Hypothetical scenario; Terrorists use nukes in the U.S. - Page 2

Kuciwalker · June 16, 2003, 20:35

I'm with Sava here...

Dis · June 16, 2003, 20:47

could I possibly be in agreement with Sava on this one?

Something has gone horribly wrong.

Kuciwalker · June 16, 2003, 20:48

Sava, Dissident, and I all in agreement...

I predict that massive holes will soon appear in the fabric of space-time, through which pigs will fly out of a frozen hell

Vesayen · June 16, 2003, 21:01

I agree with some of the posters...... What if our only way to ensure we arent nuked is to threaten to nuke Mecc and Medina?

Sava · June 16, 2003, 21:16

I don't think such an ultimatum is necessary at this point... but if terrorism gets worse in this country, I think it should be made public that we're not gonna put up with this sh1t.

Sprayber · June 16, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

I didn't expect that from you, Sava.

Sava isn't unpatriotic, he just doesn't like Bush

Odin · June 16, 2003, 21:36

1. U.S. Capitol on Inaguration day, 2009

2. Same as Sava

3. Go in and clean up the ME with TOTAL WAR.

Sava · June 16, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

Sava isn't unpatriotic, he just doesn't like Bush

SPRAYBER I

YOU

Shadowstrike · June 16, 2003, 23:13

Revenge aside, nuking Mecca, Medina or other holy Islamic ciites is just about the worst thing the United States could do. This would play into the terrorists' hands - the emtire Muslim world would be in arms against the States, Europe would be shocked by an act of such barbarism, and US rivals may see this as the chance to paint the name of the US as black as ever. Ultimate the US could come out on top, if you don't mind a few nuclear winters, massive destruction to the US mainland, possible extinction of humanity, etc.

Should such an event happen, however, the best action the US can take is to take out the radical Islamists. The moderates are more likely to see that continuing such senseless destruction would bring the proverbal temple down on their heads, and would most likely provide support for US efforts to get rid of Al Qaeda. Furthermore, such an event also serves as a further deterant against the use of nuclear weapons (remember the victims of New York/Washington), and provides a cassus bellum against "rouge" states.

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Revenge aside, nuking Mecca, Medina or other holy Islamic ciites is just about the worst thing the United States could do. This would play into the terrorists' hands - the emtire Muslim world would be in arms against the States, Europe would be shocked by an act of such barbarism, and US rivals may see this as the chance to paint the name of the US as black as ever. Ultimate the US could come out on top, if you don't mind a few nuclear winters, massive destruction to the US mainland, possible extinction of humanity, etc.

nah, a few nukes wouldn't do that much damage... hundreds of nuclear tests have occured and not caused drastic climate changes. Europe would probably be with us if NY gets nuked. Of course the US would come out on top... the entire Muslim world can't hit us with rocks across the ocean, and Ashcroft and his Gestapo would take care of the rest. The domestic security situation would be really tight, but hey, if there are terrorists who have nukes in the US, and they use one, I won't mind so much if Arabs get rounded up. It sounds terrible, I know, but if you can think of a better way to seperate the terrorists from the good people, I'm all ears.

Dr Strangelove · June 16, 2003, 23:30

I might point out that a nuclear attack on either city would murder tens of thousabds of foreigners, European, Asian, African, South American, North American and Oceanic, so EVERY country on earth would have a stake in the reprisals against the perpetrators on a scale not dreamt of after 911. You might conceivably wind up with all the major nuclear powers asking to be allowed to participate in the counter-attack. IIRC it's fairly common for a number of nations to send high ranking members of their governments to the President's inaguration, so an attack at that time would really infuriate any number of nations.

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:32

good point Doc

Zero · June 16, 2003, 23:42

1. San Francisco
2. Same as 911
3. "oh no, terrible! my condolenses, blah blah"

Dis · June 17, 2003, 00:12

They wouldn't nuke San Fransisco.

Too many liberals support their cause there

Sava · June 17, 2003, 00:19

New York is a very liberal town also Diss

Lord Merciless · June 17, 2003, 02:50

ALL big cities are liberal.

I wouldn't mind if they set off a big bomb 5 miles north of the White House.

Dis · June 17, 2003, 02:59

my city isn't liberal, trust me.

I'm not sure if we qualify as a big city though. We are over 1 million people though.

I seriously doubt we will ever be liberal due to the nature of the area where I live. There is no sense of community where I live.

Monk · June 17, 2003, 03:04

I don't think you guys would have nuked the Vatican because of the IRA.

Lord Merciless · June 17, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Monk
I don't think you guys would have nuked the Vatican because of the IRA.

You are right. I'm also against nuking Medina and Mecca. But we should kill every Wahhabist clerics there.

Eli · June 17, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

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.

*cough*

Az · June 17, 2003, 03:54

*cough**cough*

I'd really like to see the US disarm India and pakistan tho.

Daz · June 17, 2003, 03:58

Feeling left out Eli..?

Grrr · June 17, 2003, 04:10

Are you suggesting Isreal is not a rogue state

.

Az · June 17, 2003, 04:15

We're too rich to be a rogue state.

Q Classic · June 17, 2003, 04:54

making mecca glow in the dark won't help our cause too much (bunch more people who before didn't hate us would ), but it would certainly send a strong, clear message: don't fvck with us.

if that nuke did go off, anywhere in the states... i'd be in favor of holding off a bit, until we knew to a good degree who did it, and where it came from: so if the terrorist cell was from the philippines and not syria, we wouldn't be hitting the wrong people. after finding out who did it, quietly inform the government where they are (if they are on our side--like the government of the philippines, pakistan, or indonesia, for example) and demand that they be eliminated/handed over to us authorities, on pain of retaliation.

if they didn't comply, drop a few on suspected terrorist locations.
if they did, try the terrorists, and imprison them. don't execute them with old sparky or the injection... just have, somehow, one of those irradiated beds show up in their cells.

if it wasn't a government we liked, well, just drop it on their suspected locations.

Eli · June 17, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
We're too rich to be a rogue state.

And our missiles are too far reaching.

Az · June 17, 2003, 08:11

Vesayen · June 17, 2003, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Sava, Dissident, and I all in agreement...

I predict that massive holes will soon appear in the fabric of space-time, through which pigs will fly out of a frozen hell

LOL!

Narz · June 17, 2003, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Revenge aside, nuking Mecca, Medina or other holy Islamic ciites is just about the worst thing the United States could do. This would play into the terrorists' hands - the emtire Muslim world would be in arms against the States, Europe would be shocked by an act of such barbarism, and US rivals may see this as the chance to paint the name of the US as black as ever. Ultimate the US could come out on top, if you don't mind a few nuclear winters, massive destruction to the US mainland, possible extinction of humanity, etc.

Should such an event happen, however, the best action the US can take is to take out the radical Islamists. The moderates are more likely to see that continuing such senseless destruction would bring the proverbal temple down on their heads, and would most likely provide support for US efforts to get rid of Al Qaeda. Furthermore, such an event also serves as a further deterant against the use of nuclear weapons (remember the victims of New York/Washington), and provides a cassus bellum against "rouge" states.

I agree. I can't believe so many people actually think that threatening to bomb Mecca is a good idea. Just the threat alone will likely spark much hate, violence and death on both sides.

If a fundamentalist Christian kid beat up your son would you go blow up his church?

Q Classic · June 17, 2003, 12:49

well, depends on who was running the church.

the pope? no. jerry falwell? i could be persuaded to.