general media US Airforce doing Nuclear Bomb Drop Test

[111111 111]

Can't let other nuclear powers think you've gotten stale in your nuclear development. You have to continue to show your power, to keep such power from having to be used. No one actually wants to use nukes (except the purely insane). Firing a nuke means retaliation in others firing nukes at you, and that's the last thing you want. It's not worth it. 

 

That's all this is, is showing we have the ability to return mass destruction onto those who would unleash mass destruction onto us, a.k.a nuclear deterrence.

 

The USA, even if there was an uprising wouldn't turn their own country into an unlivable wasteland by using nukes. Destroying your own land is pretty stupid if you ask me. They have better and less destructive ways of quelling any uprisings. Normal bombs are one thing, and they could potentially use those, but nukes? I don't see it happening, only in the most dire of situations do I see that.

 

There are things that have much more warrant to be afraid of involving the government and the military. Like gun control.

 

And if the military was ordered to attack their own people and families? A LOT of them would turn, some would stay yes, but not everyone that joins the army does it to kill people. 

But don´t you see that this way of thinking is destructive towards everyone, When is it going to stop? When you have found the ultimate weapon and then what stops your country from thinking it´s best if they control the rest of the world, just because they have the most firepower. Please don´t take this personally but I can´t just simply agre with this argumentation. I´m living in Sweden and am seeing the same typ of nationalistic wave here. People are growing more and more afraid of an russian attack and most people want to increase the military money,power and resourses. I just think why would we need that, my country has one of the most liberalistic miltary poltics I know of, Now people want to ruin that, just so we can get more firepower??

 

Not so very long ago (I think it was in the late 80´s) Sweden goverment decided that they should let the people choose if they wanted to join the army or not. Guess what happen, the army decreased.

 

So my conclusion is that there is enough weapons in the world and I don´t think anybody should have that kind of weapon.

[9th Doctor Whooves 61]

That's politicians and the people in charge though.

 

The airmen though... They are not the ones doing that stuff. They are required to follow orders and there are severe punishments for not following them. Plus the air force does a lot of good too! We protect our country, and we even send support to other countries. :c

So, if your superiors ordered you to fire on innocent civilians, you would because of the severe punishments?

 

I fear our military not for my own saftey, but the saftey of the world. Our military doesn't defend or protect us. Yes, we have enemies, but those enemies spawn from U.S. intervention, manipulation, and overall, being involved in forein affairs that shouldn't involve the U.S. to begin with. Remember when the U.S. backed the Cuban dictator Batista? Our country is no better than the empires of centuries ago. We've gone to so many wars under the guise of "protection" when it really was propaganda intended to rally support that "we are in danger". Iraq. Had nothing to do with 9/11. When we went to war with Mexico a long time ago, citizens didn't want to go to war. The president placed troops in Mexico territory, Mexico had no choice but to try to force the invaders off their land, the U.S. sold it to the public as an "attack on the U.S." and just like that, Mexico was the enemy in the eyes of the public.

My source, in case anyone wonders. I learned this info in a university history class. Not some conspiracy website.

 

Our country has attacked innocents just to advance itself. I'd rather die than support our military because I don't even know who legitimately hates us anymore or is retaliating for something that the U.S. has been doing behind the curtain. War is ugly and we glorify it. It's complex, yet we simplify it as "they hate our way of life and are barbarians".

Yes, I bet you did learn this in your university history class, but, alas the liberal-left controls the information and spins it to fit their agenda. So, please show me some proof that did not come for your leftist college, maybe something unbiased to either side.

 

No you are quite right... Liberalism is on the rise... And things are getting better. YAY

Getting better, don't make me laugh! Show me how anything has gotten better. An unemployment rate higher then EVER before? The highest debt EVER? More people on government assistance then EVER before? Stop drinking the fool-aid.

Edited July 22, 2015 by 9th Doctor Whooves

[DormantAccount 308]

I assumed these tests have already been happening for a long time.

It's all ultimately a defensive strategy; West expanded far too close for Russia's comfort so it's simply reacting as it should to make do of the situation protect itself from any potential Western threat before it becomes more severe.

 

Well, I can't see annexing a part of your neighbor as a defensive strategy. As for the "Western threat" idea, do you really believe that the west has any interest in invading Russia? The only invasion I see is the invasion of ideas, which must be terrifying to him. As rebuttal to his critics he promptly has people put in prison because they express dissent. He has quite the propaganda machine (and I'm not talking about a goose with a neck tie) to keep his message out there mostly unopposed. 

 

The West don't want to invade Russia or Ukraine. We just want Russia to calm down and stop invading its neighbors. Accept international borders and the sovereignty of other nations. Use its leverage in the region to pull for equality, acceptance of differing ideas and most of all for peace.

 

Does that mean Russia will have to deal with change in ideas and a shift away from the old soviet paradigm? Yes, but Russians (especially the Russian youth) will be the ones driving change with picket signs and ballot boxes, not foreign tanks.

[Guest]

 

 

So, if your superiors ordered you to fire on innocent civilians, you would because of the severe punishments?

 

I get that question a lot, and no one ever seems to be able to find a time in recent years where the US military orders their men to fire upon innocent civilians. This isn't Nazi Germany, or WWII anymore. Policies have changed significantly, and I feel when people ask questions like this, they are uninformed of new regulations.

 

To answer your question as best I can though: the US Air Force is not going to order me to do so. The best scenario I can think of is say having to shoot a child with a bomb strapped to them. In that scenario yes, you would have to shoot an "innocent" but the situation is not that black and white. You have to consider the circumstances. If you refuse, then your entire squad is going to die and the child will die anyways. It's unfortunate, but if the death of one innocent which is unavoidable will save the lives of other innocents then it must be done. The US military is not going to order me to go up to random villages of strangers and just open fire on people for no reason.

 

Please do not imply such. There is more to it than that.

[Sky Knight 1,172]

I get that question a lot, and no one ever seems to be able to find a time in recent years where the US military orders their men to fire upon innocent civilians. This isn't Nazi Germany, or WWII anymore. Policies have changed significantly, and I feel when people ask questions like this, they are uninformed of new regulations.

 

To answer your question as best I can though: the US Air Force is not going to order me to do so. The best scenario I can think of is say having to shoot a child with a bomb strapped to them. In that scenario yes, you would have to shoot an "innocent" but the situation is not that black and white. You have to consider the circumstances. If you refuse, then your entire squad is going to die and the child will die anyways. It's unfortunate, but if the death of one innocent which is unavoidable will save the lives of other innocents then it must be done. The US military is not going to order me to go up to random villages of strangers and just open fire on people for no reason.

 

Please do not imply such. There is more to it than that.

No but they can add different context to it and fool you into believing you're doing it for all the right reasons.

[A Black Circle 1,586]

No you are quite right... Liberalism is on the rise... And things are getting better. YAY

No. No they aren't. Freedoms are attempted to be taken as we speak. One must only look at the plan to take away our right to bear arms as an indicator of this. It'll harm much more than help. Or Obamacare. Or any of the stupid shit I don't know about.

 

It's funny, because most criminals get their guns illegally anyway (the black market is real people). So I don't see the point in it, you only keep idiots from attaining them.

 

Or normal people, to protect themselves from criminals.

[Guest]

No but they can add different context to it and fool you into believing you're doing it for all the right reasons.

True, but this isn't as common as people seem to think. Am I denying that  the US military has given orders that are wrong and questionable? No. It happens, and it will probably happen for a long time. However am I saying that things are changing slowly and improving? Yes. Our policies in the military are FAR better than what they were even 30 years ago. There is still a lot more that needs improving, but please do not try to villainize the men and women serving for the actions of some of the superiors. Not EVERY superior is corrupt, and soldiers/airmen/seamen following their orders are not terrible people.

 

Many of the people in the service are there because they are in it to defend our country and protect our freedoms. Unfortunately that means sometimes they will have to do stuff they may not personally agree with, but that doesn't mean their heart is not in the right place.

 

When you speak against the military itself and shame the men and women serving, you're not solving the problem. Speak against the politicians who RUN the military. Speak against the fact that our commander-in-chief is the president who is not required to have ANY military experience. Speak against policies that are being proposed by people who are trying to turn the military into their tool to get what they want.

 

Don't speak against the soldiers/airmen/seamen/marines that are just trying to do the right thing.

[Sky Knight 1,172]

True, but this isn't as common as people seem to think. Am I denying that  the US military has given orders that are wrong and questionable? No. It happens, and it will probably happen for a long time. However am I saying that things are changing slowly and improving? Yes. Our policies in the military are FAR better than what they were even 30 years ago. There is still a lot more that needs improving, but please do not try to villainize the men and women serving for the actions of some of the superiors. Not EVERY superior is corrupt, and soldiers/airmen/seamen following their orders are not terrible people.

 

Many of the people in the service are there because they are in it to defend our country and protect our freedoms. Unfortunately that means sometimes they will have to do stuff they may not personally agree with, but that doesn't mean their heart is not in the right place.

 

When you speak against the military itself and shame the men and women serving, you're not solving the problem. Speak against the politicians who RUN the military. Speak against the fact that our commander-in-chief is the president who is not required to have ANY military experience. Speak against policies that are being proposed by people who are trying to turn the military into their tool to get what they want.

 

Don't speak against the soldiers/airmen/seamen/marines that are just trying to do the right thing.

We're free to speak how we like, the soldiers/airmen/seamen/marines don't get immunities just because they think they're helping the world by doing the Governments dirty work.

[Guest]

We're free to speak how we like, the soldiers/airmen/seamen/marines don't get immunities just because they think they're helping the world by doing the Governments dirty work.

Yet ironically, your freedom to speak that is because the military fought for you to have it.

 

I'm saying you can criticize something all you like, but if you are not attacking the real source of the problem you're not fixing anything, you're just complaining for the sake of complaining and being disrespectful.

[Chara 1,565]

The USA military is really advancing fast, if only it were possible to make a laser from a satellite. (They probably already did)

[Castle Bleck 19,555]

My reaction upon first seeing the thread title:

 

 

My reaction when I then saw that the "bomb" is just a dud:

 

[Jeric 46,890]

"And the reports keep coming in from all directions" /Evita

 

Guys take breather ... so far things are getting a little edgy in the debate. Make sure it doesn't get personal. 

[Guest]

"And the reports keep coming in from all directions" /Evita

 

Guys take breather ... so far things are getting a little edgy in the debate. Make sure it doesn't get personal. 

People are reporting for disagreeing opinions?

 

Jeez, I'm going into the military and I am not even reporting people speaking against it. People gotta chill.

[9th Doctor Whooves 61]

I get that question a lot, and no one ever seems to be able to find a time in recent years where the US military orders their men to fire upon innocent civilians. This isn't Nazi Germany, or WWII anymore. Policies have changed significantly, and I feel when people ask questions like this, they are uninformed of new regulations.

 

To answer your question as best I can though: the US Air Force is not going to order me to do so. The best scenario I can think of is say having to shoot a child with a bomb strapped to them. In that scenario yes, you would have to shoot an "innocent" but the situation is not that black and white. You have to consider the circumstances. If you refuse, then your entire squad is going to die and the child will die anyways. It's unfortunate, but if the death of one innocent which is unavoidable will save the lives of other innocents then it must be done. The US military is not going to order me to go up to random villages of strangers and just open fire on people for no reason.

 

Please do not imply such. There is more to it than that.

I'm not talking in a combat situation, I'm talking about when the higher ups (when I say higher ups I'm talking above military command, like, Obama) decide that some of the citizens of this country are terrorist (it's already happening now (i.e Tea Party Patriots, Christians. etc ), would you fire upon them? By the way, I'm not a bleeding heart, so yes, I believe that there are circumstances that call for "shooting a child with a bomb strapped to them", but I was talking about the people that don't agree with the liberal agenda.

Edited July 22, 2015 by 9th Doctor Whooves

[Guest]

I'm not talking in a combat situation, I'm talking about when the higher ups (when I say higher ups I'm talking above military command, like, Obama) decide that some of the citizens of this country are terrorist (it's already happening now (i.e Tea Party Patriots, Christians. etc ), would you fire upon them? By the way, I'm not a bleeding heart, so yes, I believe that there are circumstances that call for "shooting a child with a bomb strapped to them", but I was talking about the people that don't agree with the liberal agenda.

Uh huh...

 

I suppose when I am randomly told to shoot unarmed people for no particularly good reason who clearly are doing nothing wrong, I'll have a better answer to that question. I have not heard of any mass shootings of Christians, or Tea Party Patriots who were unarmed, peacefully protesting and following all the laws. Can you link me to some examples of what you're talking about?

[9th Doctor Whooves 61]

Jeric, on 22 Jul 2015 - 2:15 PM, said:

"And the reports keep coming in from all directions" /Evita

 

Guys take breather ... so far things are getting a little edgy in the debate. Make sure it doesn't get personal. 

Reports? Really? Why? This a debate, if you can't handle hearing opinions that don't match yours then you shouldn't comment. Imho

Edited July 22, 2015 by 9th Doctor Whooves

[Mr F 1,522]

I don't think people understood the meaning of the post. From what I read he just asked what people were thinking about the weapon tests not that the US has used the weapons before.

 

 

ONTO THE HEATED DISCUSSION: I don't mind that the US has a strong military and frequently upgrade it. But I really don't like the way the goverment has led it all in the past. They seem to have taken more rights from people than what they have given, outside of UN preacekeeping. (This will hopefully change in the future)

Just look at what they did to south america and the middle east. As long as they don't abuse their powers I will be fine with the weapons arsenal.

(I am Chilean, I know what crimes they have done and how they have tried to justify them.)

Edited July 22, 2015 by A Cat

[9th Doctor Whooves 61]

Uh huh...

 

I suppose when I am randomly told to shoot unarmed people for no particularly good reason who clearly are doing nothing wrong, I'll have a better answer to that question. I have not heard of any mass shootings of Christians, or Tea Party Patriots who were unarmed, peacefully protesting and following all the laws. Can you link me to some examples of what you're talking about?

I'm not saying it's already happening, but I want to know where you stand.  

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,221]

Well, I can't see annexing a part of your neighbor as a defensive strategy.

Whoever is rightful owner of Crimea is ambiguous. However, it's far more certain that Crimea is strategically important for Russia in terms of controlling the Black Sea.

As for the "Western threat" idea, do you really believe that the west has any interest in invading Russia? The only invasion I see is the invasion of ideas, which must be terrifying to him. As rebuttal to his critics he promptly has people put in prison because they express dissent. He has quite the propaganda machine (and I'm not talking about a goose with a neck tie) to keep his message out there mostly unopposed. 

 

The West don't want to invade Russia or Ukraine. We just want Russia to calm down and stop invading its neighbors. Accept international borders and the sovereignty of other nations. Use its leverage in the region to pull for equality, acceptance of differing ideas and most of all for peace.

 

Does that mean Russia will have to deal with change in ideas and a shift away from the old soviet paradigm? Yes, but Russians (especially the Russian youth) will be the ones driving change with picket signs and ballot boxes, not foreign tanks.

There's a reason for why Russia is behaving as it is and it's not correct if you simply say "power greed" or "Soviet nostalgia" or something of the sort. Why would the West want to invade Russia? I can think of two reasons: extracting Russia's rich natural resources (perhaps most importantly oil) and removing the biggest rival of the West. I will go as far as to say that if there were ever a time Russia is in a weakened state, the West would ensure that Russia would have no chance of ever re-emerging as a great superpower again.

 

But even if the West has no plans to actually invade Russia (which especially with nuclear weapons would be mad), the West has already went against Russian interests for about two decades by allowing NATO to expand to the point where it borders Russia in the Baltics. It doesn't matter that these countries chose to join NATO, the end result is that such expansion is already perceived as aggressive to Russia and its western border (which is the most vulnerable) used to be in central Europe but now is only a few hundred kilometers in length; Russia today is geopolitically in the most vulnerable position it has been in centuries. The possibility of Ukraine aligning with the West was pretty much the last straw for Russia and it had to do what it could to made best of the situation. Russia appears aggressive but is ultimately being defensive. If the West can't trust Russia, why should Russia trust the West from further going against Russian interests?

 

The US would behave the same way as Russia if it felt it were in geopolitical danger... in fact it already has (though situation somewhat different). USSR was to send nuclear weapons to Cuba as a response to US nukes stationed in Turkey. However, this move struck an extremely sensitive spot to the US. You could say that the US was being aggressive by being involved in something that had nothing to do with them; Cuba wasn't a part of the US, it wasn't an ally of the US, and USSR most likely was never actually intending to preemptively strike the US. However you can obviously say that the potential danger from Cuba increased significantly. For Russia, there's far too much potential danger for comfort. And even with that comparison, USA is in a very geopolitically secure location being surrounded by two oceans and having no other potential threat in North America. Russia doesn't have the same level of security.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Luna the Great

[Sky Knight 1,172]

Uh huh...

 

I suppose when I am randomly told to shoot unarmed people for no particularly good reason who clearly are doing nothing wrong, I'll have a better answer to that question. I have not heard of any mass shootings of Christians, or Tea Party Patriots who were unarmed, peacefully protesting and following all the laws. Can you link me to some examples of what you're talking about?

Sadly that won't matter when you're being told to kill an unarmed civilian since the lower your rank the less information you get.

[Guest]

I'm not saying it's already happening, but I want to know where you stand.  

If it's not happening and it's not going to happen why does it even matter? I am certain that soldiers would stand against such orders if they knew they were wrong. Not to mention the UN would have quite the ordeal if the US approved just murdering its own citizens for more or less no justifiable reason. Sure some stuff slips through the cracks, but I think you're exaggerating the size of the cracks. You're acting like the US can literally do ANYTHING it wants with no chance of retaliation, which is totally not true.

 

If we were caught mass murdering out citizens, the UN would team up against us and whip us 3 ways to sunday.

Sadly that won't matter when you're being told to kill an unarmed civilian since the lower your rank the less information you get.

Or you know, it just won't happen.

[Guest]

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent.

They're extremely heavily regulated, and if any country were ever to actually use them in the modern day, the backlash would be enormous.

 

The U.S. doesn't maintain them so that they can use them, they maintain them so that nobody else with nuclear weapons would risk using theirs against them.

 

EDIT: A fun read for those that are arguing about "would the troops push the button":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

 

[Boyevyye De 245]

It is just a show of force from a country who, ironically, has no defense in the event of a Nuclear war. Us on the other hand are putting A-135's across our cities to protect it from any type of bombing. Plus the underground city in Moskva, plus Mount Yamantau which can build nukes long after a nuclear war has already occurred. America has no such things.

 

In the same way America thinks of North Koreas nuclear capabilities, we think of Americas capabilities.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,178]

So, if your superiors ordered you to fire on innocent civilians, you would because of the severe punishments?

 

 

Yes, I bet you did learn this in your university history class, but, alas the liberal-left controls the information and spins it to fit their agenda. So, please show me some proof that did not come for your leftist college, maybe something unbiased to either side.

 

 

Getting better, don't make me laugh! Show me how anything has gotten better. An unemployment rate higher then EVER before? The highest debt EVER? More people on government assistance then EVER before? Stop drinking the fool-aid.

Government assistance programs are a conservative thing.... They want people to be dependent on these services so that the gap between rich and poor will get even bigger, and they can control more money. Same with the unemployment rate.

 

Gay marriage is legal, racism is finally getting the admonishment it deserves, the wage gap between male and female workers is declining, and religion is not an all powerful barrier against government anymore. All liberal baby.

[Guest]

I am under the impression that a lot of people here don't actually know how the military works or how the chain of command works... Judging by some of these comments... There are far more rules, regulations than people are assuming, and people seem to be under the impression that you can be given orders to do just about anything and if you refuse they can kill you or something. The military can not give you orders that violate certain rights. They can not order you to rape someone, or something like that. And you CAN deny a commanding officer without punishment if you can prove that the command was unjust. They DO have court cases when you get court marshal or the threat of discharge. They don't just discharge you and call it a day, they have to build a case against you.

 

If you can prove your commanding officer was giving orders that were completely a violation of basic human rights, they are not going to punish you for it. If your CO just decided "hey, I want you to go and murder this upcoming village for no real reason" and you disobeyed, you are not going to get in trouble. You can even be awarded for detaining your CO if they are breaking rules of engagement, and other policies.