A Nuke Detonates in The United States.....

[Tony]

....destroying a big city, it is discovered an islamic terrorist group is responsible. What would be the response? What would the american people want? And how would the government change the way it pursued terrorists?

[Zero]

From a logical standpoint, it doesn't matter if it a nuke or a machine gun. You go after those directly responsible. Unfortunately, people are generally irrational, and would likely react in irrational ways.

[HarryKeogh]

most Americans would want a nuclear response. hell, many Americans wanted a nuclear response after 9/11.

actually I wanted one too the first few hours after the planes hit but fortunately I came back to reality.

[fishbob]

Bomb Iraq.

[Zero]

Originally posted by fishbob
Bomb Iraq. No, we've already done that...bomb Syria?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
....destroying a big city, it is discovered an islamic terrorist group is responsible. What would be the response? What would the american people want? And how would the government change the way it pursued terrorists?

I am sure that your reasons for asking such a question satisfy you, but I am mystified by them.

In any event, I suggest that you study what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, and Japan in order to see how the USA would respond to such an attack.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow

In any event, I suggest that you study what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, and Japan in order to see how the USA would respond to such an attack.

When did islamic terrorists detonate a nuke in said countries?

[Luke T.]

It depends on what city was nuked.

New York: Nuke Damascus, Pyongyang, and Teheran

Miami: Nuke Havana

Washington, D.C.: Nuke Moscow. (Old habits die hard)

Cleveland: Nuke Cleveland again, just to be sure.

Los Angeles: Nuke the whales

[Hexxenhammer]

Terrorists nuke the US. Jerry Falwell blames gays and the Massachusettes Supreme Court.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony


When did islamic terrorists detonate a nuke in said countries?

They did not in those countries.

Nor did they detonate nukes in any other countries. In fact, there have not been any terrorists to detonate a nuclear bomb anywhere in the world.

However, every country that has made a major attack on the USA (or even precieved to be a major threat in the future) for over 100 years now has been attacked, invaded, and occupied by the USA.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow

However, every country that has made a major attack on the USA (or even precieved to be a major threat in the future) for over 100 years now has been attacked, invaded, and occupied by the USA.

Indeed, but I think we all can agree that nuclear weapons and the detonation of them is such a way is unprecedented and completely different from the instance you mention above.

[fishbob]

No, we've already done that...bomb Syria? But bombing Iraq works so well. Why change from what is tried and true?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by fishbob
But bombing Iraq works so well. Why change from what is tried and true?

Because the chairman of Halliburton wouldn't like it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by fishbob
But bombing Iraq works so well. Why change from what is tried and true? I'm not sure that Halliburton can get any more kickbacks from Kuwait, so it is time to move on.

[Luke T.]

Did you guys know that if you take the sentence "Because the chairman of Halliburton wouldn't like it" and run it through an online translator into Italian and then German and then Spanish and then back to English, it comes out "I'm not sure that Halliburton can get any more kickbacks from Kuwait, so it is time to move on?"

It only takes a minute.

:D :D :D

[Michael Redman]

According to Ann Coulter, the liberal response would be to nuke the rest of the US.

[Hutch]

OK, let's say it happens, a coastal city (say Boston) is taken out by a nuke smuggled aboard a Container ship that was docked in the harbor. Hundreds of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands more maimed/injured, incalculable economic damage and the nation transfixed to the TV for days on end. Now what happens?

First reaction is to hit someone--anyone--HARD. Perfectly natural human reaction, I think. Question is who do we hit. So we go sifting through the charred ruins for evidence and have intelligence agencies running down every lead and not being too gentle about it. Rest of world pitches in, both those that are our friends and those that know it is best to be sympathetic when the big guy is aroused.

So given that (1) terrorists did it and (2) terrorists do not have the ability to construct a nuclear weapon (at least at this time it still requires a State to provide the infrastructure), then (3) therefore they stole or bought it. But from whom?

Here's some possibilities, what does the US do?

a. The terrorists stole the bomb from Russia and smuggled it onto a freighter in Lebanon that flys the Panamanian flag. So who do we hit? Nuke Russia? I don't think Putin would be happy about that.

b. The terrorists bought the bomb from corrupt Russian officials and smuggled it into the US via Damascus and Aden. Bomb Syria?

For the above replace Russia with Pakistan or North Korea and the smuggling place with Dubai or Payatta, Thailand. Same problem, who do we hit?

The problem with nuking any of the three providers is that uno, they were not, as a nation, directly involved in the attack and we would be killing thousands if not millions of people who had no possible connection to the attack, and dos, they have nukes of their own and could conceivably cause us even more damage than the original attack did.

As for the points of conveyance, blowing up a city because they didn't inspect (or the inspectors were paid off) a container would seem to be an over-reaction, at least IMHO

So then we have to go after the terrorists--but as has been demonstrated, they are often hard targets to locate and nuclear retaliation is not likely to kill many terrorists or deter them. Of course, if we get lucky as we did with Afghanistan, with the terrorists being protected and supported by the Government... but I think even the worst of world's leaders have figured that lesson out. They'll want any terrorists out of their country to save their own skins.

So there we are, the people of the United States, in a near frenzy to lash out, but with no real target to lash out at, at least without the risk of even more substantinal damage. It is a most interesting exercise you have posited, Tony...and one that also scares the h-e-double toothpicks out of me.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony


Indeed, but I think we all can agree that nuclear weapons and the detonation of them is such a way is unprecedented and completely different from the instance you mention above.

Unprecedented: Yes, it would be.

Completely different: No, it would not be.

One nuke, no matter where it went off, would not be enough to stop the military of the USA.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It depends on what city was nuked.

Cleveland: Nuke Cleveland again, just to be sure.


LOL. Good one, Luke.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Crossbow


However, every country that has made a major attack on the USA (or even precieved to be a major threat in the future) for over 100 years now has been attacked, invaded, and occupied by the USA.

Soviet Union, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iran? Or does opening a branch of Macdonalds count as invasion and occupation?

That said if a bunch of Saudi based Islamic fanatics purchased a Russian nuke from a corrupt air force colonel and shipped it into New York on a container vessel you would have a bit of a problem deciding on retaliation. Still, looking on the bright side, you wouldn't have to worry about UN resolutions cramping your style. Given that the organisation would have been vaporised.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Completely different: No, it would not be.

One nuke, no matter where it went off, would not be enough to stop the military of the USA.

This indicates that you don’t understand the questions. I know a nuke would not stop the US military, but how would such an occurrence change our country in terms of policy, culture and the way we pursued our enemies?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Crossbow
However, every country that has made a major attack on the USA (or even precieved to be a major threat in the future) for over 100 years now has been attacked, invaded, and occupied by the USA.

Oh come on. We never occupied Cuba or the Soviet Union.

[Thanz]

No one so far has mentioned what the economic effects of such an attack would be. I think it would be nothing short of devastating, especially for the shipping container scenario.

First, there are costs of rebuilding, etc., as well as whatever armed response there would be. More importantly is the effect on international trade. There would be huge clamouring for the inspection of all shipping containers, etc., that are brought to the US. Given the sheer volume of containers, trade would grind to a halt. Products produced in the cheap labour markets overseas would suddenly become much more expensive, if you could get them at all. Inflation would be a huge concern.

The tourism industry was hit hard by 9/11, but that is nothing compared to the overall effect a nuke in a shipping container would have.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Oh come on. We never occupied Cuba or the Soviet Union.

Yes we did. Both. And we still occupy a part of Cuba.

edited to add: It wasn't the Soviet Union at the time. But then the Soviet Union never attacked us.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Yes we did. Both. And we still occupy a part of Cuba.

I don't remember USA every occupying Soviet Union. US forces occupied a part of Russia for a short period of time, but that was before it became Soviet Union.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't remember USA every occupying Soviet Union. US forces occupied a part of Russia for a short period of time, but that was before it became Soviet Union.

I guess I was editing my post as you wrote this...

[Luke T.]

If we are talking about the last 100 years, it is a fact, though, we never invaded or attacked the Soviet Union even though we certainly considered them a major threat, which is in Crossbow's parameters.

[Mycroft]

Am I the only one who has read The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy?

Here is a synopsis of the plot:

Palestinian-Arabs adopt passive resistance techniques, which leads to peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem becomes an international city, capital of both Palestine and Israel, Jews, Muslims and Christians all live together in peace.

Die-hard terrorist types are trying to stop this when a Palestinian-Arab farmer digs up a nuke that was lost in the 6-day war. The bomb is way too old to function, but with the fissionable material their expert bomb-maker makes a working bomb in a process that takes a couple of years and involves him going to college and taking some very specific classes on engineering and physics.

The nuke is set off at the Super Bowl. It's actually a dud, it was intended to be an H-bomb, but a failed H-bomb still produces an impressive blast.

The hero Jack Ryan spends the rest of the novel trying to stop the President of the USA from starting WWIII with Russia over the event.

In the end, after Jack Ryan saves the world, the Islamic terrorists responsible are caught and handled in traditional Islamic fashion, which involves a sword and a large crowd of people watching.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I guess I was editing my post as you wrote this...

Yup, thanks for making my post look stupid :)

edited to add: It wasn't the Soviet Union at the time. But then the Soviet Union never attacked us.

Well it all depends on what you mean by attack. Soviet pilots shot down plenty of US bombers in Korea. And who know how many AA installations were operated by soviets in Vietnam at first.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Thanz
No one so far has mentioned what the economic effects of such an attack would be. I think it would be nothing short of devastating, especially for the shipping container scenario.

First, there are costs of rebuilding, etc., as well as whatever armed response there would be. More importantly is the effect on international trade. There would be huge clamouring for the inspection of all shipping containers, etc., that are brought to the US. Given the sheer volume of containers, trade would grind to a halt. Products produced in the cheap labour markets overseas would suddenly become much more expensive, if you could get them at all. Inflation would be a huge concern.

The tourism industry was hit hard by 9/11, but that is nothing compared to the overall effect a nuke in a shipping container would have.

This scares me the more I think about it. Why? Because I don't think we are that far from this situation. The US is already talking about inspecting air cargo. They already randomly go through your luggage if you fly into the US. What is to stop the US from setting up Customs offices in all countries wanting to ship into the US and doing all the inspections on foreign soil? Think about it. Under the current paranoia, trade agreements are re-written such that all shipments destined for the US are inspected in the counrty of origin (so the nuke can go off there instead of on US soil). The delays and added costs would be huge and would benefit US producers (by raising the cost to foreign producers).

I don't think it will take a nuke for this to happen. I think it will take US manufacturers lobbying for safer imports and I think it can happen.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Am I the only one who has read The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy?

Here is a synopsis of the plot:

Palestinian-Arabs adopt passive resistance techniques, which leads to peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem becomes an international city, capital of both Palestine and Israel, Jews, Muslims and Christians all live together in peace.

Die-hard terrorist types are trying to stop this when a Palestinian-Arab farmer digs up a nuke that was lost in the 6-day war. The bomb is way too old to function, but with the fissionable material their expert bomb-maker makes a working bomb in a process that takes a couple of years and involves him going to college and taking some very specific classes on engineering and physics.

The nuke is set off at the Super Bowl. It's actually a dud, it was intended to be an H-bomb, but a failed H-bomb still produces an impressive blast.

The hero Jack Ryan spends the rest of the novel trying to stop the President of the USA from starting WWIII with Russia over the event.

In the end, after Jack Ryan saves the world, the Islamic terrorists responsible are caught and handled in traditional Islamic fashion, which involves a sword and a large crowd of people watching.

Is that really the plot line? I'm so glad I read Robert Ludlum as a teenager instead.

Jason Bourne could easily beat up Jack Ryan.

[Zep]

How about the scenario where some rogue Saudis hijack some commuter jets and fly them into New York's highest skyscrapers, at the behest of another rogue Saudi on some crazy religious mission. What response to take?

I know! Bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq - that makes perfect sense, doesn't it.

But naw...it would never happen like that, could it...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
How about the scenario where some rogue Saudis hijack some commuter jets and fly them into New York's highest skyscrapers, at the behest of another rogue Saudi on some crazy religious mission. What response to take?

I know! Bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq - that makes perfect sense, doesn't it.

But naw...it would never happen like that, could it...

Ok, including the benefit of hindsight what would you have done?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nikk


Soviet Union, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iran? Or does opening a branch of Macdonalds count as invasion and occupation?

That said if a bunch of Saudi based Islamic fanatics purchased a Russian nuke from a corrupt air force colonel and shipped it into New York on a container vessel you would have a bit of a problem deciding on retaliation. Still, looking on the bright side, you wouldn't have to worry about UN resolutions cramping your style. Given that the organisation would have been vaporised.

Er, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, and Iran never actually attacked the USA.

They did attack its military, its overseas installations, and its allies, but they never actually attacked the USA itself.

As far as your sceanario goes, yes you may be right in that it would be difficult to decide on who to retaliate against. However, it does contain that one mighty big 'if' so I do not worry about it too much.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Oh come on. We never occupied Cuba or the Soviet Union.

You might want to double-check that!

One of the biggest US Naval bases in the world is in Cuba.
However, you are correct in stating that we never occupied the Soviet Union.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony


This indicates that you don’t understand the questions. I know a nuke would not stop the US military, but how would such an occurrence change our country in terms of policy, culture and the way we pursued our enemies?

True enough! I did not understand what you were asking so thanks for finally clarifying it.

Still, I doubt that such an attack would really change how the USA persued its interests and its enemies.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Hutch
Here's some possibilities, what does the US do?

a. The terrorists stole the bomb from Russia and smuggled it onto a freighter in Lebanon that flys the Panamanian flag. So who do we hit? Nuke Russia? I don't think Putin would be happy about that.

b. The terrorists bought the bomb from corrupt Russian officials and smuggled it into the US via Damascus and Aden. Bomb Syria?

For the above replace Russia with Pakistan or North Korea and the smuggling place with Dubai or Payatta, Thailand. Same problem, who do we hit?

Depends. I think one of the immediate responses will be seizure of the throughport and many or all nuclear facilities of the source country (of the nuke, that is). Seizure could mean a lot of different things (perhaps it isn't the best word, but):

1) Russia. If a nuke comes from Russia, I think we can expect partial or total international control of Russia nuclear sites. The Russian government has been trying to get international help for this anyway (they are well aware of their terrible security).

2) North Korea. Invasion is the most likely scenario. North Korea "accidently" losing a nuke is much more dubious (they have a much smaller stockpile, if any, and better security). Given that we are/were on terrible terms with them anyway, I think invasion is almost inevitable.

3) Pakistan. Ugly, ugly ugly. India will get royally pissed. I think we're looking at a response between the level of Russia and North Korea, but probably an increase in Pakistani/Indian violence, possible trade sanctions, and an international presence at facilities.

For the foreign seaports, I generally agree with the responses of others in the thread. Highly increased US/International inspection/security presence.

My 2 cents.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Ok, including the benefit of hindsight what would you have done? OK, you asked. I analogised the situation a few months back as a "bull in a china shop" scenario.

The USA is the big bull, the china shop is the world. The bull has been stung by a wasp (9/11) and it frigging hurts, but not so much that it would kill the bull. The bull, seeking to stomp on the wasp, then bellows loudly and stamps around the shop smashing up completely unrelated stuff everywhere and making a thorough mess of the whole shop (bombing Afghanistan, invading Iraq). And in the process the wasp escapes completely unharmed (terrorists not eliminated).

The BETTER response would have been a single shot of well-directed insect-spray (the equivalent of a well-researched directed operation against the true protagonists) which would have hurt no-one but the nasty insects. This would have been well within the capability of the USA to research, organise, provision and execute, and would have received almost universal support.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Er, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, and Iran never actually attacked the USA.

They did attack its military, its overseas installations, and its allies, but they never actually attacked the USA itself.

Unfortunately, you said "However, every country that has made a major attack on the USA (or even precieved to be a major threat in the future) for over 100 years now has been attacked, invaded, and occupied by the USA."

[dsm]

Originally posted by Zep
How about the scenario where some rogue Saudis hijack some commuter jets and fly them into New York's highest skyscrapers, at the behest of another rogue Saudi on some crazy religious mission. What response to take?

I know! Bomb Afghanistan and invade Iraq - that makes perfect sense, doesn't it.

But naw...it would never happen like that, could it...

Okay, how about the scenario where the "greatest criminal mind on earth" steals two nuclear missiles and fires one at New Jersey and one at the San Andreas fault. And then....

Nah, could never happen...

:p

(What about the scenario where terrorists steal an American nuke? ;) )

[Brian]

The thought of this whole thing getting blown to hell still creeps me out. I remember being 12 years old in the 80's and cringing at night when a jet flew over the house. Thought it was going to be the day after.

It's almost worse now. Most major nuclear powers are stable enough to be trusted. No matter what happens they won't start the end of the world, they won't shoot first anyway. Trouble is, now some fanatic could drive a nuke into D.C. in a Buick.
At that point it doesn't matter who gets hit, or trying to decide who gets hit. It's pretty much all over.
Ah well. Drink the beer, hope for the best.

[American]

Originally posted by Tony
....destroying a big city, it is discovered an islamic terrorist group is responsible. What would be the response? What would the american people want? And how would the government change the way it pursued terrorists?


Like on 9-11-01, the left would shut up for half a day for fear of their own lives. That moment of silence would be plenty of consolation for the loss of a city or two.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by American
Like on 9-11-01, the left would shut up for half a day for fear of their own lives. That moment of silence would be plenty of consolation for the loss of a city or two.
Whereas the right would immediately kill every foreigner in sight then pat themselves on the back for "responding to terrorism".

Come now, American, can't we do better than these wildly skewed caricatures of left and right? I have a hard time believing there are truly people as one-dimensional as you.

[Zep]

Originally posted by dsm


Okay, how about the scenario where the "greatest criminal mind on earth" steals two nuclear missiles and fires one at New Jersey and one at the San Andreas fault. And then....

Nah, could never happen...

:p

(What about the scenario where terrorists steal an American nuke? ;) ) One...MILLION...dollars!!! Ah ha ha ha ha ha!

http://www.cruftbox.com/cruft/images/dr_evil.jpg

[Regnad Kcin]

Dr. Evil? I believe he was referring to that other bald criminal mastermind, Lex Luthor! (Sure, it's easy to get them confused. That's why I'm here.)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by dsm

(What about the scenario where terrorists steal an American nuke? ;) )
Nuke Cleveland?

[Cain]

I thought the "Bomb Iraq" response was cute -- and on target.

The International Court of Justice -- sometimes called the World Court -- you know, the body we ignore -- issued an advisory opinion to the General Assembly in 1996.

A. Unanimously, There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorisation of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;

B. By eleven votes to three, There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;

...

C. Unanimously, A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 is unlawful;

D. Unanimously, A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons;

E. By seven votes to seven, It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of International Law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be a stake;

...

F. Unanimously, There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.


http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1996/960708-icj-who1.html

Not that international law really applies. The U.N. has practically no enforcement power, especially when it comes to the United States.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Dr. Evil? I believe he was referring to that other bald criminal mastermind, Lex Luthor! (Sure, it's easy to get them confused. That's why I'm here.) Thank you, I stand corrected. Note: I make no claim whatsoever to be an expert on cartoon super-criminals. Only on what my daughter lets me watch from time to time.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Cain
Not that international law really applies. The U.N. has practically no enforcement power, especially when it comes to the United States. So who else does [have the power to enforce UN powers over the USA]? Since 1990 or so there has been no-one (and precious little before anyway). So it's been a wonder, really, why the USA today even bothers to try to be involved in UN matters, let alone comply with any of its rules.

Does the 800lb gorilla scenario apply here? Yep, it sure does. But 800lb gorillas don't have a lot of friends left if the sit on everybody indiscriminately.

[Dorian Gray]

It depends on what city was nuked.

New York: Nuke Damascus, Pyongyang, and Teheran

Miami: Nuke Havana

Washington, D.C.: Nuke Moscow. (Old habits die hard)

Cleveland: Nuke Cleveland again, just to be sure.

Los Angeles: Nuke the whales

State Department: Nuke Pat Robertson

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Am I the only one who has read The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy?

Here is a synopsis of the plot:

Palestinian-Arabs adopt passive resistance techniques, which leads to peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem becomes an international city, capital of both Palestine and Israel, Jews, Muslims and Christians all live together in peace.

Die-hard terrorist types are trying to stop this when a Palestinian-Arab farmer digs up a nuke that was lost in the 6-day war. The bomb is way too old to function, but with the fissionable material their expert bomb-maker makes a working bomb in a process that takes a couple of years and involves him going to college and taking some very specific classes on engineering and physics.

The nuke is set off at the Super Bowl. It's actually a dud, it was intended to be an H-bomb, but a failed H-bomb still produces an impressive blast.

The hero Jack Ryan spends the rest of the novel trying to stop the President of the USA from starting WWIII with Russia over the event.

In the end, after Jack Ryan saves the world, the Islamic terrorists responsible are caught and handled in traditional Islamic fashion, which involves a sword and a large crowd of people watching.

I´ve read it.

I´ve also read "Debt of Honor", also by Tom Clancy, in which (during a war with Japan) a Japanese airline pilot flies a commercial airliner (though without passengers) into the Capitol building, killing the president, most of the cabinet, and almost the whole Congress.

That immediately came to my mind on 9/11.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Crossbow


You might want to double-check that!

One of the biggest US Naval bases in the world is in Cuba.
However, you are correct in stating that we never occupied the Soviet Union.


Last time I looked that was a lease.

[LW]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Well it all depends on what you mean by attack. Soviet pilots shot down plenty of US bombers in Korea. And who know how many AA installations were operated by soviets in Vietnam at first.

I know that I'm a nitpicker by trade, but both of those cases sound to me more like defending against attacks than being attacks themselves.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Brian
The thought of this whole thing getting blown to hell still creeps me out. I remember being 12 years old in the 80's and cringing at night when a jet flew over the house. Thought it was going to be the day after.

Try growing up in the 60s. My elementary school had a fallout shelter, and we'd have drills where we all lined up and went down there.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony
....destroying a big city, it is discovered an islamic terrorist group is responsible. What would be the response? What would the american people want? And how would the government change the way it pursued terrorists?

Wipe out said terrorist group and all accomplices, funders, and suppliers.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Unfortunately, you said "However, every country that has made a major attack on the USA (or even precieved to be a major threat in the future) for over 100 years now has been attacked, invaded, and occupied by the USA."

I apoligize if I was unclear.

If you have a question about my post, then please ask it.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ed



Last time I looked that was a lease.

Strictly speaking, yes it is a lease.

Then again, the land used for the Panama Canal was done with a lease as well. Perhaps you should take a peek at just how the land used for the Cuban naval base was obtained.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Wipe out said terrorist group and all accomplices, funders, and suppliers.

We're trying to do that now, aren't we? Or do you think we'd become more aggressive and (perhaps) indiscriminate?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Zep
The BETTER response would have been a single shot of well-directed insect-spray (the equivalent of a well-researched directed operation against the true protagonists) which would have hurt no-one but the nasty insects. This would have been well within the capability of the USA to research, organise, provision and execute, and would have received almost universal support. I think that the Afghanistan action was about as close as you could realistically get to that. We interceded in a long, bloody civil war and brought it to an end, and knocked the Taliban out of power as a bonus. I don't think there was any less intrusive way to get US troops on the ground and in proximity to Osama and his group.

Iraq wasn't related to terrorism. I believe Bush was going to do that all along.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by richardm


We're trying to do that now, aren't we? Or do you think we'd become more aggressive and (perhaps) indiscriminate?


Good questions.

The scared and the ignorant might lash out indiscriminately, but the government (I'd like to think) would be aggressive, but focused and specifis about who and how we punish.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kodiak



Good questions.

The scared and the ignorant might lash out indiscriminately, but the government (I'd like to think) would be aggressive, but focused and specifis about who and how we punish.

This is the US government you're talking about? The current US government.

Thanks for the laugh.

Graham

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Graham


This is the US government you're talking about? The current US government.

Thanks for the laugh.

Graham

Care to refute my point, or just scoff?

The US government has been very focused on their war against Al Queda, both in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.

Though Bush and Co. was hoping for a tie between Al Queda and Iraq to "cinch the deal", they had enough motives (which some people may not agree with) even without an Al Queda connection, to invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Kodiak

The US government has been very focused on their war against Al Queda, both in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.


They have, which is why I wonder what more could be done, practically.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by richardm


They have, which is why I wonder what more could be done, practically.

Just keep the pressure on, and not waver...

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The scared and the ignorant might lash out indiscriminately, but the government (I'd like to think) would be aggressive, but focused and specifis about who and how we punish.

Hmmm. That could be taken as political doubletalk that, in the end, amounts to the same thing. An "agressive and focused government" might still be "lashing out" (semi-)indiscriminately and drum up possible motives to keep everyone focused on what might be the wrong target.

:p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm


Hmmm. That could be taken as political doubletalk that, in the end, amounts to the same thing. An "agressive and focused government" might still be "lashing out" (semi-)indiscriminately and drum up possible motives to keep everyone focused on what might be the wrong target.

:p

Very possible. Thankfully there are skeptics like ourselves and those in this forum to keep a weary eye out for just that sort of thing...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
I´ve also read "Debt of Honor", also by Tom Clancy, in which (during a war with Japan) a Japanese airline pilot flies a commercial airliner (though without passengers) into the Capitol building, killing the president, most of the cabinet, and almost the whole Congress.

Thanks.

That's the only Tom Clancy book I ever bought, and I couldn't get more than 20 pages into it without falling asleep. Now I don't have to try.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Very possible. Thankfully there are skeptics like ourselves and those in this forum to keep a weary eye out for just that sort of thing...

Fat lot of good that does. :(

99.99% of the time, we have to wait four years to vote another (potentially as bad) administration into office to (try to) prevent further "indiscriminate lashing out".

[Tricky]

The sad thing about this scenario is that it is likely to happen eventually. We've all seen what happens to technology once it becomes commonplace. That dang genie just refuses to go back into that bottle.

But our response would probably be something akin to the outrage after 9-11. We'd go out and kill some people (hopefully the right ones) and then settle back into trying to live a normal life, accepting that the word "normal" had changed meanings.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky


Come now, American, can't we do better than these wildly skewed caricatures of left and right? I have a hard time believing there are truly people as one-dimensional as you.

I didn't realize American wanted to negotiate ad nauseum with every maniac who wants to kill US citizens. It's worked so well so often in the past.

[wipeout]

Perhaps if Islamic terrorists set off a nuke in the US, then the US government would use nukes in response to make an example of a Middle-Eastern country which is suspected to have supported terrorism, using small nukes take out their military bases and center of government.

It would kill a lot of innocent military and civilians but, hey, that's always the way with retaliation.

Of course it kills a lot of Muslims, making clear the idea that if a lot of US citizens die, then a lot of Muslims die right after that, making Islamic terrorists an extreme hazard to Muslims in the Middle-East and therefore they would be hunted by other Muslims like never before.

The short-term point would be that the US government showed the American people and the world that they took action by blowing something up, the long-term point would be that fear in the country attacked and surrounding countries would give the US government far more control over the Middle-East because any government knows that if another terrorist nuke goes off, that country might be next.

It would not surprise me if the US government have already thought all this through already and even have targets in several countries chosen.

Perhaps in private they have made this clear to governments in the Middle-East in order to encourage them to stop supporting of terrorism, and this in turn might have reduced the chances of the whole scenario on the first place.

Perhaps that is what got to the Libyan government.