If terrorism goes nuclear/biological, then what?




 
--
Boots
 
July 18th, 2005  
Duty Honor Country
 
 

Topic: If terrorism goes nuclear/biological, then what?


Back in 96, a friend and I had basically predicted 9/11 but we got it wrong in one aspect. We both thought the US would face a nuke or bio attack in NYC. One pound of uranium and 1 pound plutonium would reek havoc in NYC. I remember reading a Newsweek feature on a nuke attack and its effects on a large city. As I watched the 2nd tower come crashing down, I had different thoughts on the subject. While my fellow Americans reacted in shock and surprise that we were attacked, I thought "I never saw the airplane threat."

Today a congressman made a few comments in regards to a terrorist nuke attack against the US.

read about it

My thoughts turn to what would life be like if the USA or any western country was hit by a nuke or bio terrorist attack.
July 18th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ic.php?t=13232

I think it would depend on the country attacked. The US wouldnt have to carry out many changes as far as lifestyle of people's awareness. Other countries like Europe would change a lot.
July 22nd, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
There is a Dominique de La Pierre & Larry Collins book called " Burns New York" wich also predicts this kinda event. Pretty scary. They predict that the nuke will arrive in a US harbour. it is amazing that only 1% of the boxes that arrive to the harbours are inspected.
--
Boots
July 22nd, 2005  
Locke
 
 
its strange that it took terrorists so long to make the logical progression from hijacking and threatening to kill to hijacking and crashing.
strange is a sad, disgusted, all up kind of way.

im suprised that they keep acting directly against people, you want to seriously get to people, do something to thier water supply or other needs. i mean, all they are doing is causing terror, not actually affecting how people act, other than arousing suspicion
July 28th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Since there are no particular countries to target, I guess we will have to go for the Holy places. I think Mecca will probably be like Nagasaki, after a warning shot at a less important target.
July 28th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
I really don't think Mecca and/or Medina are viable targets. Since Saudi Arabia maintains control of these cities. It also seems rather unjust to me to punish an entire faith for the actions of radicals.

I do believe that the states that support and epouse terroristic attacks or give only the bare lip service of supporting the war on terror Syria, Iran, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan, and some others could stand by.
July 28th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
I really don't think Mecca and/or Medina are viable targets. Since Saudi Arabia maintains control of these cities. It also seems rather unjust to me to punish an entire faith for the actions of radicals.

I do believe that the states that support and epouse terroristic attacks or give only the bare lip service of supporting the war on terror Syria, Iran, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan, and some others could stand by.
Do you not think that innocent people will be punished in a city that gets bombed? I personally can't point to a certain country that punishes or stops these hate-speech clerics. If I could hear "moderate" Muslims speaking out against the "radicals", then I'd feel a little better about the "good" Muslim, "bad" Muslim conflict of interests. There is a deafening silence. Besides, we're talking catastrophic circumstances. If a nuke is used in the US, religion will have to take a back seat to Human lives.

Bring me Bin-Laden's head along with Zarqawi's and I'll think someone is on our side of the argument.
July 28th, 2005  
Locke
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer

If I could hear "moderate" Muslims speaking out against the "radicals", then I'd feel a little better about the "good" Muslim, "bad" Muslim conflict of interests. There is a deafening silence.
*cough*
Muslims leaders asked to preach peace
July 28th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
I really don't think Mecca and/or Medina are viable targets. Since Saudi Arabia maintains control of these cities. It also seems rather unjust to me to punish an entire faith for the actions of radicals.

I do believe that the states that support and epouse terroristic attacks or give only the bare lip service of supporting the war on terror Syria, Iran, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan, and some others could stand by.
Do you not think that innocent people will be punished in a city that gets bombed? I personally can't point to a certain country that punishes or stops these hate-speech clerics. If I could hear "moderate" Muslims speaking out against the "radicals", then I'd feel a little better about the "good" Muslim, "bad" Muslim conflict of interests. There is a deafening silence. Besides, we're talking catastrophic circumstances. If a nuke is used in the US, religion will have to take a back seat to Human lives.

Bring me Bin-Laden's head along with Zarqawi's and I'll think someone is on our side of the argument.

I've got not a doubt that civilians would be involved in any retalitory strike. My point is this.

IMO and IMO only. Hitting Mecca or Medina would only incite more moderate or border line Muslims to the radical side. Then it would truely be an attack on the foundations of Islam (in their eyes). Compounding the problem.

Now on the other hand if you target the mosques of the radical Imams on Friday and let them and their lackies suck on a couple smart bombs. I'm all for that.
July 28th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
I've got not a doubt that civilians would be involved in any retalitory strike. My point is this. IMO and IMO only. Hitting Mecca or Medina would only incite more moderate or border line Muslims to the radical side. Then it would truely be an attack on the foundations of Islam (in their eyes). Compounding the problem.

Now on the other hand if you target the mosques of the radical Imams on Friday and let them and their lackies suck on a couple smart bombs. I'm all for that.
Actually, I was speaking of Western civilians to press the point that the West has been and will continue to be the targets. We don't have 500 or 1000 years to try to win Islam back from the ones who have hijacked it from Muslims. There is no negotiating with the radicals. They have scared the moderates so badly by violence that they are afraid to speak out.

As far as an International Islamic Cleric body asking for an end to violence, they are not preaching to the people whereas Zarqawi's group is and gains much more support from normal people.

I wasn't advocating the indiscriminate bombing of Holy places like Bin-Laden did in Afghanistan when he took artillery to Buddhist Statues. There must be a strong message given to all Muslims first that the violence must stop in these countries or we will strike at the foundation of their religion. Maybe then the moderates will find their strength and put the murderers out of business. I pray that is the path taken. By the way, I studied under Buddhist Monks for years when I was young and still am influenced by their teachings and paths of enlightenment. Buddhism and Hinduism which are similar in the same way that Christianity and Judaism are. I say that because Hindus believe that all religions are right and are just different paths to the same place or state of being with God but I don't see any of them trying to eradicate all other views on the right path.