Special military measures to counter terrorism.




 
--
Special military measures to counter terrorism.
 
July 9th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 

Topic: Special military measures to counter terrorism.


Special military measures to counter terrorism.
I've hesitated a little bit as whether to post this in here or under the Military Related.
I wanted to ask what you guys think about possible "special laws" that might eventually be carried out.
I'm not saying we are getting anywhere close to a police state or a martial law state in our cities in the west (the US had 3,000 dead but didnt go stricter than the Patriot Act, anyways.
I'm saying - that's because I've been hearing people here commenting upon this ,and as you know my country has been on al Qaeda's shit list for years now - that in the hypothesis that al Qaeda will increase their attacks on our countries and facilities and cities and civilians in the next future we might... Would we ever hand power over to the military? Not likely.
But in such a case (a nuclear blast wipes off Milan, a biological one kills hundreds of thousands in another country, I mean if they raise the stake) what would happen?
I mean do you really think a regular system could bear an impact like a nuclear attack on a city? Wouldnt special measures be called out for?
I'm talking more about Europe than I am about the US here.
And in that case, how would you think it would work?
Would the military occupy our streets? Would transnational movements be almost blocked? How about justice and related laws?
Let's try to keep this on the most realistic level possible.
Thank you guys.
July 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
In the case you're citing (massive devastating attack) I think any country would enact special military enabling laws. Politicians realize that the best people to deal with such actions are the military and would be foolish not to do so.

I don't think you'd see this:

"They nuked Rome! Gee, I hope they send some politicians!"
July 11th, 2005  
DTop
 
 
I would think that any country would take whatever measures necessary to insure the safety of their citizens. What's the old proverb? "Desperate times call for desperate measures" .
I think those measures can and should be taken without handing power over to anyone. I don't know about Italy but here in the US, the military ultimately answers to the civilian authorities.
--
Special military measures to counter terrorism.
July 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
I don't know about Italy but here in the US, the military ultimately answers to the civilian authorities.
Same as here, but thats why I said it would be in case of a large and massive attack - say, a nuclear attack.
July 12th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
I don't see how a country could not declare Martial Law if it came under a nuclear attack by terrorists, at the very least the affected city and surrounding country side would have to be evacuated and the military would have the best means for removing the people as fast as possible.

Here is how I feel about this.

If terrorist use nukes on a western city the gloved come off. No more holding back, no more of this petty squabbling between the US, UK, France and Germany over how to best execute the War on Terror. Hell, no more UN involvement for that matter. (This being because I feel that North Korea would be the most likely supplier of a nuke and China would block any UN action against North Korea.) The EU and NATO would have to work together on this, the Special Forces of France, Germany, Italy, UK and America should be given all but a free hand to deal with the terrorists. Special funding set aside (oh shoot, some Islamic "charity" groups might have to take a hit) to deal with the new war, rationing of fuel perhaps. From what I have seen the governments of the middle east are doing nothing to crack down on terrorist organizations in their countries. I think it is time that the collective might of Europe and America work together as one and make the tough choices which to me seems to be the full scale invasion of several middle eastern countries, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan most notably. This war would probably last decades, occupation of essentially the entire middle east would sap nations of their resources, however the safety of billions of people is well worth it.

Now, I am sure I sounded racist in that, assuming that it would be a Muslim Terrorist group to commit the attack and then to suggest that the whole middle east must be forced to pay, well tough luck. We live in a world where ideologically driven maniacs can kill thousands and then slip into a country where we can't follow them because of political niceties.
July 12th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Now, I am sure I sounded racist in that, assuming that it would be a Muslim Terrorist group to commit the attack and then to suggest that the whole middle east must be forced to pay, well tough luck. We live in a world where ideologically driven maniacs can kill thousands and then slip into a country where we can't follow them because of political niceties.
So you are saying the christian fundamentalists should invade the middle east to tackle muslim fundamentalists and in the process backrupt ourselves, while removing any checks and balances on shall we say NATO's military forces ie making the west an effective police state all because hypothetically North Korea has sold "terrorists" a nuke?

Can I ask what asia (you know the location of the largest muslim society in the world) is doing while the "US and Europe" is attacking mulims around the middle east?

Maybe we need a nifty catch phrase for all this, something like "Indianna Jones and the 7th Crusade"

Once again I will try and pass on a theory that terrorism will never be defeated soley by force of arms, oppression and the destruction of peoples beliefs as in most cases that only fuels it.
July 12th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
I'm with Damien on this. I cant add anything, I just share your views on the matter: Monty, we were talking about what would happen in case of a terrorist nuclear attack.