USA about to declare war.

[Bloodrath]

 Listen. A nucular weapon is different. You can't just "shoot it down". We did shoot down a lot of scud missles, but a fair amount did get through into Israel.

Now, back to the nucular weapons. They are fast, huge and right on target. By "hitting it out of the sky", they would be a huge risk to many countires surrounding the US, and countires even in Europe.

If you try and shoot it down right after it is lanched, you are in massive trouble. The explosion from the surface to air missles and the nucular warhead, would be massive. If it was hit over any country, than those countries would feel radiation and even explosions of debris could cause a lot of trouble. The radition on these pieces falling would cause a ton of trouble.

Now, if were to try and hit it over the Atlantic or Pacific for example, you also face problems. The surface to air missles are number one, out of range basically untill it reaches a certain distance, untill so many miles off shore.

Also, if it was hit out of the air, it would be relatively close to shore. Now, the huge waves and radition caused by this would be massive, and even if there are floods, it would be nothing to the radition in th air and so forth.

This is of corse if it could even make contact with the nucular missle. They are very different than the scuds and they travel at different speeds and different heights. Hitting a missles in the ocean is very unlikely. Very unlikely. Almost impossible, like the US has reported. You also cannot launch a missle of the same size at it because, well hitting its target is extreamly hard, and very unlikely. Not that the US wouldn't try and hit it down, but actually doing this would be something to see.

The only thing you can really do in this situation that would work is fire nucular weapons back to where they came from, and hopefully pray Saddam's missile is a fluke and doesn't work. The result in all this is nucular war and desruction of the world.

So, we must go in and stop Saddam, before it is too late and we can do nothing.

[Ereptor]

 Bloodrath.  Nukes usually don't arm themselves until they reach their target.  This is not the movies where we shoot down a nuke in space and you see a huge explosion.  We ( USA ) are in the process of building anti nuke system.  But as far as i know most nukes do not arm until they reach their designated target.

[Bloodrath]

 I know this is not the movies. I am not stupid. Listen. Most nukes do not arm themselves untill the reach a certain distance to there target, yes I agree. However, there are nucular warheads that arm themselves while on the ground, and those are the highly dangerous ones right away.

Also, if Saddam fires a nucular weapon that does not arm itself untill it is near to the US, it is still a huge problem. We are building a anti nucular system, but it is not completed yet, or even tested heavily. There is no strength in that we will hit these weapons out of the air, or anything like that.

The point is that the US does not a have a solid solution to destroy nucular weapons onced launched. If it is launched, this will be the first ideal that the US will have to face in this situation.

I would be seriously surprised if the US could use ground to air missles to destroy a nuke. That would be very surprising.

We need that anti nucular system, but as of right now we do not have it, so we are in danger of being hit. So, as of right now, any nucular weapon launched at us, if it works, will hit its target.

Even with this system that is in the creating stages, and when it is completed, we still have a high risk into being hit because, even with this new techonolgy, it is no guarantee that it will stop it in its path.

[baransarn]

 One thing that freaks me out is the fact that Saddam said if the United States attacks him that he will attack the World. My dad said that Iraq will surrender becuase of the heavy bombing that Bush will order. Who knows!? We have to wait it out.

[Van]

 Did you guys (and guyettes) here the report Bush ordered Saddam and his sons to get out of Iraq in 48 hours or Bush will take military action. :(  

[Ruatine]

 Yes, I listened to the Bush report. Though he ordered them to get out in 48 hours, he did not say that we would attack in 48 hours if they did not get out. "At a time of our choosing" we will wage war, quoting Bush. Who knows when that could be? It could be two days from now, or it could be two weeks from now. We'll have to wait and see.

[calria]

 My input on the matter.

a) I believe that Bush has very little of either our nation's or the Iraqi people's welfare in mind. He is capitalizing on the events post-9/11 to make himself look good and be elected to his second term... in other words, to top his father.

b ) Going against the wishes of the UN Security Council technically authorizes the UN to take action... not against Iraq, but against the United States of America. We could legally be thrown out of not only UN discussions, but also out of the United Nations entirely for these actions. This would throw back world political and social progression by about 50 years.

c) If this war were really about weapons control and stopping the Iraqi government from helping terrorists, we would not be invading the entire nation. We would, instead, merely bomb any and all possible weapons manufacturies. However, this is not what we're doing. We are invading the nation of Iraq- killing its civilians with our urban bombings, terrorizing its people, who do not know why this war is going on!

What in these actions makes us any better than the terrorists? The terrorists target America for bombings because they say that we oppress the Middle East. We target Iraq for occupation because we say that their government oppresses their people.

All of this reminds me so much of how Hitler invaded Eastern Europe in the 1930's.

d) I live well within the estimated blast area, should a nuke ever hit Barksdale AFB, where the nation keeps its B-52's and fighter jets... one of the top 3 targets, should a nuclear-weapons enabled nation attempt to stop our military. I would be dead within 30 seconds of impact.
Several of my best friends who graduated last year, including two ex-boyfriends, are currently serving in the military... at least 3 that I know of are in the Middle East with the Army. There is a much higher chance that American soldiers will die in this battle than in the last- the last battle was not fought with large amounts of chemical and biological weapons at the Iraqi's fingertips.
When I graduate High School in 2.5 months, I will have two years of college before entering the Air Force. I am in the Air Force JROTC now. I will enter the Air Force as a captain. Captains get sent into combat. This war will not necessarily be over within two years. Occupation in Iraq will certainly not be over in 2 years.

President George Bush has already sentenced me to spend time in the desert.
...but I will go into the Air Force anyway. Not to oppress the Iraqi people, and not to fight Republicans' wars, but because I believe that if you wish to take a stance in an issue, you must be an active part of that issue.

Right or wrong (and in this case wrong) I will stand up to defend the American people. NOT America- the American people.

How many of you, who say "WAR! WAR!" instead of wishing for peace, will do what I am doing and will do for my country?

Until you have seen yourself in uniform... until you have held an M-16 in your hand and learned to use it... until you have sat in the back of a cargo plane, and watched the air base fade away into the horizon as you and your flight soar through the sky... until you have said the pledge of allegiance and sung the natoinal anthem, not with your hand over your heart, but saluting your flag... until you have stood with a group of your fellow flight leaders around a desk and listened to your aerospace science instructor tell you that he may ship out within 2 weeks notice of his mobilization...

THEN you may speak with vehemence in your heart about the righteousness of war.

[TSR]

 

[/qoute]

I am just going to quote myself from Terrouge to what I said, cause I don't really feel like typing all that out again. ;)

Also, you have completely not listen to the facts. Over 100 000 people will die per years from bad health care and lack of food, and to that figure you must add in the people he kills. He chops off there heads for small crimes, if they are even crimes.

-I grant you, although the last sentence is not true.

Listen. I and others can tell you what will happen or what the high chances of what will happen, but that is all theory. Okay then. But, you can't ignore the figures and the facts.

-Nope, but that is not what you are stating.

Since around 1991, Saddam has let 1 000 000 people die, of hungry,health ect. That is a fact.

-Hmmm, yes, possible. A full 5%, that would be, of the population. As compared to maybe .5% in the US. You must understand that that is no higher than in neighboring countries.


Saddam has violented EVERY UN resolution are rules or conditions that they sent to him. Everyone. That is a fact.

-Hmm, er, haha, that would be stretching it a lot. A lot. To put it plainly: that is an exaggeration by about 246%.

He has used chemical weapons aganist his-own-people. He has used chemical weapons against Iran in the 80s. That is a fact.

-Iran, I grant you. Also in the civil war. But then may I remind you that the US civil war involved people bloody well shooting the heck out of each other too. I'm not so sure as your are, that he did use chem. weapons against his own people. Too expensive, see?

He has lied and misled UN inspecters and delayed them while they were searching for weapons. That is a fact.

-Yuppers. At this point I would like to note that I in no way agree with or support Saddam. He's extremely brutal. I'm just being objective.

He has told UN inspecters they can not go in certain places, like Palaces for example to search for weapons. That is a fact.

-Perhaps.

Here is a very key fact. in resolution 1441, ALL 15 countires in the security council agreed, signed, ect. to this resolution. That resolution states, like I and Kenny said before, that since November 4th, 2002, the UN had giving Saddam conditions and rules, checkpoints he had to follow. This resoultion is just a summary of all the resolutions since 1991. It states that if Saddam does not comply with the rules and follow them, then force or heavy actions are aloud. All of the 15 countires in the security council agreed to this, even France.

-Yes, but that is just stating the conditions. The vote on whether he is complying, which is the main point, was on a good way to being vetoed, until it was canceled.

So, Saddam time has run out. The US has tried all measures to get Saddam to comply peacefully. He has not complied with the rules. Now the time is up. And, that resolution states when the time is up, the US and allies may take Saddam out with force.

-No, that is exactly the bit that was not pushed. There is at the present moment no UN resolution per se authorizing the US for war, I gather.

Thos are facts that are real. We can debate what happens after this war, or what will happen during the war, or what will happen if this war doesn't happen, but you can't push out the facts that are staring you in the face, but cleary, all antiwarists are.

-"Those", you need an e. Umm, facts don't pop up so hard for me.

Alos, to answer your question Van. The US does have nucular weapons. They are part of a good of nations, including Russia, France, Germany, ect.. that they are aloud to hold nucular weapons, and are only aloud to use them with FULL UN agreement, or in a time of a huge crisis, a lot bigger than the one at hand now.

-"Nuclear" is the right spelling. As well as "allowed". Not aloud or aload.

Iraq on the other hand is not aload to have these weapons because the world has said they are not aload. The world feels that Iraq would use it for the offense, rather thanthe defense. We have seen Saddam use chemical weapons agianst Iran in the 80s and against his won people. Why would he do the same with nucular weapons? Also, Saddam has served jail time in Siberia, for opposing the government and getting into a lot of trouble. He escaped from jail am went back to Iraq. This was some years ago, but thw worls still has this in mind.

The US is the only country to have used nucular weapons in history. That was a time when it was needed, even though many people do not support it. Anyway, the Nations that are aload to hold these weapons are constantly under watch, and the UN keeps track of all these major missles and where they are located in. It is just amazing that you could think that Saddam would be peaceful with these weapons. He would never be issued to have these in his possion. Not in a million years.

-Small probability of them finding a nuke there.
Oh yes: Gad, do you people realize how hard it is to make a decent ICBM, even if it's not depressed-trajectory?

Heh. Dead Eye. You better learn how to spell better, cause that is just sad. "Irakies" is just a horrid spelling. Heh. Sounds like a second grader. No offense, but you better review your atlas or something like that.

-You talk?


*Goes off muttering*
-Same.


Note I don't support this guy or anything. As to the war - toodle pip, I hate conflict in all form. Even pre-emptive stuff. Although, not on RWL I don't. ;)


Bloodrath.... well, nc.

[RazorClaw]

 Calria, I like Bush, and the UN sucks. If you think he's evil, too bad.

[TSR]

 

Listen. A nucular weapon is different. You can't just "shoot it down". We did shoot down a lot of scud missles, but a fair amount did get through into Israel.

-Oh can't you now?

Now, back to the nucular weapons. They are fast, huge and right on target. By "hitting it out of the sky", they would be a huge risk to many countires surrounding the US, and countires even in Europe.

-"nuclear" - Who said, over Europe? Besides, they don't activate at all until collision.

If you try and shoot it down right after it is lanched, you are in massive trouble. The explosion from the surface to air missles and the nucular warhead, would be massive. If it was hit over any country, than those countries would feel radiation and even explosions of debris could cause a lot of trouble. The radition on these pieces falling would cause a ton of trouble.

Now, if were to try and hit it over the Atlantic or Pacific for example, you also face problems. The surface to air missles are number one, out of range basically untill it reaches a certain distance, untill so many miles off shore.

Also, if it was hit out of the air, it would be relatively close to shore. Now, the huge waves and radition caused by this would be massive, and even if there are floods, it would be nothing to the radition in th air and so forth.

This is of corse if it could even make contact with the nucular missle. They are very different than the scuds and they travel at different speeds and different heights. Hitting a missles in the ocean is very unlikely. Very unlikely. Almost impossible, like the US has reported. You also cannot launch a missle of the same size at it because, well hitting its target is extreamly hard, and very unlikely. Not that the US wouldn't try and hit it down, but actually doing this would be something to see.

The only thing you can really do in this situation that would work is fire nucular weapons back to where they came from, and hopefully pray Saddam's missile is a fluke and doesn't work. The result in all this is nucular war and desruction of the world.

So, we must go in and stop Saddam, before it is too late and we can do nothing.

I know this is not the movies. I am not stupid. Listen. Most nukes do not arm themselves untill the reach a certain distance to there target, yes I agree. However, there are nucular warheads that arm themselves while on the ground, and those are the highly dangerous ones right away.

Also, if Saddam fires a nucular weapon that does not arm itself untill it is near to the US, it is still a huge problem. We are building a anti nucular system, but it is not completed yet, or even tested heavily. There is no strength in that we will hit these weapons out of the air, or anything like that.

The point is that the US does not a have a solid solution to destroy nucular weapons onced launched. If it is launched, this will be the first ideal that the US will have to face in this situation.

I would be seriously surprised if the US could use ground to air missles to destroy a nuke. That would be very surprising.

We need that anti nucular system, but as of right now we do not have it, so we are in danger of being hit. So, as of right now, any nucular weapon launched at us, if it works, will hit its target.

Even with this system that is in the creating stages, and when it is completed, we still have a high risk into being hit because, even with this new techonolgy, it is no guarantee that it will stop it in its path.



OK, I will refute all of it in one glorious go. Here's how a nuke works, boys. To start a chain reaction, you need a chunk of uranium over a critical mass, and I won't calculate it now. So basically, once those get together, you pretty much have a nuclear chain reaction within a /very/ short time. So you build a big shell, and you put a chunk of enriched uranium under the critical mass in the front, and the same in the back. And together, they exceed the critical mass. Now then, you can't do all this in the air, it'll just explode. No, on impact, the two collide, form a chunk over the critical mass, and explode. (Okay, oversimplified, but correct.) See, they can't activate anywhere. And if you explode a chunk of uranium, all you will get is a few smithereens of radiating matter - no threat.

Now for the shooting down - it it ridiculously easy to shoot down most missiles, they were able to shoot most unmanned German plane-bombs (V-1) in World War II, for heavens sake, so what's the matter here? Anything Iraq could construct at short notice would be catnip for the newbiest of newbie antiballistic systems.


Some more stuff....

[Ereptor]

 TSR i consider that spam.  RETTO reset POST COUNT on TSR!

[Fenix]

 My opinion is, RIGHT NOW, the only country acting with the little bit of wisdom, is the one that ISN'T afraid to use his power against the rising threat of evil in this world, that's Bush and the U.S.
If Bush does not step in, and destroy this threat before it grows, it may lead to another world war 3.  This is the same evidence that was presented by Germany before Hitler began open warfare on Europe.
Germany was given the chance to rebuild it's military force, because the rest of the wolrd's post ww1 countries were ashamed of what they had done to them in the first war.  The same is happening now, as I have heard influential talk of things like "Oh, the United States are prejudicial to the iraqis people, they are allowed to contain nuclear weapons, but Iraq isn't? how unfair!"
It may not be fair, but it wouldn't be fair if another mad-man was given the chance to become the most powerful nation in the world; that is a danger.  The USA is the closest country to a free republic there is, and Iraq is a complete dictatorship.  In Iraq, An insane man reigns most high, while in the U.S. only under great discretion is one given the power to control their nuclear stockhold, and thereafter it is still challenged and overthrown if they're deemed unworthy to possess it.
I say, invade Iraq, God protect, speed, and bless those soldiers fighting in the name of sanity, good, and freedom.
I'm ashamed that Canada has not yet agreed to declare war upon this country.  The U.S. WILL win this war.
Bush is getting done what Eisenhower was removed for(He wanted to nuke north korea from it's communist center, and just keep going outward, and eliminate a threat before it started)
I believe Bush is acting with great wisdom, and courage to do this.
The European Common Market will deny U.S. support, because they are selfish, and wish to gain control of the world's economy.  China may want to strike on the U.S. and if successful, Russia will destroy China, and the U.S. will still be the world's superpower.  P.M. Blair of GB Will be removed from office if he goes against Britain's cabinet and declares on Iraq, I believe this will happen.
Everything should go well, but prayers are needed,  as always.
"Though man prepares the horse for battle, victory is of the Lord."
God Bless America
I am shamed of Canada.

[TSR]

 Ereptor, before you rave on, please read what I actually wrote - I wrote a lot there, now read it.

Another thing that popped up is this. No Scud missile ever reached Israel during the Gulf War, so don't talk about these things Bloody, when over half of them aren't true.

Come on, people. Don't tell me you didn't read what I wrote.

[Shytalon]

 "Irakies should die!"

"P.M. Blair of GB Will be removed from office if he goes against Britain's cabinet and declares on Iraq, I believe this will happen."

"I'm ashamed that Canada has not yet agreed to declare war upon this country. The U.S. WILL win this war."

This is why I don't like the war. Because this 'support' is used in favor of it. Just because another country goes against our ideals means you should be ashamed of them? No, that's just wrong.

Anyone else find it ironic that we are going in, under the name of a UN resolution (1440, I believe), without UN support? I do.

~Shy, Myuh!

[Fenix]

 Beatles, about 8% of SCUDs reached Israel, but your facts are alot clearer than others.
The U.S. Counter measures were very imputent when deflecting SCUDs, but so many were deployed, they were very effective none the less.