As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Weapons in the War on Terror

EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
edited November 2006 in Debate and/or Discourse
[spoiler:2be8d91940]D&D is a scary place. Please use lube.[/spoiler:2be8d91940]

I'm in a lecture in Defense Policy at my college. The Cold War parts have been interesting, but we've just moved on from that and started touching on the finer points of the War on Terror. A couple things have been interesting me about this. The course involves a lot of discussion and debate abong the students, for which I am relatively ill-equipped, so I thought maybe I could get a discussion going here about it and intellectually arm myself.

From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all? This got asked in the class and none of us really had a good answer, and I know it's going to come up again.

I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack, and I can't seem to find any way in which these tools could be used against terrorism aside from perhaps an implied threat of possession. I can come up with scores of reasons against use - the fact that our enemy is generally unidentifyable for one, and that these weapons are generally stronger than I imagine their intended targets would deserve - something like a hand grenade on a fruit fly.

The closest thing I've been able to find in regards to use of some form of chemical weapons against terrorists is the use of white phosphorous incendiaries to flush targets out - even though white phosphorous isn't technically defined as a chemical weapon, it still bears toxic properties.

Any ideas?

Ein on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Aim the nukes at Mecca. :P

    jothki on
  • Options
    arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    Its because we aren't fighting a war.

    We aren't in a war at all, in fact. This is a police action.

    We are using a sledgehammer when what we need is a drillbit.

    plus, do you really expect something like detente to work
    against extremists hellbent on our eradication?

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    We are using a sledgehammer when what we need is a drillbit.

    Well, yeah. This is basically the only conclusion I've been able to come to, because we can't openly target non-combatant targets as collateral damage without a shitstorm.

    I'm more trying to figure out how the sledgehammer could still be useful, aside from the implied threat of possession.

    Ein on
  • Options
    TroubledTomTroubledTom regular
    edited November 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    Its because we aren't fighting a war.

    We aren't in a war at all, in fact. This is a police action.

    We are using a sledgehammer when what we need is a drillbit.

    plus, do you really expect something like detente to work
    against extremists hellbent on our eradication?

    Precisely. "War" in the war on terror doesn't mean the same thing as war in other contexts. It's a perplexing use of the term.

    TroubledTom on
    Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
    Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
  • Options
    arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    arod_77 wrote:
    We are using a sledgehammer when what we need is a drillbit.

    Well, yeah. This is basically the only conclusion I've been able to come to, because we can't openly target non-combatant targets as collateral damage without a shitstorm.

    I'm more trying to figure out how the sledgehammer could still be useful, aside from the implied threat of possession.

    We have far greater tools in our arsenal than bombs.

    Namely, influence with countries such as Saudi Arabia, and our interest in maintaining strong diplomatic ties in the region, hence our history of helping out people we might regret helping later, such as the Mujahadeen and Bin Laden.

    Its all a political game, and the terrorists know this, what, exactly, do you think terrorism is? Their goal is not to bring about our destruction through force of arms, they seek to destabilize us in order to solidify their own power base in the region, using our wars of conquest as ammunition in recruitment, carving out their own little patches just like Al-Sadr and the Mahdi army in Najaf

    Terrorists are far more dangerous than they used to be when we were dealing with fringe radicals like Baader-Meinhof and Action-Directe. The modern terrorist understands the importance of establishing legitimacy early on, and usually it is through the bloodiest of means. The more blood the better.

    Just look at the PLO for chrissakes!

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack

    :?

    anyway:

    1. There is no sizable force of extreemists hellbent on our eradication

    2. There is no government willing to support such actions that could achieve goals adverse to their own.

    3. There are no terrorist forces that we have to be worried about that are aiming to achieve goals adverse to the goals of potential supporter nations.

    4. Military actions on a large scale do not help win the war against terror.

    5. The war on terror is a war for hearts and minds.

    6. The first rule in "war on terror" is "dont shoot people"

    7. The second rule in "war on terror" is "dont shoot people.

    8. The third rule in "war on terror" is "interventionalist policies in foriegn nations create backlash among the civilian population, this backlash will typically be expressed as terrorism, because most populations do not have the power to support a popular coup" [E.G. Saudi Arabia. See Iran and the Shah for a counter-example]

    We are using military urban tactics to fight insurgents, but insurgents arent armed forces that can be beat with military tactics. Military tactics just create more insurgents.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    During the height of the Cold War our government realized the need for not only influence but also goodwill in developing nations of the world to ensure that they either don't fall to 'communism' or don't become overly influenced by the USSR and China. The Peace Corps was basically our means of attacking the soviets just as much, if not moreso, as proxy wars. In this current war where mindsets and the lack of social mobility/hope for the future are some of the prime motivations that drive our enemy's recruitment and attack such a program is even more important, yet we haven't done a damn thing on it. Hell we give the least amount of international aide percentage wise compared to the 20 next richest nations in the world. Dollar for dollar we're around the same as Spain. You can't win this 'war' with bullets and bombs yet that's all we're really trying to use. We can't kill away the hate and anti-American sentiment that is fostered in the middle east so we'd better start trying to 'love' it away. :winky:

    moniker on
  • Options
    arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    Absolutely, the idea that the leaders of these organizations for the most part want some sort of anarchy to occur is ludicrous, those types never even get off the ground, who would fund them? I mean, sure, they might be encouraged to cause inconvenience like some of the earlier KGB/NKVD funded operations during the cold-war, but its certainly nothing large scale as was implied in the terminology of the day.

    The "war against extremism" is the modern day "red scare"

    I was being facetious about the "Eradication" thing : p

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack

    :?

    anyway:

    1. There is no sizable force of extreemists hellbent on our eradication

    2. There is no government willing to support such actions that could achieve goals adverse to their own.

    3. There are no terrorist forces that we have to be worried about that are aiming to achieve goals adverse to the goals of potential supporter nations.

    4. Military actions on a large scale do not help win the war against terror.

    5. The war on terror is a war for hearts and minds.
    6. The first rule in "war on terror" is "dont shoot people"

    7. The second rule in "war on terror" is "dont shoot people.

    8. The third rule in "war on terror" is "interventionalist policies in foriegn nations create backlash among the civilian population, this backlash will typically be expressed as terrorism, because most populations do not have the power to support a popular coup" [E.G. Saudi Arabia. See Iran and the Shah for a counter-example]

    We are using military urban tactics to fight insurgents, but insurgents arent armed forces that can be beat with military tactics. Military tactics just create more insurgents.

    what he said; poking the beehive may kill a few bees but it make a lot more angry.

    edit: The "war on terror" is only a war in the same way that the "war on poverty" is. Military might will not be of much help in this particular "war"

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Using chemical weapons or nukes in the War on Terror makes as much sense as using these weapons in the War on Drugs, the War on Pauverty or the War on AIDS.

    The best analogy for the War on Terror I heard was, unsurprisingly, on the Daily Show, when someone (can't remember who, but given the number of Daily Show fans around here I'm sure someone will fill it in) said that "The War on Terror is a PR war, and we're losing to a bunch of guys in caves." That's because the US has no PR strategy in the Mid-East, unless you count the messages some soldiers write on bombs before launching them. On the other hand, terrorist leaders have been using a two-fold strategy, relying on people's hatred for the US and Israel on one hand, and on a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran on the other. If you're to fight back, there are the two fronts you need to attack on.

    1) As moniker said, you need to build good will in the Mid-East. Peace Corps, humanitarian programs, that sort of thing. Then you need for it to be known, without making it look like you're only doing it for bragging rights. My first guess would be to get Al Jazeera to report on your projects, but that's just me. I'm not a PR guy.

    2) You need to debate their reading of the Qu'ran. That's trickier, because you can't do it directly. All you can do is help push it out in the open. Encourange televised debates between Ahmed Terrorist and some moderate, intelligent Imams. These debates will help contrast the terrorist's reading and the real Qu'ran, and undermine one of their key recruting tools. Of course, once again, you need to make sure people see it. Once again, I'd guess going with Al Jazeera for maximum coverage and credibility.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack

    :?

    I'm just curious if there's a reason you singled that out in particular from what I said over anything else.

    I said I'm trying to read up on this, which means that I'm in no way qualified to draw conclusions with this, but just from what I've seen so far... Literally 99% of what I've found from searching for weapons use as it relates to terrorism is counterterrorism, terrorism prevention, and deterrence. People trying to come up with plans of containment, that sort of thing.

    What about this was incorrect?

    Ein on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack
    :?
    I'm just curious if there's a reason you singled that out in particular from what I said over anything else.

    I said I'm trying to read up on this, which means that I'm in no way qualified to draw conclusions with this, but just from what I've seen so far... Literally 99% of what I've found from searching for weapons use as it relates to terrorism is counterterrorism, terrorism prevention, and deterrence. People trying to come up with plans of containment, that sort of thing.

    What about this was incorrect?
    The Republicans cut a lot of programs that helped prevent terrorists from getting ahold of WMDs. The biggest one being a stipend we paid to Russian weapons experts, where we basically told them "here, have some money to please not work for terrorists." It was cheap, and ridiculously effective, so why wouldn't we want to cut that in favor of Capital Gains tax cuts?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    Goumindong wrote:
    I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack
    :?
    I'm just curious if there's a reason you singled that out in particular from what I said over anything else.

    I said I'm trying to read up on this, which means that I'm in no way qualified to draw conclusions with this, but just from what I've seen so far... Literally 99% of what I've found from searching for weapons use as it relates to terrorism is counterterrorism, terrorism prevention, and deterrence. People trying to come up with plans of containment, that sort of thing.

    What about this was incorrect?
    The Republicans cut a lot of programs that helped prevent terrorists from getting ahold of WMDs. The biggest one being a stipend we paid to Russian weapons experts, where we basically told them "here, have some money to please not work for terrorists." It was cheap, and ridiculously effective, so why wouldn't we want to cut that in favor of Capital Gains tax cuts?

    Also, spending money to make sure stockpiles of nuclear weapons are secure. That's good too.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    mcc on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    But the grey goo!

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    But the grey goo!
    Listen, the virus would only turn evil into gray goo. People who aren't evil don't have anything to worry about.

    mcc on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    But the grey goo!
    Listen, the virus would only turn evil into gray goo. People who aren't evil don't have anything to worry about.

    No, the grey goo is the nanomachines themselves. Basically, it's the end result of the objection that Nanotechnology will eat everything and keep self-replicating forever. Which is somewhat amusing.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    But the grey goo!
    Listen, the virus would only turn evil into gray goo. People who aren't evil don't have anything to worry about.

    No, the grey goo is the nanomachines themselves. Basically, it's the end result of the objection that Nanotechnology will eat everything and keep self-replicating forever. Which is somewhat amusing.

    Why do you love evil?

    mcc on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    But the grey goo!
    Listen, the virus would only turn evil into gray goo. People who aren't evil don't have anything to worry about.

    No, the grey goo is the nanomachines themselves. Basically, it's the end result of the objection that Nanotechnology will eat everything and keep self-replicating forever. Which is somewhat amusing.

    Why do you love evil?

    I don't. I love ridiculous apocalypse theories.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    entropykidentropykid Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Why is it, the very same problems and monsters the US is facing today, the US created or had a shape in?

    Crazyness in Iran?
    Thank the CIA's Operation Ajax which illegally removed the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 in Iran, for British Petroleum.

    Saddam? The US funded, armed, backed and did a lot of things for Saddam...at the SAME time he was killing his own people...meanwhile, the US WAS ALSO secretly selling arms to Iran.

    Insurgents? Thank Rumsfeld's P2OG plan to stir up, flare up, and create chaos in Iraq...or as Bush said, "bring it on"

    Taliban? Thank the US funding the Mujahadeen and later what would become the Taliban using Pakistani Intelligence(ISI) as the proxy

    Hell, it's an open secret that while Osama was "declaring jihad" against
    America in 1998, the CIA was secretly funding al Qaeda in Kosovo
    to fight the Serbs at the same time.

    Real CIA analysts will tell you most the major terrorism's impetus comes FROM Pakistan, mostly fostered and controlled by the Pakistani Intelligence...our so called "ally". Be it 9/11, the 7/11 Mumbai bombings in India or the UK Liquid Terror plot, all of it leads right back to Pakistani ISI.

    It isnt just Islamic extremists who like chaos in the middle east:
    anyone whose seen Syriana, got the point that it's also corporate interests and global elites who also love instability and chaos in the middle east.

    The "war on terror" is just a smokescreen to push through American hegemon across the Eurasia...as outlined by former Carter foreign policy advisor Zbiginiew Brzininski who BRAGGED about artificically inciting and exploiting Islamic extremists/jihadis to fight the Soviets in 1979, the US needed a new enemy after the cold war...enter the very convenient Islamic Extremists.

    entropykid on
  • Options
    DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Richy wrote:
    1) As moniker said, you need to build good will in the Mid-East. Peace Corps, humanitarian programs, that sort of thing. Then you need for it to be known, without making it look like you're only doing it for bragging rights. My first guess would be to get Al Jazeera to report on your projects, but that's just me. I'm not a PR guy.

    2) You need to debate their reading of the Qu'ran. That's trickier, because you can't do it directly. All you can do is help push it out in the open. Encourange televised debates between Ahmed Terrorist and some moderate, intelligent Imams. These debates will help contrast the terrorist's reading and the real Qu'ran, and undermine one of their key recruting tools. Of course, once again, you need to make sure people see it. Once again, I'd guess going with Al Jazeera for maximum coverage and credibility.

    You know, now with Al Jazeera International opening its doors it seems like the perfect opportunity to welcome arabs into a larger political discourse. That's what democracy is about, isn't it? Giving people a peaceful route to change things for the better.

    Once that's established, the western politicians can start using Al Jazeera to properly get their own message across to the arab world.

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Options
    IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The question is would the US even consider using biological weapons, chemical weapons or WMDs for the war on terror? I don't think the US ever would because they are wrong to use and then we would become as bad as the terroists we are trying to stop.

    If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, I think we will be seen in a better light.

    IShallRiseAgain on
    Alador239.png
  • Options
    TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Someone call in the Ghost Recon team. We need surgical precision, not ground-pounding tactics.

    TankHammer on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    the war on terror is sure a PR war. A PR war agaisnt the american population trying to convince us terrorism is the defining trait of our times.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The question is would the US even consider using biological weapons, chemical weapons or WMDs for the war on terror? I don't think the US ever would because they are wrong to use and then we would become as bad as the terroists we are trying to stop.

    If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, I think we will be seen in a better light.
    If we were afraid of becoming as bad as the terrorists, we should be worried about things like torturing people, habeas corpus, the killing of innocent civilians, etc. Clearly, we're not worried about those things, so why would we be afraid to use WMDs against them?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    I've been trying to read up about this sort of thing, but generally, when it comes to chemical or biological weaponry, the focus on the American part is prevention and deterrence against attack

    :?

    I'm just curious if there's a reason you singled that out in particular from what I said over anything else.

    I said I'm trying to read up on this, which means that I'm in no way qualified to draw conclusions with this, but just from what I've seen so far... Literally 99% of what I've found from searching for weapons use as it relates to terrorism is counterterrorism, terrorism prevention, and deterrence. People trying to come up with plans of containment, that sort of thing.

    What about this was incorrect?

    Its a shortsighted and myopic history.

    The main focus of U.S. involvement in chemical weapons has been development for most of the time we have had programs. We developed cures and worked on prevention and deterrence. But they are cures, prevention, and deterrence for chemicals that we designed in the first place.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    TransporterTransporter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Richy wrote:
    Using chemical weapons or nukes in the War on Terror makes as much sense as using these weapons in the War on Drugs, the War on Pauverty or the War on AIDS.

    The best analogy for the War on Terror I heard was, unsurprisingly, on the Daily Show, when someone (can't remember who, but given the number of Daily Show fans around here I'm sure someone will fill it in) said that "The War on Terror is a PR war, and we're losing to a bunch of guys in caves." That's because the US has no PR strategy in the Mid-East, unless you count the messages some soldiers write on bombs before launching them. On the other hand, terrorist leaders have been using a two-fold strategy, relying on people's hatred for the US and Israel on one hand, and on a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran on the other. If you're to fight back, there are the two fronts you need to attack on.

    1) As moniker said, you need to build good will in the Mid-East. Peace Corps, humanitarian programs, that sort of thing. Then you need for it to be known, without making it look like you're only doing it for bragging rights. My first guess would be to get Al Jazeera to report on your projects, but that's just me. I'm not a PR guy.

    2) You need to debate their reading of the Qu'ran. That's trickier, because you can't do it directly. All you can do is help push it out in the open. Encourange televised debates between Ahmed Terrorist and some moderate, intelligent Imams. These debates will help contrast the terrorist's reading and the real Qu'ran, and undermine one of their key recruting tools. Of course, once again, you need to make sure people see it. Once again, I'd guess going with Al Jazeera for maximum coverage and credibility.

    And see, this is half my problem with whole aftermath of 9/11. We played right into thier fucking hands.

    Seriously, our biggest mistake was announcing to the world that we were going to conduct a "War on Terror". To extract big, public vengence on the people who wronged us. To show off our gigantic military power and stomp around "eradicating terror" in order to please voters. Which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.

    However, now it's painfully obvious that we are failing, since this isn't a "War" that can be ended with big guns. Which gives insurgents more of a reason to fight. In which we respond by sending in bigger guns. Which, gives insurgents more of a reason to fight.

    If we continue with this bullshittery, this war will NEVER, EVER end. Since the way we are approaching it FUELS it.

    Transporter on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    Fencingsax wrote:
    mcc wrote:
    From what I can tell the biggest focus on the whole war on terror is who the enemy actually is, as there's no uniform to differentiate terrorists and they blend in to the population. It doesn't look like the more powerful weapons in a military arsenal could be used in this 'war' because of this - I mean nuclear, chemical, or bacteriological weapons. This is the question I'm wondering about - how could we use these weapons against terrorism, if at all?
    I propose the use of nanotechnology to create "smart" custom viruses. By doing this, we can create selective biological weapons that only target evil.

    But the grey goo!
    Listen, the virus would only turn evil into gray goo. People who aren't evil don't have anything to worry about.

    No, the grey goo is the nanomachines themselves. Basically, it's the end result of the objection that Nanotechnology will eat everything and keep self-replicating forever. Which is somewhat amusing.

    Why do you love evil?

    I don't love evil, but I do hate your good.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    The question is would the US even consider using biological weapons, chemical weapons or WMDs for the war on terror? I don't think the US ever would because they are wrong to use and then we would become as bad as the terroists we are trying to stop.

    If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, I think we will be seen in a better light.
    If we were afraid of becoming as bad as the terrorists, we should be worried about things like torturing people, habeas corpus, the killing of innocent civilians, etc. Clearly, we're not worried about those things, so why would we be afraid to use WMDs against them?

    Political fallout.

    Becoming an international pariah.

    The US has many reasons not to use WMDs and none of them have anything to do with morals or 'higher ground'.

    Nova_C on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited November 2006
    Nova_C wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    The question is would the US even consider using biological weapons, chemical weapons or WMDs for the war on terror? I don't think the US ever would because they are wrong to use and then we would become as bad as the terroists we are trying to stop.

    If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, I think we will be seen in a better light.
    If we were afraid of becoming as bad as the terrorists, we should be worried about things like torturing people, habeas corpus, the killing of innocent civilians, etc. Clearly, we're not worried about those things, so why would we be afraid to use WMDs against them?

    Political fallout.

    Becoming an international pariah.

    The US has many reasons not to use WMDs and none of them have anything to do with morals or 'higher ground'.

    Speak for yourself. A lot of us hold our country to higher ideals than some stupid large-scale version of Diplomacy.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    EinEin CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Let me change gears here for a second.

    Judging from the responses that I've seen in the thread, there's basically no place for these weapons in anything but an all-out declared war, which makes perfect sense. They're just too broad-scale and carry too many consequences to be practical.

    I'm just thinking back to when I mentioned the white phosphorous incendiaries that burn targets in addition to causing a toxic effect. While this one in particular's caught a lot of trouble for being considered a chemical weapon, it does have me thinking about alternative applications for the technologies we have developed/are developing in a military perspective. From a radiological standpoint, for example, I'm pretty sure I remember reading something about lasers being used to blind people at ranges of up to two kilometers. While these sort've assume you have a target prominently visible for use, are there any other sorts of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of radiological, chemical, or bacteriological categories without being the plague or a nuclear weapon? What I basically mean is, are less-severe alternatives viable?

    Although, I imagine, they probably wouldn't do anything but fuel the terror recruitment effort.

    Ein on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Atomic hand grenades.

    moniker on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    moniker wrote:
    Atomic hand grenades.
    Heh, those were awesome.

    Couldn't quite get the explosion small enough so that someone could pull the pin, throw the grenade as far as possible, turn around, run as fast as they could, and not get caught in the blast radius.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Irond Will wrote:
    Speak for yourself. A lot of us hold our country to higher ideals than some stupid large-scale version of Diplomacy.

    The scrubs?

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I'm just thinking back to when I mentioned the white phosphorous incendiaries that burn targets in addition to causing a toxic effect. While this one in particular's caught a lot of trouble for being considered a chemical weapon, it does have me thinking about alternative applications for the technologies we have developed/are developing in a military perspective.
    WP is not considered a chemical weapon.
    While these sort've assume you have a target prominently visible for use, are there any other sorts of weapons that would fall under the umbrella of radiological, chemical, or bacteriological categories without being the plague or a nuclear weapon? What I basically mean is, are less-severe alternatives viable?
    Neutron Bombs will kill all the people, but leave the infrastructure intact and radiation-free. The new microwave weapons they're developing would cause people to feel as if they're on fire, but (reportedly) would most likely not cause permanent physical damage.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    To clarify...

    I don't believe even the most liberal of presidents would ever give an inch if he didn't believe he was somehow able to gain two. And to me that's one of the fundamental challenges in international politics: Making the rules and the situation on the playing field such that morals equal advantage. That rarely occurs naturally.

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Options
    ToadTheMushroomToadTheMushroom Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    How can you win a never ending war on terror.

    Especially when 'terror' is an emotion, not an entity.

    and by definition, never ending wars aren't usually decided.

    ToadTheMushroom on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The new microwave weapons they're developing would cause people to feel as if they're on fire, but (reportedly) would most likely not cause permanent physical damage.

    Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited November 2006
    DeepQantas wrote:
    Irond Will wrote:
    Speak for yourself. A lot of us hold our country to higher ideals than some stupid large-scale version of Diplomacy.

    The scrubs?

    Yes, centuries of jurisprudence, geopolitics and governmental philosophy is as nothing next to some dude who feels fully justified in kicking ass with Ryu in Street Fighter II.

    Locke was such a fucking scrub. Hobbes kicked ass with his dragon punch.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    So are you saying politicians aren't being calculative bastards or are you just dismissing my argument out of hand because I like video games?

    DeepQantas on
    m~
Sign In or Register to comment.