Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Foochar's Journal: Half a Hiroshima OK!? 6

Journal by Foochar

This article makes me even more concerned about the current state of the U.S. Presedential Administration. This is just one more indication of just how hawkish our current administration is. Why would you want to do anything to make nuculear weapons more usable.

Afganistan I could agree with. Iraq I could understand. But this goes too far.

If we didn't have a congress composed of Republican "yes men" I wouldn't be so concerned. What good is a seperation of powers when congress simply provides a rubber stamp for whatever the president wants to do. When the Dems try to exercise some caution they get accused of using delaying tactics and circumventing the intentions of the constitutional framers.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Half a Hiroshima OK!?

Comments Filter:
  • It is not enough to have half the firepower of the enemy, we must have overwhelming firepower capabilities. Otherwise, what is to stop the terrorists?

    I'm glad the government is Republican controlled. I get the feeling that if the Democrats controlled the goverment like the Republicans do, they'd just stand back and let the terrorists roll over the border. They don't seem to be interested in the life and liberty of the US people, but are willing to give them away without a fight.

    My elected officials are
    • Do you really think nuclear weapons are the answer *against* terrorism? Do you really think Iraq was about terrorism? If so I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.
      • Do you really think Iraq was about terrorism?

        So, tell me, what was Iraq about again?

        -Brent
        • Well, thats simple what did we secure first upon invading? What were we accoss the street gaurding while the museum containing the oldest know human writing was sacked?
          • Well, thats simple what did we secure first upon invading?

            You think that we should have been more concerned about looters, then terrorists? There were plently of looters in the US, but we didn't to anything about them. It's a shame really, I would have arrested all of them, and built temporary camps to hold them in.

            But you know, the looters have to learn to be more mature if they want to live in a free country. If the oil fields would have been destroyed, Iraq would have been doomed to a poverty nat

    • I not 100% anti nuke. I don't have a problem with the MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine. At the same time, I don't see where a low yield nuke makes any sense when we have things the the MOAB (Massive Ordinace Air Burst).

      Nuculear weapons are inherantly messy. There is radation damage for decades if not centuries after their use. They require special shielding for storage and transport. In order to handle them you have to be on a Personel Reliablity Profile list. The rules for being on this l

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...