|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Suitcase Nuke goes off in American City!
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Suitcase Nuke goes off in American City!
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| artiel |
This question is posed to all of the alarmists that feel that we have to defeat the terrorists where they are rather than waiting to be attacked before we take action. What exactly would you do if an American city were to be suitcase nuked by an anonymous person? Would you propose waging war on Islam? Would you invade a country even if there was no evidence that linked it to the attack?
I am looking for real responses here, and I think most can see where I am going with this.
Really THINK about it. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
A "Suitcase Nuke" is probably much less effective than the American people have been lead to believe. I've seen reports that they have a killing radius of 18 feet and a fallout radius of about 200 feet.
I could kill more people with my car.
:cool: |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
If there were credible links to say, Iran, yes we would need to immediately go to war. And also go to war with any nation, say Syria that was providing them material support.
If there was a Bin Laden link, we would need to probably occupy tribal areas of Pakistan in order to wipe him out.
In other words, wherever the evidence takes us.
If the last few years has taught us anything, it is that we need to be more aggressive to real, more immediate threats than potential threats like Iraq.
If that were to happen, the current majority of US citizens would be behind at least this much of a response if not more.
A border wall would also become a very popular idea, as would cargo inspection of as close to 100% of all containers entering our ports. |
|
|
| Oz |
Quote: Originally posted by johnsonrod
If there were credible links to say, Iran, yes we would need to immediately go to war. And also go to war with any nation, say Syria that was providing them material support.
If there was a Bin Laden link, we would need to probably occupy tribal areas of Pakistan in order to wipe him out.
In other words, wherever the evidence takes us.
If the last few years has taught us anything, it is that we need to be more aggressive to real, more immediate threats than potential threats like Iraq.
If that were to happen, the current majority of US citizens would be behind at least this much of a response if not more.
A border wall would also become a very popular idea, as would cargo inspection of as close to 100% of all containers entering our ports. |
"evidence" led us to war in Iraq :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
This question is posed to all of the alarmists that feel that we have to defeat the terrorists where they are rather than waiting to be attacked before we take action. What exactly would you do if an American city were to be suitcase nuked by an anonymous person? Would you propose waging war on Islam? Would you invade a country even if there was no evidence that linked it to the attack?
I am looking for real responses here, and I think most can see where I am going with this.
Really THINK about it. |
if a nuke goes off here ...we will nuke whomever we ever had probs with in the past |
|
|
| artiel |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
"evidence" led us to war in Iraq :rolleyes: |
And that's the point, right? We went to war in Iraq after 9/11 because someone "posed a threat" and (whether you want to admit it or not) we are in a very bad place right now as a country as a result. Humongous debt, terrible world image, and creating more terrorists by the day.
My question however, Johnson, was what if there was no evidence to link anyone to the crime... then who would we attack?, what would we do?
BTW, notice that I didn't say what SHOULD we do, but what would the American government do. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Wars have been started over far less. There are also elements in place that would like nothing more than total war.
Personally, I would not propose invading any country responsible, I would propose annihilating it. Completely.
As for waging war on Islam... You're on a fishing expedition in a very small pond, (this forum.)
I don't propose Islam itself is the problem or we should go to war with Islam to solve the radical Islamic fundamentalist problem. Radical Islam is an evil ideology that is global in nature. I opined in another thread at least Nazis, for the most part were confined to Germany. We have radical Islamists all over the world today. They can be rooted out but it would be a brutal process and many innocents would suffer. I fear for the worst because that is what the radicals want. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
And that's the point, right? We went to war in Iraq after 9/11 because someone "posed a threat" and (whether you want to admit it or not) we are in a very bad place right now as a country as a result. Humongous debt, terrible world image, and creating more terrorists by the day.
My question however, Johnson, was what if there was no evidence to link anyone to the crime... then who would we attack?, what would we do?
BTW, notice that I didn't say what SHOULD we do, but what would the American government do. |
I think the government WOULD do everything I just outlined, maybe more, and with the overwhelming support of the American people.
They would also probably reinstitute the draft. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by Oz
"evidence" led us to war in Iraq :rolleyes: |
You are correct, however it was "evidence" not of direct involvement in 9/11 but of WMD's that the administration argued would make Iraq a threat.
I will start another thread do detail my point a bit more. Its going to be a decent sized post and I don't want to hijack artiels thread. This is a good topic and I'd like to see what everyone else has to say. |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
And they just keep marching to the same already proven false tune over and over. Like lemmings right over the cliff.
Fucking morons. |
|
|
| artiel |
Quote: Originally posted by johnsonrod
You are correct, however it was "evidence" not of direct involvement in 9/11 but of WMD's that the administration argued would make Iraq a threat.
I will start another thread do detail my point a bit more. Its going to be a decent sized post and I don't want to hijack artiels thread. This is a good topic and I'd like to see what everyone else has to say. |
And yet, India and Pakistan (among many others) have WMDs and we don't attack them....
Why is Iraq special?... especially with the lack of strong WMD evidence, even at the time of invasion. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
I think that there are generally a few orbits that people will enter in response to a suitcase nuke type attack.
1. Attack, ruthlessly and mercilessly any nation reasonably thought to be responsible. Real "shock and awe" I'm talking about, and we would be pretty damn unapologetic about it. A nuclear attack is an existential threat, both physically and psychologically. We would and should act unilaterally. The UN would not be asked permission either. Secondary enemies, like Iraq, would not targeted for many reasons, chief among them that although they may be somewhat helpful to our enemies, they are not worth the troop expenditures, etc. In other words, no time for Neo-con grand schemes, or anyone elses grand schemes for that matter.
2. Press on with grand schemes like middle east democratization. I don't think this works or is appealing to anyone except neocons anymore.
3. Negotiate, use the UN, multilateral pressure or otherwise lean on diplomacy. I think this would be less popular than the neocon plans. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
And yet, India and Pakistan (among many others) have WMDs and we don't attack them....
Why is Iraq special?... especially with the lack of strong WMD evidence, even at the time of invasion. |
Because India and Pakistan werent defeated by us in a war, they didn't shoot at our planes almost daily, attempt to assasinate a former president, etc...
Iraq was in reality an enemy regime to US. That fact is not in serious dispute. What is in dispute was the extent that they could do anything about it. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by WillowGlen
And they just keep marching to the same already proven false tune over and over. Like lemmings right over the cliff.
Fucking morons. |
What would you propose if we got nuked by an identifiable entity???
Not enough to just carp about what others say, the OP wants opinions. |
|
|
| artiel |
Quote: Originally posted by johnsonrod
Because India and Pakistan werent defeated by us in a war, they didn't shoot at our planes almost daily, attempt to assasinate a former president, etc...
Iraq was in reality an enemy regime to US. That fact is not in serious dispute. What is in dispute was the extent that they could do anything about it. |
Ok, then how about Russia? |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
Ok, then how about Russia? |
Russia, France, Great Britian, Israel, China, India, etc. can be counted on to behave "rational" by the realist defenition of the word. When I studied International Relations in college(my major), it was in the early 90's, nuclear proliferation was probably the hottest topic.
Although you never have a total guarantee of safety, you can reasonably assume that these characters will realize that they themselves have more to lose than they could gain by a nuclear confrontation.
When you start getting into terrorist regimes like Iran, thats a totally different beast. If you believe what the leaders of these regimes say regarding destroying the west/Israel and their attraction to martyrdom, it becomes a duty act in your nations self interest. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
This question is posed to all of the alarmists that feel that we have to defeat the terrorists where they are rather than waiting to be attacked before we take action. What exactly would you do if an American city were to be suitcase nuked by an anonymous person? Would you propose waging war on Islam? Would you invade a country even if there was no evidence that linked it to the attack?
I am looking for real responses here, and I think most can see where I am going with this.
Really THINK about it. |
One of the big problems with Iran is that for almost two decades they had two nuclear programs. One was transparent and within the NPT. The other hidden and outside of the NPT and IAEA inspections, etc.. Failure to comply with the NPT and divulge all aspects of this hidden program is why Iran faces troubles today. That is the underlying problem.
There can only be one reason to have a hidden nuclear program. That reason is to develop a nuclear bomb. A bomb that does not officially exist. An unknown bomb. A bomb which if used to attack another country could not be traced back. A bomb from nowhere.
If a bomb was detonated in the U.S. we would have to know exactly where it came from. We could not blindly lash out. Of course if Washington were hit and the federal government destroyed it is possible that military commanders would strike on their own. Possible though I doubt it. |
|
|
| WillieJones |
Call Jack Bauer!
 |
|
|
| ClumpyStern |
As explained already here The Reality of Nuclear Terrorism , "suitcase nukes" would have required extensive technical expertise to maintain in useful condition all this time since they disappeared in the 90s. (Not to mention, they don't exactly come with their sophisticated launch codes dangling on a little plastic tag, either.) The main risk from them is simply that their fissile material has been extracted for eventual use in much cruder devices. THAT, is an extremely realistic concern.
Also, as pointed out in both threads, the poster who thinks "advanced engineering" and perfectly spherical fissile cores are required for the type of CRUDE nuclear device with which we're most concerned doesn't know what he's talking about. Same goes for his suggestion that fissile material is "easy" to detect in transit. The fact of the matter is, if it's properly shielded, we have virtually NO chance of detecting it, either where it's already being stored--quite possibly, in any neghborhood basement right near you--or in any of the 98% of the thousands of inbound shipping containers that DON'T get inspected at U.S. ports every day.
It's also a lot easier to smuggle a few kilos of HEU across our borders than it is to smuggle across bushels of dope by the ton, and we're not even able to put a meaningful dent in THAT.
Some of you should do yourselves a favor and spend a little more time reading and less time posting. A great start for that would be Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe by Graham Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Credentials and NYT book review as follows:
As "Founding Dean" of the modern School of Government, under his leadership, from 1977 to 1989, a small, undefined program grew twenty-fold to become a major professional school of public policy and government. Dr. Allison has served as Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense under President Reagan and as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans under President Clinton, where he coordinated DOD strategy and policy towards Russia, Ukraine, and the other states of the former Soviet Union. He has the sole distinction of having twice been awarded the Department of Defenses highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal, first by Secretary Cap Weinberger and second by Secretary Bill Perry. He served as a member of the Defense Policy Board for Secretaries Weinberger, Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin, Perry and Cohen. Dr. Allison's publications include: Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971), recently released in an updated and revised second edition (1999), which ranks among the best-sellers in political science with more than 400,000 copies in print; Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact (2000); Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material (1996). Dr. Allisons latest book, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, was published in 2004, is now in its third printing, and was selected by the New York Times as one of the "100 most notable books of the year. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
This question is posed to all of the alarmists that feel that we have to defeat the terrorists where they are rather than waiting to be attacked before we take action. What exactly would you do if an American city were to be suitcase nuked by an anonymous person? Would you propose waging war on Islam? Would you invade a country even if there was no evidence that linked it to the attack?
I am looking for real responses here, and I think most can see where I am going with this.
Really THINK about it. |
There's a movie out about a girl who prepare to blow up Times Square and herself...can't rememebr the name of the movie |
|
|
| ICE CUBAN |
I would go out and buy a Hummer then cover it in American flags (made by Chinese prison labor of course) then I'd get a tattoo:
NEVER FORGET (insert date here)
Then I would drive home then cower under my covers watching FOX news, clutching my bible, and wait for George Bush to save me. |
|
|
| artiel |
Quote: Originally posted by ICE CUBAN
I would go out and buy a Hummer then cover it in American flags (made by Chinese prison labor of course) then I'd get a tattoo:
NEVER FORGET (insert date here)
Then I would drive home then cower under my covers watching FOX news, clutching my bible, and wait for George Bush to save me. |
THAT'S what I wanted to hear! I mean, it's what we did after 9/11, why wouldn't we do it again? |
|
|
| ICE CUBAN |
Quote: Originally posted by artiel
THAT'S what I wanted to hear! I mean, it's what we did after 9/11, why wouldn't we do it again? |
Actually all I did after 9/11 was grow a ridiculous beard just to watch people get scared.
I really should have done what the government asked me to and just gone out shopping, racking up massive debt. Hey, if I don't mortgage my house to buy a 100" plasma screen then the terrorists win. |
|
|
|
|
|
