One in Four Americans Would Use Nukes Against Terrorists

[ECH1969]

NEW YORK More than one in four Americans would go so far as to utilize nuclear bombs if need be in the fight against terrorism, according to a national survey reported today by The Gallup Organization.

Gallup asked Americans whether they would be willing or not willing “to have the U.S. government do each of the following” and then listed an array of options. For example, “assassinate known terrorists” drew the support of 65% of all adults. “Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.” won the backing of 39%.

Finally, the option of using “nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities” drew the support of 27% of adults, with 72% opposing, which would shatter the taboo on using these weapons militarily since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Experts agree that the power of today’s weapons, their range of damage and the peril of drifting radioactive fallout far exceeds the bombs used against Japan. That support has declined 7% since 2001, however.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000819252
---------------------------------------------------------------

They should ask if you think Bush is the son of God, I bet they would get about the same numbers.

[BornLeft]

1. In a related story.

1 in 4 Americans are dumb asses.

[screembloodymurder]

41. In a related story

One of those 1 in 4 is our president.

[cthrumatrix]

43. Polls say 75% want PEACE.... so let's cut the nuke crap (rant over)

[niceypoo]

49. Its the 'Armageddon' crowd

Same people who want us in syria then Lebanon (Where the armageddon valley is)

[atommom]

I was about to post the very same statement. GMTA!

[atommom]

69. oops, dupe. nothing to see here.

[Placebo]

2. Yeah, well, 1/4 of Americans would likely...

be in favour of nuking any nation that isn't America and any elected official who isn't a Republican.

[donheld]

34. 4/5 of these who want to nuke everybody

do not understand the ramifications of using nukes. If we used nukes on Syria, how many Israelis, Lebanese etc would suffer and die as a result of the fall-out? The number could be in the Millions.

[saigon68]

38. They don't care

[renaissanceguy]

55. They don't realize that what goes around comes around.

But then again, as in an earlier post, these people want armageddon to come. Why they don't just kill themselves and go to the light is beyond me.



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[merwin]

3. 1 in 4 Americans are backwoods bumbling idiots.

Notice it says that 40% of americans support torture as well? Huh? Why is *'s approval rating so damn low then?

[despairing optimist]

24. 2 in 4 Americans can't read the instructions on a Jell-O box

They'd probably nuke their Sunny D too.

[saigon68]

36. The Repuke bases

Got to give it to the Pukes they know how to motivate these brain dead, drooling,rustics to pull their lever in back of the urine stained curtain.

[iamjoy]

4. This Is So Backward

“ 'Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.' won the backing of 39%."

In other words, 61% of all Americans, more than half DO NOT support torturing people, even to gather information about future terrorist attacks.

I am with the 65% that would have our government assasinate known terrorists. In fact, if we must resort to violence I favor targeted assasinations over carpet bombing...far fewer innocent bystanders killed.

[Old and In the Way]

27. Of course, in other countries, they might have similar thoughts

about terrorists....only from their perspective, the terrorists are in Washington.

That's the problem. If we start deciding which terrorists need to be assassinated, why should we be surprised if our own leaders get the same label and treatment? Could an Iraqi citizen view George Bush as a terrorist? Not a big stretch in my book.

I don't think it should be the province of any sovereign government to decide who they think the terrorists are. I do think that the UN could make that decision, however. Perhaps if the UN targeted one or two well documented blood thirsty tyrants/terrorists who commit horrible human rights violations on his/her citizens or start wars of pure aggression with sanctioned hi-profile assassinations....maybe this would give future wannabe tyrants pause to reconsider the stakes.

[LynnTheDem]

51. Right on.

Absolutely right on. I agree with all you post except 1 little thing re the UN; the entire function of the UN is PEACE, not targetted murders.

But the rest of your post is bang on and is exactly what doesn't even occur to many Americans in their arrogance; WHO gets to define "terrorist"? Can other nations send their people into the USA to assassinate who they define as terrorist? Because if we can go into other nations and murder people, other nations can send assassins to come into our nation and murder people they define as "terrorist".

Just like other nations are now free to wage pre-emptive strikes and invade & occupy any nation they declare is a "future threat"..."has ties to terrorists"..."to spread democracy"..."has WMD"...and their excuses don't even have to be true or even plausable.

Too many Americans haven't yet realized the "Only America Is Allowed To Do It" policy is no longer in effect.

[Old and In the Way]

64. Well, I'm not a big fan of sanctioned assassinations.

But if a leader of a nation is busy mass murdering his/her citizens or waging an unjustified and war crime-level slaughter against a weaker neighboring country.....why shouldn't the UN, when a specific case warrants, and with the agreement of an overwhelming majority of countries, work to surgically remove said the problem? It's situational ethics, but I would certainly accept the loss of one bloodthirsty, megalomaniac against the lives of thousands of innocent civilians. In fact, I'd argue that, to not allow it, is the greater of 2 evils.

I think it will only take a few UN-sanctioned hits to get the message across to future tyrants/war mongers that this is unacceptable in our civilized world. Make a few examples and the taste for war and misery will begin to disappear.

Of course, it would put a big dent in the war industries world-wide.....

[shadowknows69]

5. a full quarter of our people

willing to kill countless millions to keep their little slice of the american pie. and we wonder why other countries want to get nukes as a deterrant. I think shrub would see a 30-40% approval rating for using nukes as another God given mandate.

[MADem]

25. What is funny is that we all assume....

...that these horseshit polls are even close to accurate! That they MEAN anything!

I have to think that if all citizens were rounded up, and forced to mark a ballot, sign it, and place a fingerprint upon it to verify identity, asking this same question, that the number of people willing to nuke their fellow humans would be a bit lower. It's easy to swagger in anonymityland.

Polls are never accurate. Smart people don't answer, have caller ID, anonymous call rejection, refuse to participate, or aren't home when these assholes call looking for our opinion....

I have plenty of opinions, and I've never been bothered by these crazy assholes, ever. No one has ever polled me, ever, on anything! I don't think I am that unusual, and I don't buy these so-called polls.

[Psephos]

33. Good post n/t

[shadowknows69]

44. actually I love polls

I relish the chance to let my opinion be known (as some of you have no doubt noticed about me lol)Political or product polls don't be shy give me a call. You'll get an earful. Just don't try to sell me anything. I adore comment cards in restaurants too. Not enough places have them anymore.

[Willy Lee]

56. "It's easy to swagger in anonymityland"

What a great line. So true.

[raccoon]

58. Great post

another thing, with these polls, we don't know where they are polling--Vermont or Oklahoma, etc. Also, the way a question is worded has a lot to do with how it's answered. Anyone want to make a guess as to how the questions might be slanted?

[applegrove]

6. How exactly would this work. Micro-Nukes?

[applegrove]

7. Nano-nukes?

[Conservativesux]

14. Sci-Fi authors like R. Hienlien used to have wet dreams about mini-nukes.

..I guess the fallout and low-level radiation levels were never a big concern back then.

Here is Bush's plan on mini-nukes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126141.stm

[Lindacooks]

31. Yes, exactly.

The Earth is a closed system. What happens in one part of the world affects other parts of the world. Setting off nukes to satisfy their 'small penis syndrome' isn't going to be a nice little neat clean strike.

The fallout from Chernobyl reached around the world. Who knows how many cancers it has created or will create? There's just no way of knowing.

Not to mention Depleted Uranium - the gift that keeps on giving. </sarcasm>

[Erika]

8. OK, Christ's Golden Rule

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I venture to say that Bush right wingers make up those who wish to use nuclear devices against population centers.

[MrSlayer]

9. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it isn't a higher number.

With all the yahoos in this country.

[NNN0LHI]

10. One in four Americans have trouble remembering their own names n/t

[Erika]

13. It's the mercury poisoning

endorsed by the administration.

[RC]

11. Bu$h fits the definition of a terrorist.

..."assassinate known terrorists” drew the support of 65% of all adults.
Does this mean bu$h is on the list?
9/11, bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan. Shock and awe on a civilian population, torture and killing people in their own homes because they do not speak English.

It is becoming more and more apparent by all that the the United States is a rogue nation being run by criminals.

[Erika]

12. It certainly isn't being run by a Christian administration

Pre-emptive strike and reward the rich?

[PartyPooper]

15. One in four say and spell it "NUKULAR"

including Junior.

What does that tell you?

:dunce:

[dweller]

16. yeah, and the other 1.749,999,999...million

other species probably think we are some seriously fucked up creatures.

put in perspective, perhaps they are right.

dp

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html

[Swede]

17. Some people just don't get it.

Torture prisoners,nuke em all. The Inception of the Epoch of Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid.

[cwwbell]

18. I think it's kind of sick...

that Gallup even conducted this poll.

[cosmicdot]

21. agree n/m

edited to say :hi:

[Old and In the Way]

29. And do we really believe polls anymore?

Polls can be gamed to get the results one wants.

[Hissyspit]

32. The questions are so non-specific they are worthless

They are hypotheticalized into near-meaninglessness.

I always point out to my students the importance of context in polls with this example:

Two days before the beginning of the ground war in Iraq, a poll asked - "Do You Support Military Action in Iraq?" Let's say the result was 40%.

Two days after the ground war started in Iraq the same pollsters asked - "Do You Support Military Action In Iraq?" The result went up to something like 70%.

Notice: The EXACT same wording is used in the question - can't get more objective and unbiased than that, right? - and yet the MEANING is extremely different.

[Old and In the Way]

67. I agree.

Polling today is no longer an innocent tool of guaging public opinion. We need to pay attention, not just to the results, but the underlying methodology used to develop the poll results. The fine print, so to speak. We saw this in the Presidential polls. Certain segments of the population were overpolled, higher % of one political persuation were over sampled....the results were misleading. I suspect that certain polls could well have been orchestrated to provide cover for gaming the election results.

The question options or the specific wording of the question certainly influences the answers returned. People paying money for professional polling get to frame the questions to bias towards the results they'd like to see. If one considers the interests of corporate media in supporting the agenda and success of this administration, the public should recognize the motivations and connections underlaying the questions, methodologies, and the "results". It can be a very effective propaganda tool.

[Judi Lynn]

42. You're right. They're trying to do a little perception molding.

Why wait for people to become informed through reading, inquiry, and thought? That could be so risky, if there are any out there with healthy consciences.

Certain polling groups can just tell them everything's basically settled already, and most people want _Bush to have his way.

[Patrick Henry]

19. These are the people

Homeland Security should be watching: the ones that want to use nukes.

[sea dee]

20. idiots

"One in Four Americans Would Use Nukes Against Terrorists"

and people wonder why I opose cousins marrying :(

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. These are the lowest 25% out of 100% What do you get

in school for being in the lowest 25%?

[kodi]

23. remember this when debates about the electoral college arise.

During the 1950s, a woman came up to Adlai Stevenson and said, "Oh, Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every intelligent person in this country." He replied, "Yes, madam, but I need a majority."


the only thing common about americans is how common they exhibit their ignorance.

[Protagoras]

26. And it's those 1 in 4 Americans who have created the

atmosphere of arrogance, greed, and callousness that has caused Terrorists to spawn like roaches around the world, all with one express intent...to burn America.

Isn't it great how their ignorance and hatred can perpetuate itself like that?

[TahitiNut]

28. This is a great excuse for 'terrorists' to nuke 27% of the people ...

... in this country. After all, it's "Do unto others as they would do unto you," right? So, according to Chimperor Seizure Disgustus, they're within their rights to strike us preemptively, right?

This nation is too sick to survive - or deserve to. This isn't my country, anymore. It's now the Fascist States of Amerika.

[Solly Mack]

30. Life is not a John Wayne war movie! (for the 1 in 4)

Wake the fuck up!

imbeciles...

[applegrove]

35. How do you nano-nuke a terrorist if you can't catch them?

Remember? You can't catch the terrorists? What do you do? You catch them and then you go: "can you hold this for a second". ???:nuke:

[sweetheart]

37. Fort Benning better watch out then...

The school of the americas renamed is a terrorist training facility,
so it seems that 1 in 4 would prefer that georgia be nuked for american
terrorist activities. For that matter, this sorta thinking will surely
give all peoples of the world relief who are planning to nuke the
american terrorist machine.

Terrorists who live by the nuke, justify dying by them. Surely those
1 out of 4 will feel vindicated as they and their families die of
radiation poisoning.

[PowerToThePeople]

39. one in four are idiots

[pinniped]

40. Sure, as long as they're smart nukes.

:eyes:

[Redstone]

45. Hey, Condi, we're giving you the green light...

so go ahead and rock and roll...



Redstone

[arwalden]

46. What Is Wrong With These People?... They Are Truly INSANE!!

[LynnTheDem]

47. 1 in 4 Americans are the dumbest MFers on the planet

ANYONE can be a terrorist; it is a FLANKING MANEUVER.

But at least only 1 in 4, including Ann Coulter, are so eager to kill millions of human beings.

[BiggJawn]

48. That's all? only 1 in 4?

I think it runs closer to 4 in 10 in my region. Don't forget-Steve Buyer was one of the first to propose nuking brown people who don't love Jeebus....

Bloody-minded Murkan sheep.....

[Robb]

50. If you think the education crisis in this country is an accident,

...then you've missed the boat.

Why, one would ask, would a government embrace an educational system 50 years antiquated, designed to produce factory workers, in a time when it's been clear for 25 that higher education is practically mandatory to compete worldwide?

Because of this. If you can keep the greater majority ignorant, you can move with greater freedom as their leader.

Not an accident.

[Coventina]

52. I am ashamed of my fellow citizens

:wtf:

Idiots.

[secretpoet]

53. If we're going with 1/4 are morons... maybe they thought nuking

as in putting in a microwave with a nice crisping sleeve and waiting for three minutes for some tasty faux food.

Who knows? Maybe they've heard them called "Hot spots" and "terror Pockets", and now they want lunch?

Edit on spelling.

[catmandu57]

54. Of the other three

one is a scared to death of the boogieman sheeple, one just doesn't give a rat's ass, and the other one is saying what the hell is wrong with you people.
That's how we got into this mess.

[napi21]

57. I'd bet 90% of those in favor are fron the Truman era.

They remember that Truman authorized use of the bomb on Japan, believe this was the only way to have ended that war, and still think it's applicable today.

I find it amusing that America insists that few other countries be allowed to have nuclear weapons because they might use them, but we are the ONLY country that ever did!

[CindyDale]

59. or they could ask if they are in favor of nuking Washington or New York

It makes as much sense, and who knows what people would answer? What a lame, meaningless question!

[Swamp Rat]

60. One in four Americans need a frontal lobotomy n/t

[MountainLaurel]

61. Well, there goes Michigan

Wasn't that where Timothy McVeigh's little militia friends were hold up?
And the Midwest: Church of the World Creator

West Virginia: National Alliance

The South: Army of God

[primavera]

62. Don't forget the UK

There are undeniably IRA operatives active in London, better nuke the city. And then there's ETA in Spain, better add Madrid to the list of cities to be nuked. Oh yes, there's also the PKK and DHKP in Turkey, the Revolutionary Nuclei and 17 November in Greece, well hell, we'd better just nuke all of Europe just to be on the safe side. The Middle East is a dead loss, of course, between Hezbullah, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, Hamas, al Jihad, plainly that whole region's gotta go. Then there's Sendero Luminoso in Peru, ELN and FARC in Columbia, kiss South America good-bye. Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the GIA in northern Africa, you know, let's just cut to the chase here and admit we need to just incinerate the entire goddamn planet, there's obviously no other way.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

63. That's just sick. n/t

[independent_mind]

65. interesting

very interesting

[glitch]

66. So is it typical for a population to be 27% moron? Just how far off the

norm are we? This is bushes actual base.
Not that I trust Gallup polls to give me anything approaching accurate.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

68. Hmmmmm, I'd like the pollsters

to ask this question of the one in four;
"Do you know why terrorists exist and why they view America as an enemy?"
The answer 'they hate us for our freedoms" can't be submitted......

[buzzard]

70. That is a truly frightening thought.n/t