If terrorist groups detonated a nuke in major US city...

R

rocco

Active member
how do you think USA should response? would you be for nuking every single middle eastern country?

we all know that inside mosques in saudi arabia, Iran, iraq, syria, etc etc etc etc they preach to murder israeli's and americanss. so would it be fair to turn Iran into charcoal, if they attacked america, as they are the source of atleast 80% of world terror
 
I could have sworn we have a policy just like MAD, that has "rogue" states targetted with nuclear weapons, such as Iran, North Korea, Libya... probably another.
 
Libya is off the list I think since they stopped thier porgram, HoweverAmerica would not destroy everyone..


We would asses the damage, help the people, repair the damage. THEN WE WOULD GO IN AND BLOW EVERY NATION WE HATE STRAIGHT TO.... well lets say it would end with alot of radioactive land.
 
Rather than nukes, I think the US would respond with an expanded military invasion into all enemy territories. We would have much greater allied support, plus I think we would understand that more nukes could result in ThermoNuclear war that would just have everybody letting off on everything they have targeted.
 
I wouldn't count on support anymore. All I can hear from europe is the champaign corks popping.

Who knows that could change ... after all I hear the extremists' popularity isn't really high in Holland and Flanders anymore.
 
I don't think the U.S would nuke back but they would take action and invade and hold authorities over every country it suspected.

But I think terrorists aren't even that messed up to detonate a nuclear weapon. They would even know the consequences and massive destruction would be terrible.
 
well if we were to assume it was middle eastern terrorist i think we'd be in serious trouble. that would be really interesting to see a south american terrorist group attack the US under the guise of a middle eastern group. it really wouldn't be uncommon or unlikely since terrorist networking is way too common and all of their goals seem to be the destruction of the US. either way we should respond with a serious strike against the harboring or aiding nation. if it was a state sponsored terrorist attack that would be a serious mistake on the part of that sponsoring nation. it'd be too easy to point out and nuc that place. in that situation we would be more likely to use a special weapon because the enemy would have a clear political backing. now, the more likely situation is a state supported terrorist group which would call for an intense surgical military strike.
in that situation we'd be fighting a serious uphill battle. not that the US couldn't defeat the enemy, but getting the trust and fear out of the population would be extremely difficult. even assuming the nuclear attack was "minor" and minimal amount of casualties were taken, the anarchy that it would cause could seriously throw the government into chaos also. look at the way things are now, if terrorists were to strike now with a devestating attack it would be too easy to split the nation and for people to force a new leadership into place.
 
Some day terrorists will be interested about a payback time and they will get it. What would be a better tool to have it than a cute suitcase nuke?

How many people has USA killed in Iraq? Are iraqis worse people and less worth than US's? Do you have the only right for payback and arabs haven't any?

Terrorism can't be won by fighting and war. It is an invisible enemy like ghosts. When you strike, they disappear and return to somewhere else and strike back.
 
Terrorism can't be won by fighting and war
Click to expand...

typical european liberal response... no offence.
how would you solve terror then? paying fees like spain?
by not responding we only encourage them.
if america had decimated syria and hezbollah after they murdered 200 US troops rather than leave, then perhaps 9-11 may not have occured.

these people live in a hard world, for them alot of things we in western world would find scary is a common occurence in life for them.
so best thing is to react like stalin, and make life even harder, until they realise that terror doesnt help their causes.
 
"typical european liberal response... no offence.
how would you solve terror then? paying fees like spain?
by not responding we only encourage them.
if america had decimated syria and hezbollah after they murdered 200 US troops rather than leave, then perhaps 9-11 may not have occured."

That should have been thought about before nowadays direction's of foreing politics. Everything has reasons and causes.

However at this time it is too late for USA to think what should have been done or how should have been acted with foreing politics. Paying fees and giving up is the worst misstake. Spain's retreat only tells terrorists that terrorism works and it only encourages them. Anyway USA has it's own participation in causing international terrorism, just like Russia caused Beslan's school strike with it's actions in Chechnya.
 
Sorry for a bit of OT, but I'm interested how the scheme of transporting the weapon/s to the US would work.

On a sidenote, if the terrorists would plan to strike at nuclear power plants with ordinary explosive and cause radiation leakage, that would be more feasible to do than nuke something...at least IMO.

Thanks
 
typical european liberal response... no offence
Click to expand...

Which meaning of "liberal" are you referring to exactly?

how would you solve terror then?
Click to expand...

You know, you can't. It is as simple as that. You can't "solve terror", just like you can't solve pain or anger.

You can limit its effects and reduce its risks, short term, find its sources, find the problem behind terror and deal with the reason of terror, long term.

And if some individual has developed the mental capabilities of keeping both objectives in perspective and at the same time anticipate the effects of his actions on different levels, he may have doubts about our current course of action, even if this results in him carrying this meaningful title of "libral".

Cheers from libral Germany
 
they preach to murder israeli's and americanss.
Click to expand...

Some how I dont think they preach that!!

"typical european liberal response... no offence.
Click to expand...

O none taking. Actuly it is taking. Some how I dont think hes a european leader speaking on behalf of the europeans!!

And the E.U is alot more stable than the Austrila or U.S. Try take a leaf out of thee book and who knows, you might adapt to it.
 
Hmmm...Good bye soveriegnty.:( Hello, slow and unyielding bureaucracy :)...Ahh socialism at its finest... Poor Europe
 
You can't solve terror, just like you cannot solve war.
It will always happen. You have to keep fighting it but it's one of things that will never truly go away.
 
battery said:
Hmmm...Good bye soveriegnty.:( Hello, slow and unyielding bureaucracy :)...Ahh socialism at its finest... Poor Europe
Click to expand...

The only socialistic thing i accept is free education. As an university student i live like a king and almost anything costs nothing. Plus of course lot of free time, partys, hobbies, taking easy and other stuff i like and sometimes working with a good salary and low tax rate 8)

In USA: No money -> no education -> poor 4 ever.
In Europe No money -> education anyway -> lot of money and good international career possiblities -> more money 8)
 
In the US you can apply for a student loan. If you don't have money but still do decent enough in public school, they'll let you have it.

If all else fails, there's always the Army :lol:
 
the_13th_redneck said:
In the US you can apply for a student loan. If you don't have money but still do decent enough in public school, they'll let you have it.

If all else fails, there's always the Army :lol:
Click to expand...

So you can do here but loans must be paid back.

"If all else fails, there's always the Army"

Army is the last change but studying to an officer couldn't be a bad idea. Takes only few years but better way is to get a civil education and then back to army. Better jobs, better salaries and no grunts nearby. However civil companys pay better anyway and man can be the master of own.
 
And loans here.

And free medical care. Come to think of it, the poor are as important as the rich, unlike the states where its getting wrose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top