If (when) a terrorist group uses nukes to hit 2 or 3 or 4 major US cities, then presents us with the ultimatum to withdraw from the Middle East and cut off aid to Israel, what alternative is there to complying?

And who, exactly, would we invade? The US already occupies Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
.
And how would we pay for the $300/bbl. oil that's needed to power all of the tanks/planes/APCs/trucks/etc.?

• Report

by Old School on October 5th, 2009

Tom, I can see your point, but dang details... The US would have to institute a draft to raise enough troops to invade & occupy Iran or Pakistan, either of which would be Iraq x 5 or 10 in terms of difficulty and casualties. Who would pay for that when the US is in a depression due to the loss of NY and other cities, and China has cut off our credit because we're no longer a good risk? And the perps would be a few smallish cells moving around; millions of soldiers couldn't defend against that.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the devil's in the details.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

I agree. I also think it's wrong. I'm just pointing out what the US is likely to do based on thier advertised policy and their history in similar situations. I don't think that it is the right thing to do, and I definately have some issues about what "Old School" had to say about how we have to pay for this. We are in such a financial recession right now, the last thing we need is an expensive war to pay finance. Now that we no longer have a member of the Bush family in office, maybe the new administration will hopefully take a look at alternatives.

• Report

by Tom on October 5th, 2009

I agree we'd do that to a country, but in my scenario it's a terrorist group. I don't htink the US would nuke Islamabad even if the group came from some place in Pakistan.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

any group that could launch or smuggle a nuke would have a large base of opertaions even inside a country a tactical nuke could be planted
we attacked Iraq when the country held no WMD's and only had terrorists org's inside of it, the entire country was not a terrorist group

• Report

by qwerty on October 5th, 2009

What if the terr. group attacks some Pakistani nuke depot (probably with inside help) and makes off with a few nukes. There might be a few dozen of 'em, but it seems very doable.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

Oops, forgot points.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

well I wold think if the country would allow this to happen, even without being invloved the US would hold that country accountable
like I said the did it with Iraq, there was never and concrete evidence that any terrorist group was based in Iraq, Bushy boy went on shady data and did it anyway
I think the same would happen to any country that would have lax enough security thay wouls d allow nukes to be stolen

• Report

by qwerty on October 5th, 2009

Yeah... I just feel like there's no "good" answer.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

Honestly, they don't care about dying, or at least the planners would find people who wouldn't care about dying.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

But they care about forcing the world to be Muslim. they can't do that when they are all turned to glass.

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

They expected 9/11 to bring the US to its knees, misunderstanding both the US economy and character. I think it's more likely that the US *wouldn't* nuke Islamabad if some Pakistani terrorists, whereabouts unknown after the attack, were the source of the weapon. The US also wouldn't nuke Saudi Arabia or other parts of the Muslim world, so at most, IMO, it'd be a few tactical nukes on places that are estimated to be very likely to be places the terrorists are.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

I we gave the leaders of these countries one week to produce the culprits or we retaliate with utter annihilation. They would give them up, and you they know who the terrorists are.

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

They'd waffle and give up a few small fry at most, or, more likely, refuse and give excuses and trust in their god.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

then, BOOM!

• Report

by Randoley on October 6th, 2009

That'd kill millions and probably cause a revolution to install an Islamist shadow gov't who wouldn't hesitate to nuke us again. Plus the Arab world would immediately embargo oil for our "attacks on Islam", sending us into a depression.
I don't know what the least-worst answer would be.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

If it's a few terrorist groups based somewhere in Pakistan, I don't think the US would nuke Pak. cities.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

I respectfully disagree. I think if a nuclear bomb was detonated in a major US city, everything we know about the rules of engagement would change dramatically.

• Report

by ExactlyTwentyLetters on October 5th, 2009

You might be right. Maybe especially if Washington, DC is nuked and the gov't decapitated.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

But I also doubt that much of the US public understands that just because we might "leave terrorists alone", they'd leave us alone... so there'd be pressure to retreat and save hundreds of thousands of US lives.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

But a terrorist group claiming to have 4 or 5 hidden somewhere would not be nukeable.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

Then you would nuke every site that could launch a nuke everywhere. Then try physically cut the Middle East off the rest of the continent with nukes and sink it out of spite.

• Report

by King of the Cheeses on October 5th, 2009

I don't think the US would do that for humanitarian reasons. (Go on, laugh away.)
... mixed with practical reasons like alienating the who Muslim world and creating 500 million new terrorist recruits, and ending the supply of oil from the Middle East.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

There can't be a Muslim world if the world under them was boiled away. With nukes.

• Report

by King of the Cheeses on October 5th, 2009

We might have enough to hit every city over, I dunno, 250,000 people (????????) in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, killing (murdering, IMO) tens of millions, but that would leave about 900 million.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

Almost 50 years ago the Russians created a nuke with an 8km fireball (and much larger blast radius). After they halved it's size. I'm sure that today if America really wanted to they could build nukes in large enough numbers and power to take care of any number of pesky innocent civilians.

• Report

by King of the Cheeses on October 5th, 2009

But do we nuke Islamabad and other Pak. sites to punish a few dozen people who are responsible for giving the terrorists the nukes? The Arabs would immediately cut off oil to us, sending us into a depression, and millions of Pakis would be resolved to do anything to nuke us again.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

If four of our major cities were wiped off the face of the earth and millions dead, then if they wouldn't handle rounding up those responsible and putting them on trial, yes.

• Report

by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 6th, 2009

yet.

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

Not today, no.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

You watching the news on Iran, a known supplier to terrorists groups?

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 5th, 2009

Hopefully our Messiah President has enough stones to stop that. I dought it.

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

HC, you are a hardcore conservative, as your name suggests. I do not believe a single thing you say.

• Report

by Siyanor on October 5th, 2009

You must not believe me either then.

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

Nope, especially since you can't spell doubt.

• Report

by Siyanor on October 5th, 2009

That's okay, I know what I say is right anyway.

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

Iran is a known sponsor / supplier / abetter of terrorist groups.
I'd think that a fairly-much in-control nation-state like Iran would be less likely to supply a nuke than a chaotic failed state like Pakistan, though.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

They can't supply nukes, because they don't have any.

• Report

by Siyanor on October 5th, 2009

yet!

• Report

by Randoley on October 5th, 2009

Iran will within a matter of years. Pakistan already has them.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 5th, 2009

That is why the Taliban is fighting so hard to take over Pakistan.

• Report

by Randoley on October 6th, 2009

Well, we *could* destroy Muslim civilization by murdering millions, at the cost of destabilizing large parts of the world and isolating ourselves into an oil-less depression. But not all of the bad guys would be gone, and more bad guys would sign on to hit us with more Pakistani nukes.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

You can't circumsize muslims.

There's just no end to those pr**cks.

• Report

by Moongrim on October 6th, 2009

Terrorists don't "launch", they slip a bomb into NY or DC. We could trace that it originated in Pakistan, probably, but then what do you do - kill millions because of rogue Islamist officers who allowed the nukes to be "stolen"?

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

Beware of the Blob.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

I agree with your first 3 paragraphs. But Pakistan is a failing / failed state with an uncertain future and increasing pressure from radicals due to the "traditional" issues (Israel existing, US being the great satan, etc) and also issues that'll be more significant as time goes on - poverty, drought, overpopulation, etc. I don't know what the answer is.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

I don't have a perfect answer myself. But to consider Pakistan (in your example) a failed or failing state is to give up on them. Also, I think the issues you raised (poverty, drought, etc.) are things we all have to face. The main reason why these things aren't as bad in the U.S. is because of the traditional pyramid scheme. The further from the top you get the worse off you are. In my case (since I don't know what country you're from) as an American we are closer to the top making us seem more successful (don't know if that's the correct word to use) than countries we help because if we let the ones within the country get too unhappy, then it's not "al Qaida" or whoever that will attack the country, but it's own citizens to bring about the change the country needs.

• Report

by Stevie on October 6th, 2009

Who do you not kill?

• Report

by Stevie on October 5th, 2009

Not kill? I didn't say anything about that. You find the country that's harboring the bad guys and kill em all. Collateral damage is acceptable to me.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 6th, 2009

So what about the people that think America is harboring bad guys? Does it matter how many Americans they kill?

• Report

by Stevie on October 6th, 2009

You're off subject. And I'm sure they have their own people doing the same thing you and I are. Maybe.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 6th, 2009

You're right, I did stray from the original question. But it doesn't change the fact that there are people who don't agree with the decisions/actions made by people within their country, does it make them culpable in the destructive acts? What if they believe they are just acting out in revenge against the acts our country caused? Does this mean we should be held liable because we didn't stop our country from attacking?

• Report

by Stevie on October 6th, 2009

If a nation harbors terrorists, they open themselves up to retailation from us. As far them believing in acting out in revenge for our percieved wrongs, I don't care about their motives. I only care about their actions. Back to your original question, if a terrorist organization hits the US in 2 or 4 cities, if they are being harbored in another nation, they either give them up or suffer the consequences.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 6th, 2009

I think we may have differing opinions of terrorism, first of all. I believe it to be the use of fear to achieve a desired result.
.
In reference to "perceived wrongs" is it a matter of perception that if a foreign country bases it on say the invasion of Iraq? Or the torture going on in military prisons? These are actions that if they happened to the U.S., we would definitely consider them wrong therefore making an Iraqi invasion of the U.S. acceptable based on your rationality. We are harboring the terrorists of the Iraq "war" thereby making us a target to the rest of the world. What should we do with our "terrorists"?

• Report

by Stevie on October 6th, 2009

To cut in... @HC, Pakistan probably couldn't hand over the few rogue Islamist military officers who allowed the nukes to be absconded with, much less the actual terrorists. And if they did, there'd be more to take their place. There's no good answer that I know of.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

I'll especially agree with that last sentence Blob. There is no right answer, the object is to limit the negatives as much as possible.

• Report

by Stevie on October 6th, 2009

Agreed. My point, Stevie, is that I'm an American. I don't care about what the other countries think about our "terrorists." I'm concerned for only for the lives of Americans. EVERYTHING else would be secondary. A very distant second.
LIke you said, it's a matter of perception.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 6th, 2009

Ok, fair enough. Would you say it's unfair for me to consider the lives of our actions before deciding to take military action? Would that be wrong? (Yes I know we're way off the original question)
.
By the way, out of curiousity, have you seen the movie Charlie Wilson's War?

• Report

by Stevie on October 6th, 2009

Consider the lives of who?
.
Yes, I've seen it.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 7th, 2009

The lives of the innocent civilians that did not choose to be born into a hostile territory. If I end up deciding to take military action and kill more innocent civilians than the original attackers, then does that make me more right than the original attackers or more wrong in my decisions? To me, I think it would be more proper to punish those who actually did the attack and not those that don't know any better. It will give those that don't know any better, a reason to hate us and perhaps attack us again in the future. The bottom line is you can't kill everyone without being the bad guy. If we're the bad guy, then someone else will think they're the good guy and have reason to attack again. It's a never ending cycle.

• Report

by Stevie on October 7th, 2009

I asked about the movie for the story of the Zen master. It's impossible to determine every possible outcome of our actions. Only time will tell. The more we are loose with our morals in achieving our goals, the more likely someone else will be in being loose with their morals in achieving theirs. We helped Afghan with the Soviet problem in the 80s. Was what we did right? Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character says "we'll see." After aiding in the actual fight, we didn't care less about the actual humanity of those people and the suffering they went through. Was that enough of a reason to attack us on 9/11? To us, we would say no, but they don't know any better. But then again, do we?

• Report

by Stevie on October 7th, 2009

You seem to think that if we take the moral high ground that the terrorists will leave us alone? Are you serious?
.
There is collateral damage in every war. Every single one. The question is how much is acceptable. In my opinion, to preserve our freedoms and our way of life, there is no limit.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 7th, 2009

I'm not trying to say that they will leave us alone. Terrorists just can be defined by a single group in a single country. They are everywhere. The moral high ground is the way of slowly ending the need for war. If people continue to take the low road, it gives those who oppose them no reason to do any different. If a particular group of people choose the high road, it gives the opposition a reason to consider their viewpoints over those that they currently support. A fair and equitable society can reach everyone if they happen to be someone who does get the short end of the stick (basically meaning not rich).
.
There is collateral damage in every war. That's why I'm trying to stop it. Damage is not good in any sense, regardless of who the first to start it was. It is unacceptable to you when it's someone else damaging our country but is acceptable when it's us doing the damage.

• Report

by Stevie on October 7th, 2009

You are realistic in your opinions, however, I'm trying to change it so my dreams are the reality. That doesn't happen by continuing the same failed strategies over and over. That's the definition of insanity. As far as I can tell, I'm not insane.

• Report

by Stevie on October 7th, 2009

To me, the moral high ground is only the best place to place your artillary. Taking that attitude with Al Qaeda only shows weakness and that you don't have the resolve to see the fight through to the end.
.
You're exactly right. Any attack on the US (or it's persons or property) to me is unacceptable, regardless of the reasons behind it. We must be relentless and merciless in our pursuit of those who mean to do us harm. Does the end justify the means? In this case, yes, it does.

• Report

by Hardcore Conservative on October 7th, 2009

Ha! Like the first part of that last response.
.
Taking that attitude with al Qaeda shows them for what they truly are, murderers. If the police force of a small town knew there was a murderer in the town, should they kill them all in order to make sure the killer doesn't strike again? To me, the answer is no. In fact if that did happen, you can bet that a majority of the American population would be in an uproar to see to it that it doesn't happen ever again. Why should we treat foreigners any different?

• Report

by Stevie on October 7th, 2009

We obviously disagree with the ends/means thing. The way I see it, is if you can't follow your own rules, then why should anyone else. You take a stance of self-righteousness but use horrible tactics on those that disagree. If you can't come to a compromise, then it doesn't mean one or the other has to die, it means more options need to be put on the table.

• Report

by Stevie on October 7th, 2009

People like you armchair warriors are the reason unnecessary wars begin.

• Report

by Moongrim on October 6th, 2009

People like you armchair buffoons are the reason people hate liberals. Thanks for the dr. From YOU it means I'm right.

• Report

by LarryH54 on October 6th, 2009

Larry, that's really moronic. I'll take your comments wishing for the literal death of liberals as hyperbole... but what kind of person would even say such a thing? Your mother would be ashamed of you, seriously.
If we nuked any Muslim country there'd be an immediate oil embargo and depression, and immediate increased danger of more strikes on us. I know, we can't appease them in hopes that they won't hurt us... I don't know what the answer is.

• Report

by Amorphous Blob on October 6th, 2009

There ARE no answers. But calling action moronic is foolish. Inaction is just as moronic and less productive. Change is good. Just ask Obama. Sometimes the only answer is to knock over the game board. Remember the Gordian Knot?

• Report

by LarryH54 on October 6th, 2009