Quiz : Aftermath of a WMD attack on the United States

[Cyrus]

Let us assume that, however improbable that might be, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, say a nuclear device, is detonated a few months from now in an American city of about one million people inhabitans and three hundred thousand Americans are killed instantly, with about double that number being poisoned with radioactivity.

The next day, an announcement by al Qaeda comes over the airwaves and the internet and claims responsibility for the "attack", with the usual rhetoric about jihad, satan America, etc. The announcement contains various signs that make it totally credible in the eyes of US authorities.

Naturally, the whole world is horrified and all the governments of the planet (including the governments of the so-called "rogue states") condemn with the strongest possible words the attack.

Question : What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?

The question is posed in earnest, as incitement to engage in geostrategic analysis of the current, [i]pre-such an attack situation.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Question : What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?


[/ QUOTE ]

A good pretext for the nuclear annihilation of about 1/3 of the people on the planet - guess where. The remaining 2/3 will limp along for a while then die out in a last pathetic gasp of imbecility. I hope I am one of the last to survive so I can smoke a cigar to celebrate.

[ QUOTE ]
....as incitement to engage in geostrategic analysis of the current, pre-such an attack situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paper wavers are the first to get shot down, both literally and figuratively. Strategy flows from the end of a gun, or the blunt end of a fist. Such is the history of Man and all his wonders.

I am astounded that the United States has not been sucessfully attack again since 9-11. Some people are doing a lousy job. The question is: which ones are doing the lousy job?

Le Misanthrope

[wacki]

I wonder what a nuke in the Canary Islands would do to the US.

Zeno, do you think that would be enough to cause a mega tsunami?

Just a thought....

Sorry about the hijak Cyrus. But to answer your question, I have no clue. It's difficult to even think about it. I also doubt that we have a solid plan for that situation.

[zaxx19]

Your absolutely wrong ....My moms cousin works for RAND it comes up with all kinds of contingency plans for situations like these. The president would have like a dozen well thought out responses at his disposal any one of which could be carried out within a time frame of hours not days.

My personal position is this would constitute a grave threat to the existence and intrinsic security of the American people therefore the MOST DRASTIC ACTIONS must be taken. Remember the old book "Goodbye Columbus"??

Think goodbye Damascus.

1) Nill capacity for a substantial military retaliation.

2) Israel is right there in case things get messy and they would be more than happy to reduce the rest of Syria to donkey carts and rubble.(as opposed to donkey carts and stone houses/mosques)

3) WE HAVE SOLID INFO on Syrian state apparatus aiding terrorists-insurgents who have killed Americans.

4) It shows the willingness on the USA to retaliate with such overwhelming for that the very existence of Arab-Muslim countries could be at stake with further attacks.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
3) WE HAVE SOLID INFO on Syrian state apparatus aiding terrorists-insurgents who have killed Americans

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh, yes, so the answer to a nuke attack on the US is the old classic, bomb Syria? Sounds like that is really going to deter all and any terrorist... do you really belive what you are writing?

[ QUOTE ]
4) It shows the willingness on the USA to retaliate with such overwhelming for that the very existence of Arab-Muslim countries could be at stake with further attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
And after you bomb ME into oblivion (if indeed you could), where do you expect to get the oil the US (and not the least, the US economy and US$) needs to keep going?

[Phat Mack]

WE HAVE SOLID INFO on Syrian state apparatus aiding terrorists-insurgents who have killed Americans.

In order to provide a hypothetical example, Cyrus fabricates an act that hasn't happened, and you say we already know who did it?

[The once and future king]

Brilliant reposte.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
WE HAVE SOLID INFO on Syrian state apparatus aiding terrorists-insurgents who have killed Americans.

In order to provide a hypothetical example, Cyrus fabricates an act that hasn't happened, and you say we already know who did it?

[/ QUOTE ]um, yeah, kind of weird.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh, yes, so the answer to a nuke attack on the US is the old classic, bomb Syria? Sounds like that is really going to deter all and any terrorist... do you really belive what you are writing?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the intent would be to deter any terrorists but to completely eliminate them from the face of the earth. Other than Cyrus, Alger, AC Player and a few Liberals who would really care if the Middle East became a nuclear wastland? It should please the environmentalists in the long run since oil would no longer be a viable source of power. An added benefit would be that any more countries harboring terrorists or encouraging terrorism might think twice about their internal policies.

[cardcounter0]

Would be to immediately bomb and invade Libya, since they currently pose the greatest threat to Saudi Arabia.

In the time it takes to kill or capture Moammar Ghadafi, we can declare 'Mission Accomplished', and point out how long it has been since America has faced another attack.

[Zeno]

Here is some good infomation about the whole Canary Island situation Professional Paper (http://www)

The initiation of large landslides and sector collapse of volcanoes or other natural constructs by earthquakes (whether magmatic or tectonic in origin) is well known. Using a nuclear device to initiate any such collapse is possible but practical limitations would stop any terriost group from implementing any plans, in my opinion. A surface blast would not be the most effective. An underground blast would have more probability of being successful, and could actually be done using conventional means if placed in the proper strategic locations etc. But I think it best not to delve too much into all this.

If terrorists get hold of a nuclear device, the most probable target would be a large city, has this is the simplest and most practical means to further their agenda.

-Zeno

[Gamblor]

Cyrus included the perpetrators in the original post.

[Phat Mack]

"http://www/"

[Chris Alger]

During the Rosenburg trials Sarte said something about the popular assumption that bad guys having nukes must result from treachery or espionage. Paraphrasing, he said that Americans don't realize that technology respects neither secrecy or borders. Over time, everything proliferates. So the question isn't "if" it can happen but rather if enough people want it to happen. Then it's only a question of when those people acquire the ability.

The "appropriate" response for Americans who wish to remain in the U.S. and avoid incineration is a public discussion about every policy and institution that somehow fosters, encourages, provokes or facilitates nuclear terror. Then Americans should decide which of these is worth the risk and reform or abolish those that aren't. No pertinent documents or information should be withheld from the public, regardless of purported claims of "national security." OTOH, no one should pay much attention to the chorus of right-wing parasites and demagogues (at least those remaining after the lynchings).

Obviously, the opinions of high officials, given their record of lying and secrecy on this very topic, should carry little weight.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the intent [of American nuclear retaliation] would be to deter any terrorists but to completely eliminate them from the face of the earth. [Only] a few Liberals who would really care if the Middle East became a nuclear wasteland.An added benefit would be that any more countries harboring terrorists or encouraging terrorism might think twice about their internal policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "added benefit" which you describe is all well and good but the major results of a nuclear attack in the Middle East would be so catastrophic to American national interests as to render your suggestion a forbidden option.

To wit, an attack that reduces the Middle East into a "nuclear wasteland", as you suggested, would

(A) Destroy approximately 60% of known world oil reserves. Even though the EU and Japan are more dependent on Middle East oil than the US is, such a colossal destruction of oil reserves would affect extremely negatively the American economy.

(B) The whole region would become practically inhabitable and non exploitable. The environmental impact on a large area of the Earth would be devastating. Substantial investments of American corporations in the countries that will be hit by nukes and in the nearby areas (Turkey, Greece, the Caucasus, etc) will be reduced to rubble. All opportunities for future American investments there will also be lost. The NPV of all that money lost will be staggering. And I

(C) If a major portion, perhaps the large majority of Arabs, is eliminated from the face of the Earth after a massive nuclear retaliation, we can safely predict that every remaining Muslim alive will be either scare and subdued or radicalised to the bone. In other words, there will be almost complete polarisation! From past events, however, we can also safely predict that the percentage of those Muslims who will become radicalised will be significant. Throw into the equation the fact that, after annihilating those millions of Muslims, we will still be left with Indonesia intact, a country that has the most numerous Muslim population on Earth (and already al Qaeda Indonesians operating there). And let's not forget the tens of millions of African Muslims -- from Algeria to the sub-Saharan continent.

Your option looks like a no-no, from a practical point of view.

[Zeno]

Thanks Phat. Here is the link about Canary Island volcanoes that should have been included above This will work (http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~ward/papers/La_Palma_grl.pdf)


-Zeno

[zaxx19]

You guys dont seem to really be up on latest generation nuclear devices...not only are some of the assumptions that you guys make about "regional" damage WAY off this would be a great area in which to deploy a neutron bomb...or "the capitalist bomb" which doesnt damage property, capital, and oil decks but kills large numbers of people.

Cyrus amazingly all 3 of your points are completly wrong...its like the trifecta of idiocy. None of those things necessarily or even probably happen. I might not have the optimal strategy for retaliation but I can tell you...people as uninformed as you have no place judging..

I also would ask what you would propose the U.S. do??
I mean other than severing ties to Israel...yatta yatta and getting some new hookahs for the Guantanamo prisoners.

[Phat Mack]

Yes it does. He said Al Qaeda, not Syria.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the old book "Goodbye Columbus"?? Think goodbye Damascus.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, you are recommending, as a response, a devastating nuclear strike on Damascus, Syria. But how would you know that the Syrians would be behind the al Qaeda attack I hypothesized? (Thank you, Phat Mack (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1510058&page=0&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=&vc=1).)

This would send a message to all the countries in the world that America will strike back blindly and in a rage, irrespective of responsibility, in case anyone attacks her. This, however, would inevitably make every nation on Earth a hostage to America's moods. (For instance, after the nuclear counter-strike, pro-American politicians in Europe would have little hope to get elected.) This can't be a very promising situation. How can a whole hostile planet be good for America?

[ QUOTE ]
Israel is right there in case things get messy and they would be more than happy to reduce the rest of Syria to donkey carts and rubble.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. "Israel is right there".

The distance between Jerusalem and Damascus as the bird flies is 145 miles. You realize that a nuclear strike on Damascus, or anywhere in Syria, would have the most severe repercussions all across Israel, right?

Unless you are planning to stop all that radioactivity at the border.



[ QUOTE ]
My mom's cousin works for RAND.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should hook 'er up with Gamblor's army buddy (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1220249&page=&view=&s b=5&o=).

[lastchance]

Barring any other good options, regional genocide would be very effective. Regional genocide is the one effective response to popular guerilla warfare. It has to be looked at, simply because it'll work when very little else will.

[Zeno]

My first choice target would be Jerusalem. The most perpetually sick and diseased city in the history of man, that needs wiping off the face of the planet. Dome of the Rock would be ground Zero. I would send in at lest 10-15 nuclear bombs in 30 minute intervals. Nothing would be left but a radioactive limestone crater at least 500 ft deep and 20 miles wide. After the radioactivity decays to acceptable levels and probably even before, I will lay a trillion to one odds (if people are still around), that the throbbing masses would be back in force making the crater a symbol of holiness and lamenting and building more shrines and fighting about it all over again. Then we move on to Mecca, Medina, Vatican City, ---- detecting any pattern yet?

Le Misanthrope

[Gamblor]

Syria is a known sponsor of terrorism, mostly via allowing said international terrorists safe haven in its borders.

[zaxx19]

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner .......

Not only do they provide haven for perhaps THOUSANDS of international terrorists, they also arm and share intelligence with Hezbollah, curry "insurgents"(read Mujahadeen) into Iraq to kill American kids, occupy the nation of Lebanon, torture POWs, ........

Sounds like enough for me .....BOOOOM!!

[arabie]

haha. This is great... we all think it, yet are too afraid to say it. Congrats for being outspoken about our tacit emotions.

[natedogg]

There aren't too many effective responses available unfortunately. That's the sad truth. Nuking the whole middle east is just absurd. But that's what you get on the internet.

All we could really do is just keep on hunting Al Qaeda and doing what we're doing. (I don't lump Iraq into the war on terror so I'm not talking about that when I say "doing what we're doing").

One thing I have no problem with doing is outright assassination of Al Qaeda leaders. This happened a year or two ago in Yemen when we used a predator drone to bomb one of the scumbags as he got into his car, totally violating all notions of soveriegn space for Yemen.

Unfortunate, but they got over it.

natedogg

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
There aren't too many effective responses available unfortunately. That's the sad truth. Nuking the whole middle east is just absurd. But that's what you get on the internet.


[/ QUOTE ]

About as close to the 'correct' answer as we could come to, I think. I was going post about the same response but it is difficult for most to take anything I say seriously (which is what I want), so I decided to cut lose with some virtuoso vituperations.

The best thing to do is to prepare your mind for the almost certainty that the US will have to absorb a nuclear punch to the stomach at some point in this war on terror. New York and Washington D.C. are obvious targets but any other large metropolis will serve just about as well.

-Zeno

[vulturesrow]

I dont think anyone would disagree that I am one of the more hawkish conservatives here. That being said, a random nuclear retaliation would not be in our best interests. The best option I think is to become more overt in our pressure on terrorist networks. Although there will always be groups that wouldnt shed a tear for Americans should this happen, it would be hard for any country to deny us the moral high ground in this case. Case in point is Afghanistan. Yes my immediate visceral reaction would be bring in the nukes and let them fly. Certainly an option if we had solid evidence of state support of said terrorist attack. Barring that, I think we would be able to safely increase pressure on state sponsors of terrorism. Conventional weapons could do the job just fine. Not a wholly satisfying response but dropping a nuke on a random country certainly isnt one without solid evidence of some nation's involvement. I dont buy into the whole "we're creating more terrorists in IRaq" but I dont doubt indiscriminate nuclear attack would have a galvanizing effect in the Moslem world.

[mmcd]

It's ugly, but it gets the job done. Personally, I would recommend allowing Russia and China (backed by us) to seize complete control of Indonesia and the Middle East. Perhaps we could install a series of brutal puppet dictators over North Africa. In exchange for our allowwing them unfettered freedome in their conquests, Russia and China would make substantial reductions (almost to the point of elimination) of their nuclear aresenals) and send 25% of all oil profits directly to the U.S. governemnt. All American corporations will of course get their oil at a discounted price. As for our cut of the oil revenues, this could be used to reduce taxes to a flat 10% rate regardless of income. I wish these bastards would hurry up already so we can stop all this silly nonsense and handle this situation conclusively. It would be like the baptism scene in the Godfather. All our enemies dealt with, all our interests secure. The Europeans would probably be pretty pissed, but there is no entity on the face of this earth thhat could possibly defeat a U.S./Russia/China coalition.

India would be given a piece of the profits, and a guarantee of peace from the coalition. With Pakistan now part of China, they will be happy.

[zaxx19]

U.S./Russia/China coalition.

LOL....this is ALOT less plausible than a surgical nuking of an Arab capital...If you dont understand why and are a student feel free to sign up for a international relations class and perhaps a 20th century history of China course.


In regards to this:

So, you are recommending, as a response, a devastating nuclear strike on Damascus, Syria. But how would you know that the Syrians would be behind the al Qaeda attack I hypothesized? (Thank you, Phat Mack.)


I dont care if they were involved or not...it isnt a punishment for anything specific but a general policy towards aiding terrorists. More importantly its an example for the world. More specifically the Arab one, of the consequences that face those who aid and abet people who aim to kill millions of Americans.

[Zeno]

Now that was a great post. I mostly agree with the sentiment. This is a good plan and close to one that I postulated more than one year ago. Although I wanted the US/China/Russia triad to split up the Middle East in a more geographic sense, you have outlined instead a more economic imperialism. In addition, I wanted the US to simply invade and take over Western Europe (but saving Italy), mostly just for spite.

Anyway, a very enjoyable post - Kudos.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

Alger, AC Player and a few Liberals
Glad to see that you did not include me in the liberal group. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The nuke response sure as hell would get the attention of the Zionist lobby in the US as the fallout would impact them as well.

The nuke response would also get the attention of the oil lobby as their product for sale would be destroyed.

Osama on the other hand would be absolutely delighted if Damascus was obliterated. Bush has already got rid of the non-believing Saddam and is delivering the Iraqi's back to the Islamic ways. Destroying Turkey and Jordan would just make him in Jihadic heaven.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The US would use neutron bombs to take out the people in the oil producing nations..... The oil is unaffected....

Neutron bombs kill people and keep infrastructure intact.... Neutron bombs are "environmentally friendly" nuclear weapons /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jimmy Carter quash the neutron bomb production in the late 1970's but the US DOES has a stockpile today.....

[ACPlayer]

Unless you are planning to stop all that radioactivity at the border

... the wall. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

"but I dont doubt indiscriminate nuclear attack would have a galvanizing effect in the Moslem world."

I willing to take that RISK. I case you haven't heard, the moslem world doesn't greet us with perfume and roses. Not that I'd care if they did...... They can bow to mecca all they want and call the USA the "Great Satan"....but once they pull the nuclear genie out of the bottle....

Then everything goes........they won't get a chance to use another nuke.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
"but I dont doubt indiscriminate nuclear attack would have a galvanizing effect in the Moslem world."

I willing to take that RISK. I case you haven't heard, the moslem world doesn't greet us with perfume and roses. Not that I'd care if they did...... They can bow to mecca all they want and call the USA the "Great Satan"....but once they pull the nuclear genie out of the bottle....

Then everything goes........they won't get a chance to use another nuke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on many issues but not this one. You are aware that Muslims arent confined to the middle east?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Yep....Indonesia, Pakistan, Philipines, etc...

Lets say al-qaida buys a nuke from North Korea. They explode the nuke on NYC. The US finds out that al-qaida is being financed by sympathetic Arab Royals from oil producing Persian Gulf countries. So then, the USA nukes those countries (including NKorea)....

Now....are you telling me that Indonesia is going to have the balls to come after the USA? After we took our revenge? If so, you have a low opinion of their intelligence......

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep....Indonesia, Pakistan, Philipines, etc...

Lets say al-qaida buys a nuke from North Korea. They explode the nuke on NYC. The US finds out that al-qaida is being financed by sympathetic Arab Royals from oil producing Persian Gulf countries. So then, the USA nukes those countries (including NKorea)....

Now....are you telling me that Indonesia is going to have the balls to come after the USA? After we took our revenge? If so, you have a low opinion of their intelligence......

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we would say terrorist acts in the United States on nearly a daily basis. I dont think there would be much of a conventional response.

[Felix_Nietsche]

more terrorists attacks?....two words:

2nd Strike....

[Il_Mostro]

Good answer.

[ QUOTE ]
(A) Destroy approximately 60% of known world oil reserves. Even though the EU and Japan are more dependent on Middle East oil than the US is, such a colossal destruction of oil reserves would affect extremely negatively the American economy.

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "affect extremely negatively" you mean "devastate, destroy and completely lay to waste" you are absolutely correct.

[Phat Mack]

Then we move on to Mecca, Medina, Vatican City, ---- detecting any pattern yet?

I think I'm following you here. My guess is that the next "special delivery" would be to.......Oklahoma? (Normally, I'd suggest we visit some Marxists before the fundementalists, but they seem to have self-destructed.)

[Phat Mack]

Question : What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?

One way to think about terrorist acts is to see them as intending to provoke reactions. So, a simple answer might be to determine what reaction was hoped for, and then act in a way that promotes the opposite.

The question is, of course, what kind of reaction would the terrorists be hoping to effect by such an act?

[Cyrus]

Thank you for a most interesting and enjoyable post.

[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend allowing Russia and China (backed by us) to seize complete control of Indonesia and the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]I understand that you are recommending a sort of counter "jihad" against all Islam. (I deduce this because you are recommending warfare against Indonesia.)

Muslims amount to about 1.3 billion people worldwide. Logistically, it would take a serious amount of force and a colossal number of killings to get the job done. If we abide by the sayings of war's wise masters (e.g. Admiral Halsey), we would be out to "kill Japs, kill Japs and then more Japs until Japanese is spoken only in hell!". Substitute Muslims for Japs.

A general, all-out, counter-"jihad" against Islam presents various problems, however. Those problems are described in Imperial Hubris, a book mistaken by people who have not read it for some pacifist tract. Nothing could be further from the truth! That author wants the United States to conduct war and not a legally constrained police operation. But the author is also very careful and precise as to the extent of that war and to its focus. (More about this some other time.)

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we could install a series of brutal puppet dictators over North Africa.

[/ QUOTE ] They are already there! What do you want 'em to do?

Those regimes, all friendly to the United States in one way or another, are already enemies of bin Laden's al Qaeda. And the feeling is mutual. You are recommending something that's already done.

[ QUOTE ]
In exchange for our allowing them unfettered freedom in their conquests [of Middle East and East Asia], Russia and China would make substantial reductions of their nuclear arsenals and send 25% of all oil profits directly to the U.S. government.

[/ QUOTE ] In so many words, you are suggesting that the United States abandons the regions of Middle East and East Asia to its once imperial rivals, Russia and China (you have ignored Japan, by the way, and Japan cannot be ignored), and retreats from those vast areas of the globe, in a reversal of the gains of World War II and the Cold War combined!

All this will be done in exchange of Russia and China reducing their nuclear arsenal by --what? Say 75% alright? Well, Russia (for one) has already the power to destroy the world a thousand times over. After taking out 75% it will be able to destroy the world "only" 250 times over. I'm missing the achievement part.

But, more to the point, this suggestion to retreat strikes me as a geostrategic withdrawal of the highest order. If America is willing, as you hypothesize, to abandon such a colossal geostrategic imprimatur and global influence in order to avenge one (1) limited nuclear attack on its soil and to defeat al Qaeda, then the United States should be, logically, prepared to do that right now, pre-emptively, decisively, unilaterally, in order to achieve the same objective (i.e. the defeat of al Qaeda) and without awaiting a nuke to go off over Cleveland.

Note that by withdrawing from the Middle East and East Asia, the United States would be meeting about four of the six ultimatums posed on America by Osama bin Laden! So, your input begs the question: Why not agree to those demands now, before, instead of after, a nuclear attack on Indianapolis?

[ QUOTE ]
All American corporations will of course get their oil at a discounted price.

[/ QUOTE ] The campaign to conquer Indonesia and the Middle East, as we have so painfully learned, will either be nuclear or incomplete: Conventional warfare conducted by China and Russia against the united forces of the natives in such lands has already been tried. Do I have to replay to you the TV footage of the Red Army withdrawing from Kabul with tail under the legs?

But if nuclear warfare is on, then we must also accept that the after-effects of a nuclear war (however "limited" or "neutron-bomb focused" we profess it'll be) will actually be devastating -- not just for the people we would be targeting but to the whole region, possibly the whole hemisphere. (Mankind's almost non-existent experience with nuclear warfare is a factor that should facilitate "first-timers' mistakes". We should not be so confident that we can be "clean" and "lean" about a nuclear war.)

Ergo, "American corporations" will not stand to profit much out of a world that has gone through a nuke war, a world burdened with a gigantic amount of dangerous ruins.

[ QUOTE ]
India would be given a piece of the profits, and a guarantee of peace from the coalition. With Pakistan now part of [/b]China, [India] will be happy.

[/ QUOTE ] There are tow problems with this:

(A) Pakistan should be the first candidate to go out of the picture through nukes! Pakistan is the only known so far Islamic country with nukes so a preventive strike would be obligatory.

So, no Pakistan for China, sorry. There won't be a there, there.

(B) Even if we could somehow hand over Pakistan to India, the last thing India would want is to have China on its western borders! China is an enemy of India. This is a no-starter.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
One way to think about terrorist acts is to see them as intending to provoke reactions. So, a simple answer might be to determine what reaction was hoped for, and then act in a way that promotes the opposite.

The question is, of course, what kind of reaction would the terrorists be hoping to effect by such an act?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hint : they are not terrorists.

Good suggestion for application of the FTOP, though, IMO.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Question : What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nuetron Bombs. I'm not sure what country or region should be the target. I guess that would depend upon what ever our crack intelligence is saying at the time. Anihilation of Warizstan would likely make the short list.

Stu

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
Hint : they are not terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm.....not terrorists. From the word "hint," I presume I am supposed to guess the answer. Guerrillas? Puckish Physics students? Reality-TV program developers? Randy Newman Fans (Boom goes London, Boom Paree....)?

Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist group; could it be some sort of religous ceremony?

It seems to me that nuking New York, regardless of how you feel about the Yankees, would have to either fuflill some military objective, or be a statement of some kind. And militarily, I don't know what it would accomplish.

[mmcd]

Just a couple points:

By substantially reduce their nuclear arsenals, I mean reduction to a point such that they present no real credible threat to the United States.

I am assuming smaller (tactical rather than strategic) nuclear weapons would be required to take over the territory.

As for Pakistan getting completely annihilated, I am certainly not opposed to completely destroying areas that are devoid of any valuable resources and serve as nothing more than a breeding ground for our enemies.

Logistically, no restraints of any kind will placed on Russia and China in their conquest. Whatever it takes to get the job done, thats all. Tactical nuclear strikes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, saturation bombing, whatever. I think it's best to use Russia and China because they have a more realistic view than the U.S. (or the West moe generally) regarding the value of human life, especially as relates to military conflict.

Sure we will be withdrawing from the region, but the only interest we have in that area is oil, and that interest will be secured. If not for the oil there, we'd probably care as much about what goes on in the middle east as we car about what goes on in sub-Saharan Africa.

As for caving into Al-Qaeda's demands: Al-Qaeda will be dead , their friends: dead , their families: dead

[mmcd]

U.S./Russia/China coalition.
LOL....this is ALOT less plausible than a surgical nuking of an Arab capital...If you dont understand why and are a student feel free to sign up for a international relations class and perhaps a 20th century history of China course.

You don't think Russia and China would jump at the chance to be given free reign to take over more territory from the world's strongest military power. I mean why on earth would China and Russia want a vast increase in territory and control over a large portion of the world's oil reserves.

[chabibi]

i wouldnt give indonesia that much credit. where do you think al qaeda gets theyre funding. if the US were to completely destroy the middle east and sieze control of oil reserves in arab countries, ossama bin laden and his cronies would be [censored] out of luck and money, unless cars were suddenly dependent on mangoes and bananas to run, in that case second strike on indonesia.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Sorry to disappoint you but no oil will be destroyed. Two words:

Neutron Bomb

[nicky g]

Nice thread Cyrus. It does one good to be reminded of the extent of the psychotic lunacy of the whackjobs that make up part of this forum.

[Zeno]

'Oklahoma?'

Since you are from the great state of Texas, I can see that the nuking of Oral Roberts Land (first ground Zero: the prayer tower, second ground Zero: Norman) would have a dual purpose for you. No more Sooners. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[lastchance]

Our enemy is guerilla warfare group, Al-Qaida, which relies on the support of the population to hide and gain supplies. It is very hard to destroy Al-Qaida principal members, for they do not know each other, and are not open to negotiation.

Should a nuclear weapon be used on the US, then I would argue for a true policy of total war, with very few restraints (don't want to blow up the world or anything).

Your primary objective is to make sure a nuclear weapon attack does not happen again.

Your secondary objective is to wipe out Al-Qaida, which we already are doing.

Against a guerilla warfare group, it is hard enough to know who the guerilla warfare people are in this day and age, it is too hard to even know who supports this group, they are too widespread.

I would say a few well-placed nukes on major cities where we know there is a major Al-Qaida operation supported by the population there might work, combined with the standard invasion and occupation.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Question : What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

It hasn't got one. MAD only works if all parties accept that survival in this life is important. To wipe out Al Qaeda, and more importantly the ideas they corrupt, the US would have to lay waste to, or be in complete control of, substantial parts of the globe. This is something that the other nuclear powers of the world will not allow.

I guess the lesson is if you are gonna start an unwinnable war then you had better make sure that the enemy can't really hurt you.

[Phat Mack]

No more Sooners.

Heh. I was wondering if anyone would snap to this. As an alternative, I'll trade you Mack Brown for Oral Roberts and a minor-leaguer as yet to be named. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[zaxx19]

Liberals propose instituting "hug an Arab day" as a response to an AL Qaeda attack on NYC and the hawks are insane....I love liberals because they eventually just hang themselves with their own words.

[ACPlayer]

Your primary objective is to make sure a nuclear weapon attack does not happen again

.. that we are most efficiently deploying our resources to make sure that this does not happen?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to disappoint you but no oil will be destroyed. Two words:

Neutron Bomb

[/ QUOTE ]
Give me examples of where the neutron bomb has been used. I do not think the consequenses are as "clean" as you imagine.

I find it extremely hard to belive that you could kill all the people in the region using nukes. A lot of the people left standing would do everyting they can to hurt you, including destroying infrastructure. I mean, you can't even get the oil production going in Iraq today, what makes you think you could in this scenario?

Also. Do you honestly belive the US can kill, what, 500 million people and then go on with buisness as usual? You don't think the rest of the world is going to react? A lot of people stopped buying french goods when they did a nuclear test a few years ago. You don't think a lot of people are going to stop buying american goods if you go about using nukes left, right and center? What do you think that will mean for your economy? Granted, if the US is hit by a nuke, maybe the world ecomomy is already in shatters. So maybe you can stop worrying about that and just kill as many as you can before the depression really hits.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Guerrillas? Puckish Physics students? Reality-TV program developers? Randy Newman Fans?

[/ QUOTE ] Nope. None of the above.

They are modern-day soldiers, they are at war with you and they are attacking you.

"You might ask why are we attacking you? The answer to that question is very simple: Because you have attacked us and continue to attack us." -- Osama bin laden.

But if these millions of attackers are indeed an army, and not mere terrorists, where is their geographic base, their logistical hub, where is their strength, their center of gravity, as Clausewitz put it, so that we can destroy it? Ah, yes, they are an army alright and they are attacking America. But this is the 21st century and not the 19th. Those Clausewitzean notions are obsolete.

Guess which of the two sides is fighting this war the old way, the 19th century way.

Good luck and good cards.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you think al Qaeda gets their funding? if the US were to completely destroy the Middle East and sieze control of oil reserves in Arab countries, Ossama bin Laden and his cronies would be [censored] out of luck and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer is either posed in jest or wrong. I will ignore that fact that you are casually suggesting the annihilation "of the Middle East" while being at the same time a fanatical supporter of all things Israel ! Are you suggesting that Israel be transported on wheels to South Carolina?

But the power of the almighty dollar has assumed extremely big proportions in people's minds! And this, despite all evidence to the contrary about how little was achieved in Afghanistan and Iraq by using money to do the work for us. (Example: US spooks having a budget of millions of dollars and giving it to Afghani "friendly" tribesmen in return for information, co-operation, etc. Read the record. Practically nothing has come out of such information or co-operation. Those spooks should have read some British Raj books.)

As to the finances of Qaeda, they are coming out of the West as well. How could we possibly siphon off all that money? Are we to kill all the Muslims residing in western countries as well, just to make sure?

Even so, money surely plays much less important a role in Qaeda's strength than the pols (and the "analysts") in the West are telling us. Qaeda is composed of fanatical Muslims who know how to live frugal lives and are not in it for the money. I mean, even the money needed for their "special operations" branch (e.g. 9/11) is smaller than what has been written about. The math is easy enough.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

They are modern-day soldiers, they are at war with you and they are attacking you.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just semantics. Pick a label. You will certainly raise a ruckus by trying to claim they are not terrorists but you're just playing games with semantics there.

They are an irregular, loosely knit collection of varied groups, without national allegiance, and they commit acts of terror against civilians with vaguely justified references to vaguely defined affronts.

Call them whatever you like it doesn't change the nature of what they are.

[ QUOTE ]

"You might ask why are we attacking you? The answer to that question is very simple: Because you have attacked us and continue to attack us." -- Osama bin laden.


[/ QUOTE ]

He can give any reason he likes it doesn't make the reason true or even if true, justified. Honestly, who the hell does he mean by "us" and where did these attacks take place? Is he talking about his family which have become billionaires from U.S. commerce?

[ QUOTE ]
But if these millions of attackers are indeed an army, and not mere terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not an army by any stretch of the normal definition of army. They're not even guerrillas by any stretch of the normal definition of guerrillas.


[ QUOTE ]
where is their geographic base, their logistical hub, where is their strength, their center of gravity, as Clausewitz put it, so that we can destroy it? Ah, yes, they are an army alright and they are attacking America. But this is the 21st century and not the 19th. Those Clausewitzean notions are obsolete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, these rhetorical points are absolutely spot on, but they don't hinge on what label we give Al Qaeda. They are very relevant to the answer to your quiz, but not to your "hint".

You want to say, they're not terrorists they're an army. In the words of Diego Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means".

[ QUOTE ]
Guess which of the two sides is fighting this war the old way, the 19th century way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You started off talking about a hypothetical nuke blast by Al Qaeda. Who is fighting against Al Qaeda with conventional warfare? Or are you just entertaining the claim that Iraq is part of the war on terror for the purposes of showing the flaws in that? It still seems off topic to your quiz.

The answer to your quiz of course is brain washing, to be blunt. We need a long-term campaign of propoganda and commercialism aimed at turning religious Mideast muslims into selfish, MTV demanding, consumer oriented, nightclubbing , poker-playing western-degeneracy-loving hedonists. As soon as we can effect a change like that we win. It will take free trade and secularist propoganda. And covert liquidation of all radical anti-american voices that incite violence towards us.

It's simple really.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just semantics. They are an irregular, loosely knit collection of varied groups, without national allegiance, and they commit acts of terror against civilians with vaguely justified references to vaguely defined affronts.

[/ QUOTE ] It is not semantics.

It is important to realize that this is a true, bona fide war. Realizing this, will help shape strategy accordingly. (I will once again urge anyone interested in the recommendations of a pro-war author to read Imperial Hubris.)

[ QUOTE ]
[Al Qaeda] are not an army by any stretch of the normal definition of army. They're not even guerrillas by any stretch of the normal definition of guerrillas.

[/ QUOTE ] I beg to differ. They are a modern day army alright and they are waging a modern day war.

The attack on the Twin Towers was not the only attack they've made. The Muslim fundamentalists attacking America are waging attacks against Americans on a daily basis - in places all over the map. Do not confuse the "special operations" of Qaeda, such as 9/11, with the damage this army is causing (and preparing).

[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell does [Osama bin Laden] mean by "us" and where did these attacks take place? Is he talking about his family, which have become billionaires from U.S. commerce?

[/ QUOTE ] You are right to be angry but if you allow sentiment to dictate policy, you are doomed.

I personally believe IMHO that we must know our enemy and that we must try to view the world through his eyes, and not just ours. (These are truly elementary conditions for the formulation of appropriate strategy.) Osama bin Laden happens to be the leader and instigator of the war waged against America. We should all be reading his statements more carefully, the same way we try to monitor his every move.

As to his "reasoning", it is unfortunately not based on complete fantasy! If we are truly interested in isolating that army from the rest of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide, we must (America must) also address their grievances, real or imaginary. And snuff away those grievances not in a capitulating way but, nonetheless, in a manner as resolute as killing an attacker.

[ QUOTE ]
You started off talking about a hypothetical nuke blast by Al Qaeda. [This] seems off topic to your quiz.

[/ QUOTE ] The "quiz" intends to better identify the inherent flaws in the American strategy so far. If those flaws were not there, we would get the answer to the "quiz" more easily. Those flaws are not "liberal propaganda" as some neo-cons will say; they are real and they are being pointed out by hawks and liberals alike.

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to your quiz of course is [b]brain washing, ... a long-term campaign of propaganda and commercialism aimed at turning religious Mideast Muslims into consumer[s].

[/ QUOTE ] This sounds like an excellent mid- to long-term response. (Kinda makes you wonder why we have not been following up that way all along, but, instead, we have been cosying up for decades with petty and corrupt tyrants in the region!)

But is doesn't answer the quiz! Excuse me for being flippant, but you are, in fact, suggesting that right after Kansas City is destroyed from a nuclear attack, the United States government starts an advertising campaign.

...Wouldn't that be too cruel? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[zaxx19]

How do yu address imaginary grievances since they arent real?? Do you think addressing grievances as a response to terrorism sends the proper message to the world?? What sort of precedant does this create for would be terrorists??



Oh and BTW learn what the word sentiment means, and how to use it contexually.

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/reatomicbasics/020109neutronbomb.htm
****The above link briefly describes the 1st generation neutron bombs developed 30 years ago. The 3rd generation neutron bombs, which the USA has today, are much more advanced and much more powerful.

"Give me examples of where the neutron bomb has been used. I do not think the consequenses are as "clean" as you imagine."
*****Do you mean examples used on people and cities? Don't be silly. The only time any nuclear weapons have been used on people was on Japan during WW2. But scientists have this methodolgy called "testing a weapon before you use it". The USA has tested neutron bombs on both test animals and structures. The neutron bomb was first developed to use in Europe, where USSR troops could be killed while sparing densely populated cities.

"I find it extremely hard to believe that you could kill all the people in the region using nukes. A lot of the people left standing would do everyting they can to hurt you, including destroying infrastructure."
*****Believe it.... It is called self-defense and self preservation. If these religious fanatics set off a nuke in New York City then do you THINK it is POSSIBLE that they may try to attack another city with a nuke?....... Do you?.... These insane people have already killed 3000 people by destroying two great buildings. They have demonstrated they have little regard for human life. If you think the USA is going to sit on their a** while a second city gets nuked, then you are fooling yourself. Would this be genocide? Yes, it would and I would have ZERO problem with killing millions of Arabs to insure that the USA does not get nuked a second time.... As for any survivors wanting to get even with the USA for retaliating a nuke attack with nukes, .....well that is a chance I'm willing to take. If these people are that dumb, then they should keep in mind there is something called a second nuclear strike.......

"I mean, you can't even get the oil production going in Iraq today, what makes you think you could in this scenario?"
*****The USA can completely rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and yes a few men with RPGs can sabotage these efforts. I concede this.... The power to destroy is always easier to acquire than the power to build.... A child with a match can destroy a large building. Does that make that child powerful? Does that make the builders of the building weak and incompetant? The ability to destroy does not make a culture great. It is the ability to build. All great cultures are great builders.....

"Also. Do you honestly belive the US can kill, what, 500 million people and then go on with buisness as usual?"
*****If attacked by a nuke, yes, we'll go on business as usual. Except maybe for "Cyrus", "Cardcounter", and some of the other self-hating Americans.... Here is a brief SIMPLISTIC summary of US politics. 1/3 of the people are angry and want to strike back at the terrorists. 1/3 of the people are what I call "self-hating Americans" and they blame America for the 9/11 attacks, and there is the last 1/3 of Americans who are in the middle who are SLOWLY becoming becoming disgusted with the "self-hating American" crowd and are leaning towards attack the terrorists group. Evidence of this can be seen by Bush43 re-election. If a nuke explodes in the USA, I promise you that the group in the middle will swing hard right and the gloves will be off.... And I would not want to be vacationing in the Middle East at that time....

"A lot of people stopped buying french goods when they did a nuclear test a few years ago. You don't think a lot of people are going to stop buying american goods if you go about using nukes left, right and center? What do you think that will mean for your economy? Granted, if the US is hit by a nuke, maybe the world ecomomy is already in shatters"
*****In a way, you answered your own question. The US economy took a hit on 9/11 just when two large building went down. If a nuke explodes in the US, I concede the US economy will TEMPORARILY take a major hit. As for an international boycott of the US, if the choices are (1)letting an enemy live so they can use nukes again or (2)risk a boycott of American goods. The choice is EASY.....

Our differences are a matter of priorities.
I place great weight on self-preservation and self-defense. I believe the USA would completely be justified in killing 10,000 people if that meant saving *One* American life. If these religious fanatics don't want to die, then they better make sure they don't (1) get their hands on a nuke, and (2) don't explode a nuke in the US... However, I am pessimistic that these people are that rational..... I am not religious, but even *I* pray that this scenario does not happen...

The most likely source for terrorists getting a nuke is from North Korea(NK). NK has already said they plan to sell nuclear weapons for cash. During the US presidential debates John Kerry criticize Bush43 for funding research more nuclear weapons. Bush could not respond for he would have to reveal classified material and John Kerrry knew this (typical US Democratic cheap shot). This program is supposedly "secret" but these next generation nuclear weapons are "bunker busting" nukes designed to take out heavily fortified underground complexes built into mountains while minimizing collateral damage to nearby cities. These weapons are custom-made to take out North Korea's underground WMD facilities....

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
How do yu address imaginary grievances since they arent real??

[/ QUOTE ] You already wrote that you don't know what their grievances are. How can you tell they are imagining them?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think addressing grievances as a response to terrorism sends the proper message to the world?

[/ QUOTE ] You are implying that I recommend only addressing those grievances. But that was not what I wrote. You are not paying attention. Something is distracting you.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and BTW learn what the word sentiment means, and how to use it contexually.

[/ QUOTE ]I think I know what the word "sentiment" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sentiment) means. But what does "contexually" mean?

[Phat Mack]

They are modern-day soldiers, they are at war with you and they are attacking you.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's say that they are modern-day soldiers, and that their act was an attack on a target of opportunity.

Question : What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?

The first thing to do would be to identify what the response was intended to accomplish. Four possibilities immediately come to mind: defeat the attackers; lessen the probabilities of further attacks; keep the current administration in power (in fairness, I should say keep our current government in power); support currently-held systems of belief. You may choose all, any or none. Hint: We've already been attacked once. What was our response? How's it working out?

[Phat Mack]

The answer to your quiz of course is brain washing, to be blunt. We need a long-term campaign of propoganda and commercialism aimed at turning religious Mideast muslims into selfish, MTV demanding, consumer oriented, nightclubbing , poker-playing western-degeneracy-loving hedonists. As soon as we can effect a change like that we win.

This may be the whole confict in a nutshell. I would change the words "Mideast muslims" to "fundamentalists," and then, gazing upon the White House, wonder who's winning. On the other hand, borrowing from the phrase "It takes a thief to catch a thief," maybe emulating our enemy's mindset with our own leadership is brilliantly +EV.

[Grisgra]

Get Jack Bauer on the case. He'll make it all better.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
What would be the appropriate response of the United States against such an attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

The appropriate response would be to use the attack as a stimulus for rethinking our approach to the problem of terrorism, acknowledging that the emphasis on targeting rogue regimes has been completely misplaced and that we should focus more upon non-proliferation and much more extensive cooperative security measures designed for criminal threats.

Obviously, indiscriminately lashing out - especially with nuclear weapons - against Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or other middle eastern states would be an absurd choice.

[zaxx19]

Switch the word impetus for stimulus and you almost have a college graduate.

Oh and what the hell does the rest of this mean.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The first thing to do would be to identify what the response was intended to accomplish.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree.

And I would speculate in brief this: Osama bin Laden, the general of that army (although you wouldn't know it from the humble way he presents himself), is always harping on in his messages about the need to have help from all other Muslims, how the "struggle" needs everyone (i.e. more men), etc. This appears to be a honest call to arms and not strong-acting-as-weak. Therefore, a wider incitement of Muslims to his jihad would be a welcome objective.

Since the attacks of the United States on Afghanistan and Iraq have marshalled a tremendous number of jihadists to the "cause", as the battles in both countries show, bin Laden's Qaeda seems to have already achieved one of its main objectives.

[ QUOTE ]
Four possibilities immediately come to mind: defeat the attackers; lessen the probabilities of further attacks; <font color="red"> keep our current government in power); support currently-held systems of belief. </font>

[/ QUOTE ] Bull's-eye on the first two. But the other <font color="red">two </font> are burdensome luxuries. The country owes nothing to nobody.

A country like the United States that finds itself at war, as you correctly posit, should not bother with niceties such as "who is the best guy to handle Medicare" or "who is pro-life". What irrelevant crap this is, in times of war. The country must choose the best men who will lead her in a tough and smart war!

You have chosen George W. Bush -- and may the Lord have mercy on ya.

...Remember Britain in WWII? At its moment of gravest crisis, in 1940, it ditched the widely respectable Neville Chamberlain, a man who had tried his honourable best to keep Europe out of war, and picked Winston Churchill to lead her, a man renown for his belligerence, cunning and bluster, and for his arch-reactionary politics! In other words, the country picked the best cat it could find that could get the mouse, and the colour of the cat be damned!

[ QUOTE ]
We've already been attacked once.
What was our response? How's it working out?

[/ QUOTE ] My answer is: Lousy, as far as EV is concerned.

There is simply no indicator pointing to anything else but more American losses in life and money in Iraq and a disaster waiting to blow up in our faces in Afghanistan (where Karzai rules in Kabul only -- and not even over the whole city!). Meantime, Middle East is a hotbed of discontent since there appears to be no solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the root cause of Muslim hostility against the United States. The American superpower gets bitch slapped by Ariel Sharon (who tears down any "roadmap plan" he doesn't like), picks itself up, dusts itself off, and declares to the TV cameras its ...unwavering support for Israel! (Talk about statesmanship or about winning the Arabs' hearts and minds.)

BTW, a few answers from supposedly "advantage poker players" of this website are amazing! Utah is boasting, for example, that since so far no one has attacked again the US, this means that, yeah, the strategy must be correct then! Which is the very definition of short-term-results-oriented thinking, if words have any meaning.

[Wake up CALL]

I am an advocate of the Lucom Plan (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/2/134539.shtml)

[lastchance]

This is dangerous as hell, if you want to do it preemptively. This is our ace in the hole, the threat of doing this when they do it to us, and not doing it when they don't is perhaps one of the only reasons the terrorists don't have nukes yet.

The minute the US uses the neutron bomb, every country in the world scrambles to get nukes as fast as possible.

Nuclear proliferation probably increases a hundredfold.

Part 2 of the Lucom Plan is also dumb, because it will lead to an incredibly large amount of false leads and violence.

[BadBoyBenny]

Call their bluff.

Reinstate the draft, gain the world's support (including moderate Muslims) either through sympathy or force. Ues the conscripts to make sure everything going into this country is inspected, have militias cover the Mexican and Canadian borders. Nothing comes in without inspection.

Then have undercover agents plant nukes in Paris, Quebec, Riyadh, Islamabad, Moscow and Tokyo. Put out false Al Quaeda tapes claiming responsibility, for various reasons (they all support us, Chechnya, no head scarves in school etc.)

Then use our coalition to take over and colonize every muslim country. not in the name of the US but something else. Maybe something catchy like the coalition of the free world. Disband the UN (maybe their headquarters and members were blown up anyway)

Form a new group of allies for WW III. Use any means we have kill our enemies while preserving ther natural resources (chemical/biological/neutron) and also have the coalition colonize North Korea by claiming to have intelligence that the nukes were theirs.

I think annexing Canada and telling them to shut the [censored] up would be in order also.

[zaxx19]

Put out false Al Quaeda tapes claiming responsibility

I like the way you think....

[ACPlayer]

Think distributed networked virtual computing not mainframe computing and apply it to warfare.

Cyrus' observation is brilliant and worth thinking about carefully, IMO.

[natedogg]

But is doesn't answer the quiz! Excuse me for being flippant, but you are, in fact, suggesting that right after Kansas City is destroyed from a nuclear attack, the United States government starts an advertising campaign.

Heh. Touche.

I still think your focus on labels is an excercise in semantics that distracts from the reality of the issue.

I am also quite concerned at the number of bozos whose answer include nuke attacks.

My mid to long term solution is the only path to winning. My short term solution would be to continue doing what we're doing. There's not much else we can do.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

I do not agree with you, I'll point out a few things below.

[ QUOTE ]
"I find it extremely hard to believe that you could kill all the people in the region using nukes. A lot of the people left standing would do everyting they can to hurt you, including destroying infrastructure."
*****Believe it....

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't. And I mean physically. I don't think it is possible to nuke the area in such a way that all (or even almost all) poeple in it are killed. It's a lot of land. Maybe there would be people in charge that would want to do it, but I don't think they could.

[ QUOTE ]
"I mean, you can't even get the oil production going in Iraq today, what makes you think you could in this scenario?"
*****The USA can completely rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure and yes a few men with RPGs can sabotage these efforts. I concede this.... The power to destroy is always easier to acquire than the power to build.... A child with a match can destroy a large building. Does that make that child powerful? Does that make the builders of the building weak and incompetant? The ability to destroy does not make a culture great. It is the ability to build. All great cultures are great builders.....

[/ QUOTE ]
True but irrelevant. The question was if you can get the oil flowing, and I say you can't. As shown in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
I place great weight on self-preservation and self-defense. I believe the USA would completely be justified in killing 10,000 people if that meant saving *One* American life.

[/ QUOTE ]
And so does other people, only the other way around. And they are just as right as you are. That is, not at all.

[ QUOTE ]
If these religious fanatics don't want to die, then they better make sure they don't (1) get their hands on a nuke, and (2) don't explode a nuke in the US

[/ QUOTE ]
We are not talking about religuos fanatics. We are talking about ordinary people, you know, the 500 MILLION people you argue to be killed.

[ QUOTE ]
Our differences are a matter of priorities.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It's a matter of sanity. Most sane people in the world understand that you can't kill 500 MILLION people and then just go on.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Switch the word impetus for stimulus and you almost have a college graduate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Try again. My usage of stimulus is perfectly fine here.

Why the lame personal attacks? Is it because you don't have a real response?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and what the hell does the rest of this mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be pretty self-explanatory. As far as the content goes, this is a fairly standard opinion among people in security studies. Some of us don't get all of our information from Fox.