[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A nuclear attack... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/17/2005 11:10:17 PM EDT
|
Let's say some major terrorist attack happens, we put two and two together and it turns out to be a half muslim extremists, and we identify their country of origin. They are citizens of that country, they've lived there until recently, they're linked to Al Quaeda, etc.etc. I am not advocating this, but assume for the sake of argument that President Bush decides to launch a nuclear strike against the nation where the attackers were from. Small scale, large scale, whatever, the extent wouldn't matter much. What would he have to do before pressing the button/entering launch codes/whatever? Obviously, we wouldn't want the Russians to mistake a launch as an attack against them, because wouldn't it just suck for them to accidentally nuke our 50 largest cities when we're not even mad at them. So would he call Putin and say "Hey, just so you know..."? What about our allies? What about the U.N.? Do we notify Russia and (maybe) China to avert an accidental retaliation, and then let everyone else know when the missiles are five minutes out? I think the nuclear game plan was pretty much a "if we launch, hell has already broken loose and it can't get worse". Under this kind of situation though, we'd need to determine what level of hell we wanted to be in. Side question: launch from SSBN or launch from land based missile silos? My thought is well-placed SSBN, less likely to look like an attack on Russia or China or any of the other nervous countries that way. Jim p.s.--Holy crap, did you realize you can just call up any old submarine squadron? www.csp.navy.mil/squadron.htm |
We launch cruise missles all the time, I doubt we tell anyone beforehand and I believe the Tomahawk is Nuke capable, Or we could always use the old fashioned way, last time I checked we still had a few Nuke capable bombers. A call afterward or a few minutes before delivery maybe, but after a nucleur attack on American soil it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened if Tehran <sp> dissappeared in a mushroom cloud.
|
Yep. Not gonna happen in a million years. The uranium and plutonium in our bombs would grow radioactively inert before we ever got the intestinal fortitutude as a nation to launch a nuclear strike at any other country. Not gonna happen. |
The nuclear tipped Tomahawk has been withdrawn from service due to one of the START treaties. |
ummm.... we already have nuked another nation  but I assume you meant from here on out 
|
|
I dunno....I remember a lot of supposedly wise internet pundits, who told me back in 2002, that we would never have the intestinal fortitude to invade Iraq. You kill a million Americans and it might shock you, just how quickly the intestinal fortitude numbers can change. |
twice! 
|
Unless the GOVERNMENT of said nation sanctioned, paid for or ordered the bombing, we're not nuking another nation because of the shitbags that came from there. I'm sorry, but that's not in the cards and if it is, then the terrorists have won. |
Not exactly true. They were unilaterally removed from regular deployment by President Bush (41) during his State of the Union Address in 1991, but are still available for generation if required; sort of like the cruise missiles are ready to load, but not flown every day. KS Physicist--you realize that those who know, can't tell, so no answer you would get would be accurate? |
If you count test and accidents, we've nuked several nations, including our own. 
|
|
The United States has contingency plans to address many types of WMD attacks on our homeland. Each attack scenario has SIOP options for the National Command Authority to choose to retaliate and to prevent another attack. Specifics are not addressable here. Suffice to say we can and likely would retaliate...unless of course it was a Democrat in the White House. Then we'd send in the FBI to try and arrest the BGs. |
The UGM-109A was withdrawn from the SSN's, not from stockpile. |
Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, Nuclear (TLAM-N) were withdrawn from the Fleet in 1991 when the orders were sent to all units to download their nuclear weapons. The nuclear warheads were removed and the missiles recycled into TLAM-C (conventional) birds. |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html = LINK Maybe we're beginning to suspect somthing in the works here and we're "floating" ideas to the tango's what a "possible" response will be. |
What if you had anything solid, or even a shred of evidence? Or if, just saying, you know, hypothetically, you "were full of it"? You must really quit posting because obviously you are in great danger, now that it's clear that you unearthed ideas, "know" too much, and the MIB will trace your IP, and in fact could be rolling up at any moment. Take a long vacation, for your own good. And ours. |
|
Obviously warn the Russians and ChiComms but I'd also give Westerners 48 hours to get out of Dodge. However, a limited strike is not enough. If Muslims are dumb enough to nuke us then all of them have to die because leaving even a thousand of them alive on earth is too dangerous. Neutron bombs would be just nifty for this kind of war (it kills people but leave oilfields intact). Bilogical weapons would be great to--vaccinate all friendlies and everyone else dies when the agent is released. |
I dunno. I know we still have some Sarin. There have been some issues with it leaking in it's storage bunkers at the Bluegrass Army Depot nearby in Richmond. Instead of worrying about how to destroy it safely, use it! Problem solved. LOL. Unleash it in the tribal areas of Pakistan where there is no government control and lots of Al-Qaida to kill. |
|
Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets Captured documents, terrorists reveal bin Laden's preferred dates, places for 'American Hiroshima' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 18, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for almost 30 years. The subscription price for the premium newsletter has been slashed in half and is now available for only $9.95 per month. © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Al-Qaida's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders and documents. As first revealed last week in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND, Osama bin Laden is planning what he calls an "American Hiroshima," the ultimate terrorist attack on U.S. cities, using nuclear weapons already smuggled into the country across the Mexican border along with thousands of sleeper agents. The series of attacks is designed to kill 4 million, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history. At least two fully assembled and operational nuclear weapons are believed to be hidden in the United States already, according to G2 Bulletin intelligence sources and an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams. The cities chosen as optimal targets are New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, D.C. New York and Washington top the preferred target list for al-Qaida leadership. Bin Laden's goal, according to G2 Bulletin sources, is to launch one initial attack, followed by a second on another city to simulate the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The optimal dates for the attacks are Aug. 6, the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, Sept. 11 and May 14, the anniversary of the re-creation of the state of Israel in 1948. No specific year has been suggested, however, this Aug. 6 represents the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. The captured terrorists and documents also suggest smaller attacks may take place on American soil before the nuclear incidents. They may include some involving automatic weapons at schools and shopping malls, but will not include any airplane hijackings. Why? Because bin Laden does not want any failed efforts to overshadow "the success of Sept. 11." There will also not be any attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants. The rationale? The nuclear power plants can act as force multipliers when the weapons of mass destruction are detonated. Another requirement dictated from the top at al-Qaida is that the attacks take place in daylight, so that the whole world will be able to see the images of a mushroom cloud over an American city. One of the sources for the information is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, who is now in U.S. custody. As previously reported by G2 Bulletin, al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market. U.S. military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces "Spetznaz" troops to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons planted in the U.S. during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years. Al-Qaida sources indicate they would prefer to use Russian-made weapons for symbolic reasons. The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan." At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies. But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan. According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S. "Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone." According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America. However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack. Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S. Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses. According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan. Subscribe to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin |
What fallout? You know how many bombs were detonated above ground in the 50's and 60s by us, Russia, China, England, and France? We detonated about a THOUSAND ourselves. The majority in the Continental US (Nevada). Where are the dead bodies? The hoards of mutants and cancer victims? You have to be a LOT closer to a nuclear explosion both in time and space to be affected. |
They're just here to do the work Americans won't. |
| We can't justify nuking a terrorist enemy if they are surrounded by other people. Say they're hiding in a city. We can't afford to nuke said city because then we are killing unarmed civilians, and that will not help us. Also, we have to be careful to make sure we're doing it out of American national interests and not simply lashing out because of wounded pride/anger. Nukes are a strategic weapon, meant for use when fighting a open war with another country. Terrorists, by definition are on a much smaller level than this. So I would say don't nuke them, and simply start a covert operation to hunt down and eliminate/capture the terrorists. I'd say let the CIA conduct some assassinations. It would be different if another country chose to nuke us (that's a different type of threat) and we launched a counterattack. However, in a nuclear environment, nukes will not be the only (or the most important) way the war is fought. They may be a replacement for bombers and the like when total destruction is needed, but conventional forces will always play a much larger role. The international community would never let us live it down if we nuked a bunch of civilians while trying to kill one of our enemies, and after a nuclear attack, we would want said community to stand behind us and provide aid. It's better if we look like the good guys and we can get the whole free world united in hunting down whoever did it. |
Those who know the official protocol in a professional capacity are almost certainly prohibited from talking about it, but people with more knowledge than I have about military diplomacy would probably be able to make reasonable statements. Jim |
Well that assumes you care about who else you kill and are not just out to eliminate the threat in the quickest, cheepest way possible. The asumption is that after a nuke attack on a US city we will be beyond caring. The only way to short circut it would be if the Islamic countries got togeather and caughed up the terrorists themselves, and suppressed (or just killed) any elements in their society that continued to advertise jihad. |
And that would be a tall order to fullfill within the flight time of an ICBM. 
|
Killing terrorists is in our national interests. Now...how are the terror boyz living inside that city? Are they known? Is it Mecca...Damascus? The exact location will depend on how they are killed. Collateral casualties are a nasty byproduct of war. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German citizens killed by carpet bombing in WW II.
WRONG! Nuclear weapons inventories include many different types of tactical weapons, used for all sorts of varying targets. Anti-sub depth bombs, anti-air missile warheads, anti-armor rockets...the list is actually quite long. Some weapons actually can be used for either purpose. For example, the B-57 has a "dial-a-yield" capability and can be used as lay-down, air burst, or as an ocean depth bomb against shipping. The B-61 bomb is also multipurpose and capable of busting a bunker complex with a very low yield or destroying a city with a thermonuclear two-stage explosion.
Good luck! Try putting a CIA or spec ops team into Indian Country! Are you DREAMING! That's like Bill Clinton and his band of morons telling the world they considered this war on terror (pre-9/11) to be a LAW ENFORCEMENT operation. He sicced Janet RENO on the terrorists for God's sake!!! Now THAT was a brilliant idea!  Look how well she and the FBI boyz did in capturing the BGs.
Excuse me? LIVE IT DOWN!!! The ROW isn't going to let us LIVE IT DOWN!!!  PULLEEEAASE! We tried asking for their help in running down the terror boyz and the ROW basically told us to fuck off! WE are the only ones who can protect our Constitution and our lives. The Euroweenies certainly aren't interested.Finally...I could not care LESS what the ROW thinks of us. I care far more about my family, friends, neighbors and fellow American lives than I care about how the ROW "feels" about us and our behavior. Get off of that shit! Nobody like us. They fear us...they envy us...but they don't like us. One thing tho...they DAMN WELL RESPECT US...for our STRENGTH, not our other more likeable characteristics. Hell, even our altruism after the big wave got jammed up our ass. We tried to help and they said FU! |
wrong... The tomahawk is a tactical weapon. Ballistic missiles armed with mirv's are a strategic weapon, thus part of the Start treaty. ie, SLBM (Sub Launched Ballistic missile) and ICBM's (Intercontenental Ballistic Missiles). tactical weapons were not the focus of the START or SALT treaties. There is a big difference between a nuke on a tomahawk, as in Low yield detonation, and an ICBM or SLBM with multiple warheads all in the serious megatonnage range and are Thermonuclear weapons, as in Hydrogen bombs. If a low order of detonation device was set off in the US or in one of its protectorates, such as PR, it would most likely be a smallish weapon aquired and used by a terrorist organization, and our response would unfortunately have to be tempered in order to not start global issues, both political and militarily. Meaning that we couldn't nuke Iran if the Hezbolah set off a device in the US, even though they are state sponsors of such things. It would only serve to inflame the martyrs and cause more retribution. A proportional response would be to conventionally bomb the shit out of every terrorist camp known to the intelligence community as well as take out some apartments and houses of known terrorists. NOW if a device was set off in the US and responsibility layed upon a STATE/Country's political or military leadership, then look out, The American people would settle for nothing less than an equal if not slightly greater response, as in say if WA was hit with a low to medium yield device that was man or truck portable (they would have to get into the country first). Then our government would see that as an act of war sponsored/sanctioned by a foriegn government and we would have every right to retaliate with a seriously high yield device, of course after proper notice was given to the country.. You see, in todays world, the US just wouldn't nuke an entire city without first allowing the civilian population time to evacuate. World opinion just wouldn't look to kindly on an unannouced nuke drop from a B1 or B2. Remember that after all is said and done, the US would have to come out looking like the good guy (hey we warned them to get the fuck out of Tehran) because the shit will hit the fan in the UN if we didn't do what we could to cut down the collateral damage. Of course this was different back in WWII. |
|
LWilde, while I normally agree with you, I disagree on this one. The problem is the terrorist network doesn't have a home address for us to turn into a crater. Until they do, nuclear weapons are NOT the weapon of choice, because the political fallout (pun intended) IS worth considering. As a career missileer and (hopefully) a future ICBM squadron commander, I can tell you that nukes of ANY sort cannot, and will not, be used against a city full of innocents as retribution for a terrorist nuclear strike against the US. Unless there are CRYSTAL clear links to a state, as in a prime minister, king, or head mullah getting on national TV and saying "WE DID IT," we're not going to vaporize a bunch of innocent men, women and children just to get some back. Look how many people hate us for starting a conventional war against Iraq when we had clear evidence of both terrorist sponsorship, links to 9/11, sufficient warning to Saddam to knock off the bufoonery and comply with UN sanctions, and when he showed an active desire to continue creating WMD. Now multiply that times a billion as the entire world reacts in horror to the mushroom clouds we produce. Want to really kick off Round 9 of the Crusades? Piss off every Muslim in the world by torching one of their cities. Much as it would be personally satisfying to keyturn on such a mission, the professional nuclear warrior in me would be hard pressed to obey such an order. One of the things they drill into us time and time again is that executing our mission has moral, physical, and political consequences, and that our actions will cause the deaths of thousands, if not millions. I could not, in good conscience, easily vaporize an entire city of innocents unless it was clear to me that A) that state sponsored the mission which cost us a city; B) that city was used to directly support that mission; and C) that city had additional military value as a target (WMD facilities nearby that need destroying, etc). ETA: Cry-Havoc--point of order--the B1 hasn't been nuclear capable since the mid-90s--we traded away their nuclear capability under START so we could better utilize them as conventional bombers. |
Frankly I don't care what the enemy thinks...no matter how many of them there are. Their feelings about me mean nothing. In fact I don't care what ANYONE in the world thinks about us. As I've said, our sufvival is what concerns me. Next, the precedent of mass killing of "innocent" non-combatants was set in WW II with with the total destruction Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin, Tokyo, and many other major urban areas in both Japan and Germany. The sad fact of warfare is that Sherman was right: If you want to END a war...to remove an enemy's ability to wage war, then you MUST not only defeat his foreces in the field, you MUST completely destroy his infrastructure at home and kill enough of the supporting home population to ensure collapse of his ability to make war upon you. As gruesome as that sounds, it is a trueism as practiced by your service. Just ask an old SAC general. Many years ago, I too was a "key turner" albeit on a tactical system. I agree with part of your statement. I disagree WRT you having a say in the decision making process. WADR, your perception of the "clarity" of the mission is meaningless in the grand scheme of things...and if you have a problem with that then you should opt out of the PRP. As you well know, if you receive an authenticated EAM and a launch order, you MUST carry it out. And the reason? Because folks who we elected, who are in a position to KNOW, who have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution have decided that armegeddon is here and that the survival of the United States depends on YOU and the rest of the men and women who will carry out the SIOP to do their jobs, regardless of how disgusting, perverted, satanic and horrible it is! I too would shudder at the thought of being part of the killings of millions and trust me, it would be millions...BUT, as I've already said, my country, you, my fellow citizens, my friends and my family are more important to me than those folks who wish us dead. I'd turn that key...then seek out the shrink and sky pilot. Sorry...that is just the way it is. You know it too. God help us ALL if you ever get that EAM and it fails to include "EXCERCISE,---EXERCISE---EXERCISE" in the message header and at the end. I pray that you will never have to break open your biscuits...but if that horrific day ever comes, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse arrive to incinerate millions of people mostly innocents, then I also pray that you and your fellow missileers will carry out your orders. BTW...thanks for keeping watch! 
|
Agree, but I bet we can make it look like "they" had an accident with "their" nuclear crap and went off. OOPS! |
|
I wouldn't nuke them. Don't want to deal with fallout. Instead I'd give the the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Pakistan 3 days to fill their largest soccer stadium with the heads (no body attached) of all Islamic fanatics in their country. If they refuse, kill the leadership with JDAM GPS guided bombs and give the Wahabi mosques taste of Bigeye nerve gas bombs. A couple million casualties later, no Islamic country would dare cross the US. |
|
If we are nuked, and do not reply because of fear of killing innocents, then we have absolutely ZERO credibility in our deterent. ZERO. What's the difference between nuking Tehran because some scumbag set off a nuke in DC, or wiping Beijing off the planet because they lobbed a nuke at Honolulu? ZERO. In the first case, we wipe out a few tens of thousands of innocents who had nothing to do with it, but probably agree with it. In the second case, we wipe out a few million who also had nothing to do with it and probably didn't even KNOW about it. Besides, if Haji can nuke us and get away with it, then so can China, Russia, North Korea, France, and anyone else. All they need to do is get it HERE, and we all know how secure our borders are.  No, the action plan needed here is what Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Any launch from Cuba means a launch by Russia and an immediate retaliation. We should go right out and say what Tancredo said. "If the United States or one of its allies is attacked by terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction OR ITS EQUIVALENT, we will immediately respond by obliterating any nation we so much as suspect had a role or knowledge of it. Period." Those countries that are truly innocent will be VERY quick to make sure that we don't confuse them with the bad guys, and that only HELPS us. It also gives those cowardly rats in the turbans and the bomb belts a moments pause, because it's one thing to blow yourself up; it's quite another to know your entire world will be incinerated if you play ball too rough. It CERTAINLY doesn't help if they KNOW we won't respond! So I say we make it crystal clear to the world that we will come out seriously swinging for the parking lot if something nasty goes boom in our front yard. My biggest fear is they'll do it during the State of the Union or something. VERY bad juju. ETA: Oh, and if we don't want to use nukes because of radiation and fallout, fine. Break out the Vx and the Sarin and bug spray the motherfuckers to paradise. When it's one of OUR cities lying in smouldering ruin, and millions of OUR children wailing in pain because of burns, do you really think I'm going to give a rat's ass about THEIRS? 
|