Should the U.S. consider using nuclear?

[DcupSheepNipples]

Should the U.S. consider using nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack?

 

[Frackal]

In what fashion and against whom?

 

[MoneyBags]

i think we should use nukes against a sling shot attack. we need to bitch slap those ugly smelly fucks so bad they will never dream of fucking with us again.

 

[theoak01]

no you send a neutron bomb it kills them but leaves the land good,that way the u.s can make afghanistan a part of itself

 

[MoneyBags]

woohoo!!! lots of dirt for us!!!!

we could use it for military testing instead of that place by puerto rico.

 

[Nitro6]

it is US policy to respond to chem or bio attack w/ nukes...although we still have chem and bio weapons stockpiled we signed a treaty banning thier use...US has no working neutron bomb, again banned by treaty (BTW- advantage of neeutron bomb is that it does not have the EMR wave assosicated w/ a regular nuke, thus electronic equipment is unaffected)

 

[madbomber31]

see, one major problem to nuking anyone is pissing others off.. like, say... russia... they can make us vanish from the map as well... and surely a nuclear strike would have a fallout affect in russia...

 

[Test boy]

So what would our target be? A nuclear bomb is overkill for a terrorist camp with tents for shelters. Plus I believe nuclear retribution might serve to unite the Arab nations. A scary thought since I don't want to pay $10/gallon for gas.

 

[~HOUNDOG~]

fucking stupid!
I won't go into why,but here are a couple examples.
Where do you nuke?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!
Second,ever hear of fallout?Im sure the pakistanis and russians would not like fallout floating into ther cities.
Nukes suck,they only need to be used in dire situations,this aint one of them.

 

[crash3837]

Everyone is pretty much right.
Where would you even drop a nuke?
If we did it would start a bigger war.