Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 5/21/2002 5:30:01 PM EDT
I say yes. If a terrorist organization managed to set off a conventional bomb that scattered nuclear material in the US, the US would be justified in retaliating against that organizations sponsor nation or nations with a full-on nuclear strike. Opinions?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:40:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:44:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 5:46:10 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:49:53 PM EDT
What would your target be??? That is the big question!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:51:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brouhaha: I somehow doubt any nation other than Iraq would take the chance in doing something like this.
View Quote
I think I have to add Iran and North Korea to the list. We will 'not' utilize a nuclear response if hit with a dirty bomb.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:51:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 5:54:08 PM EDT by California_Kid]
I agree that we would have to be 100% sure that we were retaliating against an appropriate target. It's hard to envision an organization pulling off a significant dirty nuke attack without complicity of a sovreign state. Of course there are some lame countries out there that could be used as campgrounds, but the acquisition of enough dangerous nuclear material to make an effective bomb would be difficult to hide. My question is whether or not a dirty nuclear device would qualify as a "first strike". Whether or not the US would actually respond with a nuclear retaliation, we should make it clear that doing so would not violate the doctrine of not being the first to attack with a nuclear device.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:51:31 PM EDT
At that point, it doesn't matter, nuke 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:52:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:56:50 PM EDT
Yeah but where do we hit? with a borderless war like this, nuke is just not a good option.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 5:56:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:08:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:09:09 PM EDT
First off, who are "they"? The mormons? I agree that I've always entertained the post 9/11 "Glass Parking Lot" theory, especially after watching the Pearl execution video - but - if we get dirty nuked, I think we could get a lot of mileage out of not responding likewise initially. We'd be greenlighted by the entire world to release the really heinous, smiley-face buttoned, right-on-top-of-you-snatching-away-your-last-breath type brutality that only the people from my country can unleash.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:09:25 PM EDT
If they want to die for Allah who are we to deny their request.Nuke em till they glow.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:11:40 PM EDT
The more I see of these people(?) the more I realise they are animals.What do you do when a animal goes bad?You have to put it down.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:15:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:16:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GreyGhost: The more I see of these people(?) the more I realise they are animals.What do you do when a animal goes bad?You have to put it down.
View Quote
Himler would love you!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:16:36 PM EDT
I really believe once Pandora box of NBC attacks are opened up, they open for both sides. States that sponsor terrorism will think twice once 3/4 of their population is wiped out. If we don't respond violently to one dirty missle attack, it only prompts them to try it again. If they resort to this, the best way to fight fire is with fire. They know are weapons are many times more powerfull than a dirty bomb, I think Saddam knows that pretty much any NBC attack on America will probably give him a permanent green hue. I would hate to think it would ever come to this, but it has to cost the enemy more to make the attack, than not too. I really believe the leadership that sponsors terrorism will not put their asses on the line. Arrafat was always willing to talk when his ass was in the sling!! And I haven't seen him strapping on any C4 ironically enough. I think this is why we have not seen a dirty nuke attack on Isreal (which I would think would be pretty likely). The response, would deservedly so, be very gruesome to the entire middle eastern region. Bush seems to have a plan to punish terrorist states in the middle east economically buy purchasing oil from Russia, who is obviously feeling the same pain the terrorist have the rest of the free world feeling. If they want to take the gloves off, by God, I say we get nasty too. I agree the target would be very difficut to sort out, and the thought behind it sucks. But doing nothing, or trying to chase them through the most difficult terrain on the planet hasn't proven overly effective.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:19:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:21:21 PM EDT
I don't think so. Nuke bomb or missile can affect the neighboring countries. Considering all the damages nukes can do, we'll most likely never see them get deployed. I'm very confident that NBC weapons will never be used against our enemies in my life time.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:27:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 6:48:16 PM EDT by Fearandloathing37]
That kind of depends on the size of the Dirty Bomb attack. There is a big difference between a Dirty Bomb That contaminates a two block area in, say Yonkers New York with 2 miliRem low level medical waste as opposed to Melting Down a Power Reactor and iradiating an area the size of Nebraska. The first Case would be a god send, for us, as it would be the perfect justification for Taking out the Iraqi and Iranian regimes, with conventional weapons. In the Second Case, All bets are off, We cannot allow that sort of attack, without Massive and immediate retaliation with nuclear weapons, The Target list should be geared not tward a specific country, but at bringing all of Islam to their knees. We airburst nuke every target in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Somolia. If it was up to me, I would call it Operation "Terrible Swift Sword". We kill about ten million Muslims, in order to save Western Culture in the 21st century. It's a simple question really, Do you want your Grandchildren's Children to live in a World Ruled by Islam? No better to get it over with now, while we are still strong, rather than put off the inevidable clash, between Islam and the West, until such time as we lose millions of Western lives and have to Kill off a third of the population of the planet, to dispose of the Islamic Threat to the Future of the World.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:30:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By California_Kid: .......we should make it clear that doing so would not violate the doctrine of not being the first to attack with a nuclear device.
View Quote
C._Kid, the United States has no 'we will not be the first to strike policy'.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:33:57 PM EDT
We need to use the threat of nuclear retaliation and be prepared to "put our money where our mouth is." I would give every Middle Eastern country the option of rounding up every terrorist within their borders and turning them over to us. And if they failed then, as President Bush put it, those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists, and a nuclear response would be made. This could consist of a "warning shot" into non populated areas, and if that doesn't get their attention then we hit a real target. We need to be firm on this. There is no way to avoid civilian casualities in all out war, in any war you fight to win. Look at what happened to Dresden and Hiroshima in WWII, and compare that to the pussy-footed war we conducted in Vietnam. If we're going to stop these people we need to bite the bullet and do it, or we're going to be dealing with half measures and enduring terrorist attacks forever. And if I were running things I'd start with Saudi Arabia. I think in the grand scheme of things Iraq is small potatoes.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:40:22 PM EDT
An appropriate application for a neutron device?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 6:57:20 PM EDT
I'm not big on a nuclear response, but on the other hand, if we didn't, every body and their brother would be itching to do it to us again. I don't think a conventional response, no matter how massive, would change their will. They got nothing worth bombing anyway and you can't even begin to kill the population with regular bombing. Anything less than a nuke with massive deaths and they could care less. They have nothing, and nothing to lose otherwise. [smash]
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:17:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Graffiti: I don't think so. Nuke bomb or missile can affect the neighboring countries. Considering all the damages nukes can do, we'll most likely never see them get deployed. I'm very confident that NBC weapons will never be used against our enemies in my life time.
View Quote
You are truly an optimist.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:18:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock: An appropriate application for a neutron device?
View Quote
The "Neutron Bomb" was an economic device.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:34:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 7:35:36 PM EDT by Yorkplates]
Originally Posted By brouhaha: First, you'd have to prove that the "sponsor" nation actually knew what was going on. I somehow doubt any nation other than Iraq would take the chance in doing something like this.
View Quote
Proof my ass! All I would need is an inkling!!! A rumor for a muslim nation!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:35:26 PM EDT
Absolutely, but a Neutron Bomb would be more appropriate. Less fallout and it won't damage important archeological digs. I don't want to glow too. Remember, it took just one US satalite burning up in the upper atmosphere, and now every living thing on Earth carries a small amount of that radioactive pollution in their bodies. Forever And there's a lot of history to discover in most of these areas that go back to the dawn of civilization. Fusing them into glass would destroy it forever.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:44:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 7:47:09 PM EDT by Arock]
Originally Posted By Sodie: Absolutely, but a Neutron Bomb would be more appropriate. Less fallout and it won't damage important archeological digs. I don't want to glow too. Remember, it took just one US satalite burning up in the upper atmosphere, and now every living thing on Earth carries a small amount of that radioactive pollution in their bodies. Forever And there's a lot of history to discover in most of these areas that go back to the dawn of civilization. Fusing them into glass would destroy it forever.
View Quote
Don't care much about things archaelogical but an atmospheric neutron device over the oilfields gets my interest. With Boots & Coots or Red Adair's old team staged to cleanup any latent exigencies.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 7:57:32 PM EDT
sounds like a good reason to develop a matter/antimatter device.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:50:28 PM EDT
Great Big Honkin Laser Sats in Orbit, Flash frying the hearts of muslim cities, Works for me.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 8:53:26 PM EDT
The hell with nukes. Can you say, Kinetic Orbital Bombardment System.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:06:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fearandloathing37: The hell with nukes. Can you say, Kinetic Orbital Bombardment System.
View Quote
K.O.B.S......LOL.....KOBS......LOL
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:34:43 PM EDT
We should have nuked those bastards already!
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:42:16 PM EDT
We need to give the bad guys a reason *not* to attack us again. Either a positive reason, we do something they want us to do, or a negative reason like we nuke Baghdad, Tehran and Beijing. We need to DO SOMETHING and soon or I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts we will be hit and hit hard. We're a large stationary target in an open field. We must be proactive. All it would take is a knife, some explosives and the will to make a point at any cost. All the animal hospitals in the USA have radioactive material to power their X-Ray machines. All unsecured. Visit a few hospitals, kill a few Animal Health Tech's. Collect a pound of this stuff. Put it in an ammo can with the C4 on an upper floor of a tall building downtown. Wait 'till high noon on a weekday. Push the button. Let the wind do the rest. Massive exposure results. Makes 9/11 seem like a hiccup. Attacks as simple as that are very hard to defend against. We'd need to become like Stalin era Russia to keep track of every possible scenario. Our modern economy couldn't stand the required changes. Riots, yes. Massive unemployment, yes. Food shortages, yes. SHTH scenario, very likely. With the above in mind I don't see how we can't nuke somebody. We simply have to. Us or them, I vote us.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:46:58 PM EDT
My thoughts exactly, Bouncy! We didn't have the balls then (well, our gubmint didn't) and probably won't after an NBC attack either.
In the Second Case, All bets are off, We cannot allow that sort of attack, without Massive and immediate retaliation with nuclear weapons, The Target list should be geared not tward a specific country, but at bringing all of Islam to their knees. We airburst nuke every target in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Somolia. If it was up to me, I would call it Operation "Terrible Swift Sword". We kill about ten million Muslims, in order to save Western Culture in the 21st century. It's a simple question really, Do you want your Grandchildren's Children to live in a World Ruled by Islam? No better to get it over with now, while we are still strong, rather than put off the inevidable clash, between Islam and the West, until such time as we lose millions of Western lives and have to Kill off a third of the population of the planet, to dispose of the Islamic Threat to the Future of the World.
View Quote
You are almost there. We should "pre announce" which moslem hellhole is going to be COMPLETELY obliterated should such an attack be made against US, our interests or Israel. I vote for Saudi.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:48:16 PM EDT
the US has a no tolerance policy on that crap. I think of it as a plane hi-jacking (conventional take over plane land it demand a benz and a helicopter ride out of harms way or everyone dies) we dont negotiate this stuff therefore you dont see many hi-jackings in the US If you send people a real strong message that it aint going to work they figure out they have nothing to gain by doing it they find a new target. I dont think dirty nukes need nuke responce but instant action is good
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:58:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 9:59:22 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By raf: Sure, if you can get [i]only[/i] the bastards who did it. [red]Other than that, you're no better than they are.[/red]
View Quote
Is that you BOG? [;)] Seriously though, why have 10,000 weapons that we have no intention of using, but WILL be used against us?
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 10:12:49 PM EDT
Yes
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 3:47:39 AM EDT
Are you kidding? We don't have the balls to put guns in our cockpits and you think we're going to nuke somebody? I just don't think our government could muster the courage to nuke these bastards (soemthing we should have done already in my opinion.) Mike
Top Top