, as deplorable as they are.

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

[Shie]

It's not impossible to "win hearts and minds" but we need to assess the needs of the people there like we did before during wartime and then identify their common enemy as the taliban.

Yeah Geo-Political politics are not anywhere near as simplistic as you seem to think it is.

How do you feel about Henry Kissinger?

[Get the Heck Out of Our Way]

Two words: too late. The only reason we went there was to get bin Laden. We got him, though he wasn't in Afghanistan. Time to leave. The Taliban is not a direct threat to the US, as deplorable as they are.

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Sooooo...

[Shie]

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Sooooo...

Muhammad Omar isn't, or we're not sure.

[MERIZoC]

Two words: too late. The only reason we went there was to get bin Laden. We got him, though he wasn't in Afghanistan. Time to leave. The Taliban is not a direct threat to the US, as deplorable as they are.

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

Cause you're all about freedom, aren't you?

[Shie]

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

Cause you're all about freedom, aren't you?

I'm just starting to feel different about capitalism.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Is it because you are a Moderator that there isn't a ribbon that says whether you are online?

Just wondering...

Yes. *smiles in a way that makes your blood run cold*

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Two words: too late. The only reason we went there was to get bin Laden. We got him, though he wasn't in Afghanistan. Time to leave. The Taliban is not a direct threat to the US, as deplorable as they are.

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

I don't think we're gonna stop shooting at terrorists because we're reducing the number of guys we have in the cold and mountainous place. But... we're increasingly likely to use increasingly precise weapons, 'cause killing people who didn't have a beef with us before tends to cause their surviving friends and relatives to develop one...

[Shie]

What prevents another Bin Laden from rising through the ranks? They might not be a threat to america militarily but they are a threat to freedom. The war isn't on Afghanistan or even just the taliban, it's a war on the terror they cause internationally. Still, Muhammad Omar hasn't been found yet. There's more work to be done and we can't quit when we've gotten this far.

I don't think we're gonna stop shooting at terrorists because we're reducing the number of guys we have in the cold and mountainous place. But... we're increasingly likely to use increasingly precise weapons, 'cause killing people who didn't have a beef with us before tends to cause their surviving friends and relatives to develop one...

I agree with you, do you think that drones are the next step to ensuring that innocents aren't killed?

[Northwest Slobovia]

I don't think we're gonna stop shooting at terrorists because we're reducing the number of guys we have in the cold and mountainous place. But... we're increasingly likely to use increasingly precise weapons, 'cause killing people who didn't have a beef with us before tends to cause their surviving friends and relatives to develop one...

I agree with you, do you think that drones are the next step to ensuring that innocents aren't killed?

Not drones per se -- though they are very convenient to use -- but precision weapons. I guess the exemplar is the sniper: nobody but the target is injured. Drones, especially the newer ones, can hang around the target undetected, so we can -- if we want, and we don't always do* -- try to minimize innocent people killed. However, AFAIK, all of our drones fire missiles rather than shoot guns (autocannon), so there's a practical lower limit on how small we can make the boom (though see DIME, dense inert metal explosives, for related ways to minimize blast). But we can achieve the same effects with men on the ground and, for example, ATGMs or laser-guided artillery shells.

*: I recommend Dror Moreh's The Gatekeepers for some perspectives from the former leaders of ShaBak, Israel's secret service, on the military and political trade-offs of using or not using bigger bombs at the cost of (not) killing innocents. There aren't many countries with greater experience in counter-terrorism operations than the Israelis. (Though one can point out that they haven't had quite the success as the Spanish and French have had against the ETA.)

[MERIZoC]

I don't think we're gonna stop shooting at terrorists because we're reducing the number of guys we have in the cold and mountainous place. But... we're increasingly likely to use increasingly precise weapons, 'cause killing people who didn't have a beef with us before tends to cause their surviving friends and relatives to develop one...

I agree with you, do you think that drones are the next step to ensuring that innocents aren't killed?

Ftfy. Now I agree with the statement.

[McCatson]

they could be useful against aliens in the future

You'd imagine a species that can travel at fucking light-speed or whatever to other solar systems would have ended war by then.

[Republic of Coldwater]

As said by Wikipedia.com, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, or WMD, is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. These weapons, not only being able to cause massive amounts of death and destruction, can also cause harm to the Earth's environment as a whole.
Here are just a few of the problems WMDs make:

-They bring massive amounts of harm to the environment and man made structures
-They pose serious health risks (radiological cancers, mutations)
-They lead to hundreds of thousands of death
-They cause serious fear and pain (e.g blister agents)
-They break Human Rights and should not be used at all
-They are challenging, if not impossible to dispose of when activated
-Preventing them is a problem for some

Oh yes, biological weapons will crush every single skyscraper in New York, and some nukes can't do crap

Some nukes can be made to have almost no Fallout and basically no Health Risks

Some nuclear bombs are only 2-3 times the strength of a normal bomb, and won't lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of deaths

So could normal bombs

By that logic, we should be banning all bombs because they break human rights

[Get the Heck Out of Our Way]

As said by Wikipedia.com, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, or WMD, is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. These weapons, not only being able to cause massive amounts of death and destruction, can also cause harm to the Earth's environment as a whole.
Here are just a few of the problems WMDs make:

-They bring massive amounts of harm to the environment and man made structures
-They pose serious health risks (radiological cancers, mutations)
-They lead to hundreds of thousands of death
-They cause serious fear and pain (e.g blister agents)
-They break Human Rights and should not be used at all
-They are challenging, if not impossible to dispose of when activated
-Preventing them is a problem for some

Oh yes, biological weapons will crush every single skyscraper in New York, and some nukes can't do crap

Some nukes can be made to have almost no Fallout and basically no Health Risks

Some nuclear bombs are only 2-3 times the strength of a normal bomb, and won't lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of deaths

So could normal bombs

By that logic, we should be banning all bombs because they break human rights

Read carefully. Weapons of MASSdestruction. Not "modified midget nukes"

[Blazedtown]

they could be useful against aliens in the future

You'd imagine a species that can travel at fucking light-speed or whatever to other solar systems would have ended war by then.

Or perfected it.

[Get the Heck Out of Our Way]

You'd imagine a species that can travel at fucking light-speed or whatever to other solar systems would have ended war by then.

Or perfected it.

*Evil Laugh* MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Risottia]

-They are challenging, if not impossible to dispose of when activated

Not true. The most compex to eliminate are the chemical ones - and we got the tech for it. Nuclear weapon cores can just be turned into fission fuel (by adding depleted uranium or thorium) and into the lithium you use for your cellphone batteries. As for biological weapons, there's no pathogen that can resist being baked in an oven at some 600-700 K.

As for the "when activated" bit, NBC weaponry is activated only shortly before the use... so the state of activation is rather immaterial.

[Get the Heck Out of Our Way]

Wait, are there any more Biological weapons? I thought we all agreed to "dispose of them" soon. Probably not...

[Napkiraly]

Wait, are there any more Biological weapons? I thought we all agreed to "dispose of them" soon. Probably not...

IIRC, the US believes that nine countries are suspected of having offensive biological warfare capabilities.

[Genivaria]

Yeah Geo-Political politics are not anywhere near as simplistic as you seem to think it is.

How do you feel about Henry Kissinger?

I have no strong opinion, why?

[Distruzio]

Yeah. Get rid of them. All of them.

[Blazedtown]

Yeah. Get rid of them. All of them.

Do you like global industrial warfare?

[Distruzio]

Yeah. Get rid of them. All of them.

Do you like global industrial warfare?

Nope. Are you suggesting that without WMD's total warfare is inevitable? Because it isn't. Until the 20th Century, the warfare you allude to was very very very rare, indeed.

Moreover, your question assumes that there are only a pair of options available: either I approve of WMD's or I want the world to burn. Thats... kind of ridiculous.

[Blazedtown]

Do you like global industrial warfare?

Nope. Are you suggesting that without WMD's total warfare is inevitable? Because it isn't. Until the 20th Century, the warfare you allude to was very very very rare, indeed.

Moreover, your question assumes that there are only a pair of options available: either I approve of WMD's or I want the world to burn. Thats... kind of ridiculous.

Yes, I am, if it wasn't for the advent of nuclear weapons we would've seen an armed conflicted between the Warsaw Pact and NATO by the 70s if not sooner, and maybe even another major war after that one. It was very very very rare until the 20th century because we didn't have the technology. Americans got our first taste of industrial scale warfare during the American Civil War, with the scenes of slaughter around Vicksburg providing an eerie foreshadowing of the Western Front. Europe during the Crimean and later Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. The fact remains is that even though the men who led the world into its most destructive conflict had largely seen firsthand what the horrors of modern warfare could do and yet they still plunged head first into hell.

The last time the great powers went head to head, our technology allowed us to kill each other in such numbers that we lost track to the nearest 10 million. That's more than the population of New York City. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that have prevented us from going at it at least once more in the 20th. If neither America or Russia had ever had nuclear weapons, we would probably be fighting them right now over their annexation of Crimea.

Nuclear weapons have prevented more deaths than any human invention short of vaccinations.

[Distruzio]

Nope. Are you suggesting that without WMD's total warfare is inevitable? Because it isn't. Until the 20th Century, the warfare you allude to was very very very rare, indeed.

Moreover, your question assumes that there are only a pair of options available: either I approve of WMD's or I want the world to burn. Thats... kind of ridiculous.

Yes, I am, if it wasn't for the advent of nuclear weapons we would've seen an armed conflicted between the Warsaw Pact and NATO by the 70s if not sooner, and maybe even another major war after that one. It was very very very rare until the 20th century because we didn't have the technology. Americans got our first taste of industrial scale warfare during the American Civil War, with the scenes of slaughter around Vicksburg providing an eerie foreshadowing of the Western Front. Europe during the Crimean and later Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. The fact remains is that even though the men who led the world into its most destructive conflict had largely seen firsthand what the horrors of modern warfare could do and yet they still plunged head first into hell.

The last time the great powers went head to head, our technology allowed us to kill each other in such numbers that we lost track to the nearest 10 million. That's more than the population of New York City. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that have prevented us from going at it at least once more in the 20th. If neither America or Russia had ever had nuclear weapons, we would probably be fighting them right now over their annexation of Crimea.

Nuclear weapons have prevented more deaths than any human invention short of vaccinations.

Yeah... that kind of thinking is needlessly black and white, homeboy/girl(?). Maybe I take the anti-WMD position because I'd rather offensive regimes be directly targeted. You know, instead of murdering 150,000 innocent Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Truman could have, I don't know, extended an offer for a negotiated surrender? You know, showing the Japanese he was willing to be a human fucking being to them and their Emperor? I don't know, maybe part of the negotiation could have involved American intervention against the actual threat post-Nazism.

Breaking a few eggs to make an omelette doesn't make any sense when you're actually saying that slaughtering a few chickens to make a hamburger is a good idea.