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 [insert randomly any name of city] 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, 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.