wkmac
Well-Known Member
Tie,
In a true warlike mindset, your idea is really right on the money. It's sad that at one time King's and their armies gathered together on some remote vast plain, without village, without town's folk, without women and children and then fought the battle to determine the outcome. The winner would thus march into the loser's empire and without objection or revolt, the victorious King would assume the throne for that area and the people adapted and moved on. We don't do wars like that anymore and is it not odd that we point our arrogant fingers at these earlier peoples and with contempt, boast against them and revere in our own advanced and technological grandeur while we age war among women and children. I also wonder how many wars would ever be fought if it was a cardinal rule that all national leaders (Presidents, Kings, Dictators, Whatever) by global law had to personally lead their armies onto the field of battle. You want global piece? There's the secret my friend because these cowards would never have the stomach to do that. Back in the day Kings led their own armies personally on the field of battle. Now the cowards phone and email it all in!
We don't have the stomach to use nuke weapons and the blunt truth is they are only a weapon of terror even by any gov't who has them. Nukes, depending on you opinion of war itself, had their place in the dawn of the nuclear age because we lacked the capacity of accurate delivery of a weapon onto a single target. Until that point in August of 1945' our method was to massive carpet bomb, Coventry England and Dresden Gremany being prime examples of our handy work, and if one would sit down and compare the death and distruction we inflicted on German civilian population or German on the British for example and then compare that to Hiroshima and Nagosaki, one could argue the Germans and the Brits too, got the worst deal than the Japanese. But we see the 2 bombing events of Japan as being so horrible because of the destruction in just one punch.
Even in boxing, what impresses us more, a fight of many rounds of punch and counter punch that wear an oppenent down to a final knockout in the 13th round or a Mike Tyson walks out and 30 seconds into the 1st round the opponent is out cold on the ring floor? To the opponent, what is the difference? None really! But Mike Tyson like that one drop bomb terrorizes us and the gov't know this.
Does the US need a nuke weapon at all? Nope and I mean absolutely no! With our ability now of such exact target strike capability, nuclear weapons are literally as ancient a weapon of war as the spear. It's only purpose now is a weapon of terror and a goal for those nations who lack the technological skills to develop highly accurate weapons systems. If nuke weapons were the end all, why the time, effort and vast sums of money spent of conventional type bombs with advanced and highly accurate delivery systems. Most people including myself sat with a "so what, big deal" attitude to Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe" bombing of Bagdad the opening nights of the war. What were we waiting on? The "BIG FIRECRACKER" that's what. Gee Rumy, where's the big flash and bang? What we failed to see and thus why "shock and awe" turned into "bore and yawn" was the image of Japan in August of 1945'. The shock and awe really was the advancement of precision bombing that America had achieved since the 1991' Gulf War. I'm sure Saddam and Company and others across the region very much got the "shock and awe" that Rumsfeld spoke of and it just took us a little longer to understand the point. You could say Saddam is smarter than us but then again he had the advantage of seeing all this stuff "Firsthand!"
Fast forward Japan 1945' to Dec 2006' and America has to decide how to end the war with Japan with today's technology. Do you think we'd still drop Fat Man and Little Boy or would Hiroshima and Nagosaki see or I should say maybe hear a salvo of crusie missles and sorties of stealth bombers with highly accurate smart bombs? That is exactly why nukes aren't deployed in any wartime theater in this day. They are quite frankly of no use other than to terrorize non-combative civilian populations and serve no other use. Even our bunker busters are non-nuke and the latest built bohemoth bomb, the Moab, is a non-nuke weapon.
I look forward to the day that all nuke weapons on the face of the earth no longer exist other than as chapters in the history of mankind. I also hope that the only chapter on actual use will only be written about the US in 1945'. What's done is done and let's hope it's never done again for all our sakes.
If you don't think that psy-ops plays into weapons, well consider this:
GBU-43/B / "Mother Of All Bombs" / Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb
We should have used this many times over at Tora Bora! Forget forcing these clowns out, Just bury their
for future archelogists to dig up. 
