Ground Zero

[Shuckins]

Three years ago you were elected President of the United States.  During that time the activities of terrorist organizations have slackened considerably, allowing national intelligence agencies a much needed respite.  American citizens have breathed a collective sigh of relief, and have begun to wind down from the frightened, frantic days of post 9/11.

At 10 a.m. on the morning of June 17, 2007, a freighter docking in New York harbor disappears in a nuclear blast.  The device is small and dirty.  At least 200,000 are killed outright, with hundreds of thousands more doomed to die a slow, lingering death.

In the weeks and months that follow, CIA and foreign intelligence sources attempt to backtrack the movement of the nuclear weapon and the terrorists who delivered it.  Incontrovertable evidence is gathered that the terrorists were given the weapon, and other aid as well, by a Middle-Eastern nation with a well-known hatred of the U.S.  Further, this nation assisted the terrorists in developing the plan for evading U.S. security and delivering the weapon to its' target.

As President of the United States, you must decide upon a course of action.  What do you do?  Two courses of action are suggested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for consideration by you and the Cabinet:

1.  Retaliate in kind.  Level the capital city of the guilty nation as a warning that no one gets a free shot at our people, whether that nation has nuclear weapons or not.  Critics state that this policy is ill-advised because it stems from a desire for revenge, and the consequences of such action have not been taken into consideration.

2.  Reply with conventional weapons and attempt an invasion to overthrow the offending government.  The Joint Chiefs developed this alternative at your request, but do not favor it because they feel the invasion of a nation with nuclear weapons is fraught with unprecedented peril for the troops involved.

What course of action should you take?

[hawker238]

#2.  #1 isn't acceptable at all

[midnight Target]

It's just New York.

[Dead Man Flying]

These options seem oversimplified.  I would rule out the first choice almost immediately as it solves nothing and attempts to impose a simple solution on a complex problem.

I would likely engage in a multilateral form of the second choice.  In a situation such as the one you've described, international support would firmly fall behind the United States in just about any sort of conventional operation.  To respond in kind would squander that support and possibly escalate nuclear tensions across the globe.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Shuckins]

MT,

I am shocked...SHOCKED...that a person of your political persuasions would make such an insensitive statement.  New Yorkers ARE Americans...

...sorta.

[Nilsen]

If no other alternatives are availiable i would go with #2

#1 isnt acceptable at all.

Even if Russia, China, Britain, France or any other nation launched a single ICBM #1 would not be acceptable.

[Creamo]

I’d appoint Laz Minister of Defense, and appoint Ted Nugent as my personal advisor. I just couldn’t possibly be clever enough to come up with solutions that ‘think tank’ could.

No Nukes allowed, yet; I’d want a chance to promise the American public lots of oil shares in our newly occupied Saudi Arabian oil fields when we assumed control of the entire Middle East by force to put this BS terrorist harboring area to rest, once and for all.

 No more being attacked, being foolishly run around by OPEC, or at the mercy of countries that couldn’t thwart France if they invaded with WWI stockpiled bolt action rifles. World opinion would be ignored, finally. Why bomb France when you could just boycott the United Nations with the guise of the United States surviving? Well, because you could, and it is pry right. Let them sit in a round table at the UN with headphones on and be all appalled while the tanks rolled into Riyadh. If they got too scrappy, just bomb their planes in the hangars and tell them to shut up, and we will give them more in the peaceful democratic don’t F around anymore world,  if they send reparations to D-Day survivor families.

The United States would be in control for once, not wasting our resources on taking our own citizens rights because we can’t do anything else globally, without worrying about world opinion. We could then crush the religious retards that ultimately were left to kill 203,000 Americans due to our past failed policies on being really nice guys.

I’d also have the CIA secretly install trap doors backstage at the Jerry Springer Show, that after taping, the contestants think they are getting their 10th DNA fathers test to find their babies gangbanger Dad, but it goes to bus and a welfare reform work camp at Lockheed to build bombers and fighters to assure the rest of the world finally realizes it’s best to be free, and not kill people because your miserable turds without any purpose in life.  

Creamitler  pry wouldn’t get elected though, so an actual “New World Order” is just BS. Lotsa Americans are going to die, yup.

[john9001]

in the first place such a thing would never happen because president john kerry would not let it happen, and if it did the UN and france would come to our aid.

[Holden McGroin]

Of course the names of the threats and targets would change but I think the policy should be along the lines of:

It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

[Yeager]

because they feel the invasion of a nation with nuclear weapons is fraught with unprecedented peril for the troops involved.
====
This pretty much rules out option number 2.

First I would request congress to declare war on the offending nation.  I would then order a stand off bombardment of all government and military infrastructure with conventional weapons until the offending nation surrendered unconditionally.  I would retain the "right" to use nuclear weapons if the situation called for it.

[gofaster]

They nuked first. There is no detente value to our nuclear arsenal now.

Plan A:
Nuke their capital with the intension of follow-up. with more nukes and/or conventional forces.  Full Rome/Carthage policy in effect.  Otherwise, the trouble will continue for generations. Rebuilding will not be an option.  The land will be uninhabitable.  Ignore the complaints from neighboring nations about fall-out floating over their borders.

Plan B:
Counter-terrorism and covert ops.  Assassinations as necessary, sabotage and infiltration when practicable.  Build alliances with neighboring nations and support any motivation they may have for seizing subject nation's territory.  Aerial bombing of capital with conventional bombs as a show of force to appease the voters' demands for retailation.  Economic embargo.

[JimBear]

At that point it is beyond either,  time for the Hoof and Mouth Disease remedy.

[Eagler]

I'd wait and see moore- ons movie on it first, then decide the fate of the nation based on his agenda of the day ...

I'd do #1 but with conventional weapons, starting at its capital and working my way out. I would not lose a single US soldier to some "roadside bomb" crap.

[Thrawn]

Cripes, I didn't expect you right-wingers to be so wishy washy.  I'm seriously surprised.

I would nuke them.

[AKIron]

I'd nuke 'em and maybe not just their capitol. Substitute your own city for New York City and give it some honest reflection.