Hypothetical scenario; Terrorists use nukes in the U.S.

[Vesayen]

I was reading a book on al-qaeda. The premise was, it's not a question of IF, it's a matter of WHEN they use nukes.

So, let's say they use nukes on NY or Washington.

If in New York, it would cripple our economy. If it Washington, it would decapitate our government.

The questions;

1) Most likely location? New York? Washington DC?

2) What would the response be from the U.S.?

3) What do YOU think our response should be?

My answers;

1) Most like likely location is New York. Wall Street, the U.N., major television networks, banking and dense population.

2) The U.S. would have no choice but to unilaterally declare that only France, Britain, Russia, China and the U.S. could possess nuclear arsenals. We would declare any other States with nuclear weapons capablilities to be rogue states. We'd outlaw the possession of such weapons by rogue states to be a clear and present danger. We'd place our Navy into nuclear attack positions nearest NK, Iran, India, Pakistan. We'd give them a deadline to disarm.

At the same time, we would commence conventional bombings in all major terrorist strongholds. A universal declaration of war would allow strikes into Syria, Iran, northern Pakistan, Sudan. Possibly even Saudi Arabia.

Our troops would be instantly deployed into the Middle East. 500,000 troops would be sent, with another 1,000,000 to follow. We'd slowly take provincial control of all major capitals throughout the region.

The U.S. would have no choice. We could never allow a second attack against a major US city.

3) Threaten every leader in the Middle East; "You have 48 hours to round up every radical and/or terrorist. Put them in military custody. If we don't see instant progress, we will attack with nuclear weapons".








Source: This post is from a mod, Anon on the ACF boards ( http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?...9406&replies=7 I thought it interesting so I re-posted it here).

[Proteus_MST]

1) I believe Washington will be the target. Al Quaeda targeted Buildings with high symbolic value in their last attacks, the Twin Towers, Pentagon, probably the White House (the plane that crashed), whereas a high bodycount didn´t matter so much to them (I think).
As the Attack on the one Symbol succeeded, they would now try to bring down the other two Symbols in the Capital.

2) It will respond with actionism just like they did on September 11th, i.e. trying to find a Scapegoat, a country which has connections to Al Quaeda, isn´t allied with the USA and attack it. I don´t think they will attack any state with a nuclear Arsenal and the Carrier Systems to attack the United States with them.

3) Trying to find out who is responsible for the things, trying to eleminate Al Qaeda by means of Secret Operations (CIA and the like) rather than open military actions.

[Dis]

1) Most likely location? New York? Washington DC?

both if at all possible. But given the choice I have to go with Washington. years earlier it would have been New York. But they realize bringing down the U.S. is a difficult task now. And to do that, they will have to do the ultimate thing. Annhilate most of the U.S. goverment on inaguration day.

2) What would the response be from the U.S.?

Depends on the president. Initially, probably nothing. Especially if there is no excecutive and legislative branches around. There is a small possiblity of some high ranking general launching an attack on the entire middle east. but that seems highly unlikely for several reason. First of all, without the presidential codes I do not think they could launch a nuclear attack, and even witht he codes, the men on the ships, submarines, bombers, and missile control rooms may disobey the orders or sabatoge the equipment. As for a conventional attack, they take a while to stage and organize.

Some presidents may decide to bomb the **** out of most of the middle east terrorist nations conventionally like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. But that is unlikely. Most likely would be a response similar to the U.S. action in Afghanistan. We would identify the country where the terrorists are mainly operating from, and then take over that country using any means.

3) What do YOU think our response should be?

nuke the entire middle east including Israel (they are too close to the action, and would be adversely affected either way by nukes- so we'll just nuke em to put them out of their misery ).

P.S. The U.S. doesn't have a million troops! maybe if you include the coast guard. Either way most aren't combat troops.

[Edan]

1) Most likely location? New York? Washington DC?

Not sure. They've put most of their attention on New York, but I suspect they'd want to hit somewhere they havent successfully hit before, especially with New YOrk (and Washington's) defense being pretty high. Maybe the intetended target of the millenium attack that was stopped - LAX (or simply LA)?

2) What would the response be from the U.S.?

If a country was behind it, an immediate attack, maybe by Nukes, maybe by MOAB, maybe by other conventional forces.

If not, maybe the Afghanistan + War on Terrorism x 100.

3) What do YOU think our response should be?

I like your solution.

Also, what if the terrorists have another nuke, and threaten to use it if the US retaliates?

[Dis]

then we just give in to terrorists? I think not

[GePap]

I think the premise that its only WHEN and not IF Al qaeda will nuke us is absurd.

[Dis]

now you can say that. Because now they have no hope of getting nukes.

What happens in 50 years when everyone has nukes?

[SlowwHand]

Terrorists would be better off learning to not piss into the wind, but of course, they no doubt are counting on the USA's internal whiners to help their cause.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Dissident
then we just give in to terrorists? I think not

I don't think so either, but it's certainly possible it might change the response (or strategy) some how.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dissident
now you can say that. Because now they have no hope of getting nukes.

What happens in 50 years when everyone has nukes?

If in 50 years Al Qaeda is still around then clearly our little war on terrorism will not have gone too well.

[Dis]

I don't think the war on terrorism is winnable. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[GePap]

So rename it "war against Al Qaeda" then: that is a winnable one.

[ixnay]

The terrorists will nuke Denver, when we hold the Super Bowl there.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well, another ultimate solution to the problem would be going directly to the source: Al Queda. Tell them that if attacks continue, we will begin using nuclear weapons against the Islamic. Tell them they can count on Mecca and Medina going radioactive.

Obviously not a scenario we want, but if we are faced with a threat to our survival...

[Main_Brain]

I remember a Site describing Effects of an Atomic explosion in NY.. cant find it but a referre said this:

A more recent study of the potential impact of nuclear terrorism was published in the British Medical Journal, Volume 324, February 9, 2002. The authors, three members of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility, used the CATS (Consequences Assessment Tool Set) software created by FEMA and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to assess the potential impact of a major nuclear attack. In this analysis, a 12.5 kiloton, ground level nuclear explosion occurs in the port area of New York City. The device is assumed smuggled into port in a commercial shipping container. Here are the findings:

*52,000 people would die immediately of the blast and thermal effects.
*44,000 would suffer radiation sickness. Of these, 10,000 would die.
*Fallout radiation would kill 200,000.
*Fallout radiation would cause "several hundred thousand additional cases of radiation sickness."
*1000 hospital beds would be destroyed. 8700 hospital beds would be in areas of radiation sufficient to cause radiation sickness.
The authors note that even with advanced preparation, outside help to the area would be delayed.

[Velociryx]

why would they just use one when they could use two at twice the price?

Simultaneous strike on Washington and NYC. Big boom.



-=Vel=-

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by ixnay
The terrorists will nuke Denver, when we hold the Super Bowl there.

hehe and Jack Ryan will save the day as usual.

[Dis]

most likely the terrorists would only get a hold of a small kiloton sized weapon. I can't see them getting a hold of megaton sized devices and being able to smuggle it into a city easily. The one exception maybe putting it on a ship and detonating it in a harbour.

It makes more sense to use it on Washington during inaguration day and wipe out congress and the incoming/outgoing presidents and vice presidents. Although I think now days the vice presidents may be elsewhere. We will find out in 2005.

Superbowl in Denver . They'd need a domed stadium for that to happen.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dissident
Superbowl in Denver . They'd need a domed stadium for that to happen.

Nahhhhh... just read a Tom Clancy Novel

[Kuciwalker]

New York.

Nuking New York would cripple America in ways that nuking Washington never could (even jokes about the government notwithstanding) - complete economic chaos. The computers that store banking, stock, etc. information are almost universeally located in NYC - WORLDWIDE. It would take years or decades to fix. While it wouldn't hurt nearly as much our immediate ability to respond, it would end up causing a lot more damage.

[Ming]

They've learned their lesson from 911. The key information is backed up at another location.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

1 - Manhattan
2 - nuke back (that means Axis of Evil excluding North Korea)
3 - get the armies out of middle east... and spend billions on destruction of existing nuclear materials, plus potential manufacturing facilities... +the same for serious chemical/bio tech,

anyway as pandoras box is alreay open, it is just a matter of time before some serious **** up happens somewhere along the way

[SlowwHand]

Why excluding North Korea?

[Sava]

I don't care if Al Qaeda is a rogue organization or not. But if they nuke any US city... we should make Mecca glow in the dark.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Why excluding North Korea?

Because NK didn't do anything... DUH!

Unless you want to be responsible for them nuking Tokyo and turning Seoul into dust with artillery.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't care if Al Qaeda is a rogue organization or not. But if they nuke any US city... we should make Mecca glow in the dark.

I didn't expect that from you, Sava.

[Sava]

I didn't expect that from you, Sava.

to paraphrase Bill Maher:
"Terrorism is the bratty little teenager living in their [Islamic countries] house. They weren't willing to deal with the problem, so now we have to."

This is my feeling. While I recognize that the Wahabi sect and Al Qaeda types have hijacked Islam, if the Islamic world really wanted terrorism gone, they'd deal with it themselves. If tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans die in a nuclear attack, all bets are off.

[Lord Merciless]

If Islamic terrorists nuke an American city, the war of civilizations begins.

People should expect genocides on a precedented scale and 1984 descending over America.

[Sava]

If America gets nuked by someone, I'D join the military.

[uh Clem]

I don't care if Al Qaeda is a rogue organization or not. But if they nuke any US city... we should make Mecca glow in the dark.

Hmmmmm...if I were a Likudnik, I'd have to think long and hard about that.