Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on July 23, 2004, 09:43:04 AM
-
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?
-
#2. #1 isn't acceptable at all
-
It's just New York.
:D
-
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
-
MT,
I am shocked...SHOCKED...that a person of your political persuasions would make such an insensitive statement. New Yorkers ARE Americans...
...sorta.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
At that point it is beyond either, time for the Hoof and Mouth Disease remedy.
-
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.
-
Cripes, I didn't expect you right-wingers to be so wishy washy. I'm seriously surprised.
I would nuke them.
-
I'd nuke 'em and maybe not just their capitol. Substitute your own city for New York City and give it some honest reflection.
-
Originally posted by 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.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
#1..."We came unto the place and made it a desert, this we call peace." Scipio Africanus
-
Originally posted by 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.
Exactly, the attack has to be nuclear and proportional.
-
My gut response is "eye for an eye"... but:
A man murders a family in some grotesque way. Do we convict this man's entire family and murder them in the same way?
We strive to punish only those responsible for crimes.
At the end of WW2, did we execute every German? or every member of the Nazi party?
If this was an act by a small INDEPENDENT group, I don't see any other recourse beyond capturing/executing those responsible.
If this was an act of war by a government, then surely we are justified in declaring war and taking the necessary actions to win with minimal losses to our side.
The question is what level of support to a small group constitutes an act of war by a supporting government?
I am glad it is not my job to decide who lives and who dies. I am sure I would consider nuking a city, maybe even push the button myself, but I would carry the guilt of knowing that the thousands or even millions that would die in such a counter-attack would only add to the tragic loss of innocent lives that already forced me to make such a decision.
-
If the country from where the terrorists came from support terrorism, then nuke em.
"Support" as in, not doing a thing to prevent it.
-
If that nuke kills 200000 in new york... how will things be better if you kill another 200000 innocent in that other country? where is the logic? does killing 200000 more give you some pleasure?
a nuke is the only weapon that only works if left unused.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If the country from where the terrorists came from support terrorism, then nuke em.
"Support" as in, not doing a thing to prevent it.
yes. their goverment, but should the rest of their population have to take the punishment for what its goverment does?
-
Please don't take this as advocacy of collateral damage, but the population is responsible for what their government does. Dictatorships and monarchies as well as democracies have been overthrown by popular uprising. If the people don't like their government, then they can overthrow it.
-
If our population has to suffer thier governments support of terrorism, then yes, thier population will have to bear that same pain.
-
By small and dirty, I presume you mean one of those "dirty bombs" talked about so much in the news in the past few years?
If so, nothing will dissappear in a nuclear explosion - it'll be a regular bomb detonation with uranium around it. It blows up, kills anyone in the immediate vicinity like any other explosion and some radiation (dependent on how much uranium surrounds the explosive device) will spread through the air carried by wind currents. 2,000 may get radiation poisoning if the terrorists are lucky.
Just sayin'.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Please don't take this as advocacy of collateral damage, but the population is responsible for what their government does. Dictatorships and monarchies as well as democracies have been overthrown by popular uprising. If the people don't like their government, then they can overthrow it.
Then Saddam should have been removed by his own people?
-
Damn straight, althought there were enough who liked him to delay the inevitable past our timetable.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If our population has to suffer thier governments support of terrorism, then yes, thier population will have to bear that same pain.
Even if that goverment was a dictatorship like i mentioned in the above post and their people could not remove that dictatorship?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Damn straight, althought there were enough who liked him to delay the inevitable past our timetable.
So you did not support the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Damn straight, althought there were enough who liked him to delay the inevitable past our timetable.
I don't see the premise of your question.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
If that nuke kills 200000 in new york... how will things be better if you kill another 200000 innocent in that other country? where is the logic? does killing 200000 more give you some pleasure?
a nuke is the only weapon that only works if left unused.
Worked pretty well in WWII.
If a country supporting/harboring terrorists know that they will be vaporized if those terrorist nuke the US then I believe they will withdraw their support. Perhaps even going so far as to squelch the breeding grounds for this hatred. If not, well, we have lots of nukes.
-
Let 'em glow...turn the whole damn country in too a parking lot!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Even if that goverment was a dictatorship like i mentioned in the above post and their people could not remove that dictatorship?
Your assumption that a dictator cannot be removed from power by the people of that government is flawed. People have control over thier own fate.
Dictators throughout history, more often than not, have been removed by thier own people.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Your assumption that a dictator cannot be removed from power by the people of that government is flawed. People have control over thier own fate.
Dictators throughout history, more often than not, have been removed by thier own people.
Yes, of course he _can_ be removed, but it is not always possible to do so or atleast to do so before a situation arises like the one in this scenario.
Lets say that this dictatorship has enough power to remain in control. You dont need the majority of the population, only people in key positions like it was in iraq with many loyal followers but where the civilian population does not support it, _or fear it_. There can still be 60-70-80% of the general population that is oppressed and only has goverment controlled media to get its info from. Should those 70-80-90 % suffer a nuke attack?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Worked pretty well in WWII.
If a country supporting/harboring terrorists know that they will be vaporized if those terrorist nuke the US then I believe they will withdraw their support. Perhaps even going so far as to squelch the breeding grounds for this hatred. If not, well, we have lots of nukes.
They? You are still talking about the goverment in control that supports these terrorists.
A goverment that threatens or uses these weapons are very seldom democracies where the population supports the acts of theri goverment.
-
Lets take another scenario...
A fraction in Russia takes control of the Kremlin in a military attack and fires an ICBM at Washington (or Paris, London).
Should the american goverment retaliate on Moscow with a nuke?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes, of course he _can_ be removed, but it is not always possible to do so or atleast to do so before a situation arises like the one in this scenario.
Can't or won't? It only takes one bullet to kill a person. The rest of your scenario is moot.
People have a choice. Make it or don't, but do not expect me to bear the brunt of others desires to remain apart from it all. When you make that choice, then you are as guilty as the terrorists.
-
Well we would be seriously unlucky if that ICBM even made it out of the ground in Russia...But you do have a point about one thing just because a faction runs something doesn't mean that you retaliate on the entire city.
The only way to eliminate the terrorist threat is to react accordingly and treat them the same way they would treat you. There is no mercy in this type of war and tactical nukes would be an option.
-
Just for the record I don't believe that you would have to control the Kremlin in order to launch a single ICBM. Possibly just take control of a launch site but hasn't the Russian ICBM land force been eliminated as far as rockets go...I know it hasn't been completed as far as "dearmament" goes but with the maintenance lacking those things deteriorate rapidly if I recall correctly.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Can't or won't? It only takes one bullet to kill a person. The rest of your scenario is moot.
People have a choice. Make it or don't, but do not expect me to bear the brunt of others desires to remain apart from it all. When you make that choice, then you are as guilty as the terrorists.
So if this situation shuld happen in america then you would disregard your family and your own safty and go "hunting" for the regime that took over knowing that you and your family would be hunted down and killed if you did not succed (or maybe even if you did)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Lets take another scenario...
A fraction in Russia takes control of the Kremlin in a military attack and fires an ICBM at Washington (or Paris, London).
Should the american goverment retaliate on Moscow with a nuke?
Maybe only for two out of the three... ;) If they nuked Paris, we would go to the UN.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Just for the record I don't believe that you would have to control the Kremlin in order to launch a single ICBM. Possibly just take control of a launch site but hasn't the Russian ICBM land force been eliminated as far as rockets go...I know it hasn't been completed as far as "dearmament" goes but with the maintenance lacking those things deteriorate rapidly if I recall correctly.
Yes....lets say they took control of a sub and its launch codes somehow. America (in this example) would have to know that someone in Moscow supplied the codes... Would you then launch a nuke attack on Moscow to make sure that no more codes were given out even if you somehow sunk the sub that launched it?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So if this situation shuld happen in america then you would disregard your family and your own safty and go "hunting" for the regime that took over knowing that you and your family would be hunted down and killed if you did not succed (or maybe even if you did)
Without hesitation, especially knowing that the actions of those people could get my family killed. I figure if my family is going to die, then it will be for a good cause.
Tell me you would sit back and let your family die if you knew you had a chance to stop it?
It's okay GScholz. Everyone has an opinion about something this extreme and the opinions will run to extremes.
-
Nilsen, your Russian scenario is a bit different. Their nukes are remnants of the cold war and the USSR is no longer. If this had happened during the cold war then yes, they are responsible as their ideology bred the hatred that led to that attack. However, I might be inclined to listen to what the Russian's of today offered as recompense before firing on all of their cities. In their case it would have to include the complete destruction of their nuclear arsenal.
Many of the middle eastern countries today are much like the USSR in their animosity towards the west and more specifically the US. If that ill will leads to such a monstrous attack then yes, all those sharing that hatred share in the responsibility.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Tell me you would sit back and let your family die if you knew you had a chance to stop it?
Maybe not...nobody knows this until you are put in that situation for real. maybe i would think that if i didnt do anything against this goverment then they would leave me and my family alone (saving your family is often nr.1 in this situation).
It is not sertain that i would know that the goverment that had taken over my country had been planning to nuke another country or that the enemy (if i lived as a citizen in one of the countries in this scenario that is run by the dictator) had threatended to retaliate with nukes. Remember that goverments with dictators usually control the media.
-
I believe G is right on this one. The same thing applies to US subs although they do have to recieve a code to initiate launch procedures. At least that is what I have been told by some men who used to be in the know on that subject. As for the retaliation on the Kremlin...the only way you do so is to attack the same area with a tactical nuke and take the heat for any colateral damage and casualties that may occur.
The technology is there to limit casualties or to maximize them but that doesn't address the core set of questions.
To me yes you have to reply in a similar fashion to the enemy and if you do not then you have given in once again. I would honestly expect the US to respond to an attack on Norway the same way. Just for instance instead of New York substitute a Norwegian port. The casualties aren't as big but it happens. Not only do I expect Norway to want retribution I would be chomping at the bit for them to ask me to help do so.
Its similar to the school yard bully. Sooner or later you have to stand up to him and if you do it later then he is able to get stronger and learn from his mistake. While if you strike early you may take a beating. However by standing up and hitting hard enough to send a message he will not expect it and then you are in control.
These things I learned as a small boy who got picked on in elementary school till I taught a lesson to the bully. He figured out then after I knocked the piss out of him with my 23" Louisville Slugger wooden baseball bat that you don't mess with me.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Nilsen, your Russian scenario is a bit different. Their nukes are remnants of the cold war and the USSR is no longer. If this had happened during the cold war then yes, they are responsible as their ideology bred the hatred that led to that attack. However, I might be inclined to listen to what the Russian's of today offered as recompense before firing on all of their cities. In their case it would have to include the complete destruction of their nuclear arsenal.
Many of the middle eastern countries today are much like the USSR in their animosity towards the west and more specifically the US. If that ill will leads to such a monstrous attack then yes, all those sharing that hatred share in the responsibility.
Dont you think the CIA would know that there was a rouge fraction in the russian goverment that did this?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That scenario is called "rouge boomer". Btw. the Russian boomers do not need any codes from Moscow to launch their missiles. They only need two keys. The captain has one, and the "political officer" has one. At least that's how it was under the Soviet regime.
Actually Russia uses a system much like our nuclear football only better.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
I believe G is right on this one. The same thing applies to US subs although they do have to recieve a code to initiate launch procedures. At least that is what I have been told by some men who used to be in the know on that subject. As for the retaliation on the Kremlin...the only way you do so is to attack the same area with a tactical nuke and take the heat for any colateral damage and casualties that may occur.
The technology is there to limit casualties or to maximize them but that doesn't address the core set of questions.
To me yes you have to reply in a similar fashion to the enemy and if you do not then you have given in once again. I would honestly expect the US to respond to an attack on Norway the same way. Just for instance instead of New York substitute a Norwegian port. The casualties aren't as big but it happens. Not only do I expect Norway to want retribution I would be chomping at the bit for them to ask me to help do so.
Its similar to the school yard bully. Sooner or later you have to stand up to him and if you do it later then he is able to get stronger and learn from his mistake. While if you strike early you may take a beating. However by standing up and hitting hard enough to send a message he will not expect it and then you are in control.
These things I learned as a small boy who got picked on in elementary school till I taught a lesson to the bully. He figured out then after I knocked the piss out of him with my 23" Louisville Slugger wooden baseball bat that you don't mess with me.
Again. This is not a situation where the people of the country is behind or supporting the inintial nuke attack. Should all the people of the country be made responisble and the subject of a nuke attack just to send a "message" to the goverment that has taken control?
-
There is really only way I'd consider not retaliating 10 fold if I had my finger on the button. That is if all Islam demonstrated great genuine remorse over such an action and reformed themselves. Or, that they all renounce Islam. Does anyone really believe either of those would happen?
-
Originally posted by 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.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There is really only way I'd consider not retaliating 10 fold if I had my finger on the button. That is if all Islam demonstrated great genuine remorse over such an action and reformed themselves. Or, that they all renounce Islam. Does anyone really believe either of those would happen?
So you have concluded that all or even the majority of muslims would support that attack on NY harbour?
btw...nobody said that muslims or muslim ___fundamentalists___ were behind the attack. you just assumed?
assumtion is the mother of all ****ups ;) And with a nuklear resonse there would be no second chanse to fix a mistake if one was made bacouse of an assumption
-
Oh, right, my assumption is really way out there. :rolleyes:
-
Btw....pls ignore my spelling. Im having a drink and taking "heat" from everyone in this thread so im typing faster than usual :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh, right, my assumption is really way out there. :rolleyes:
It can be...but it doesnt have to be. With a nuke response you would have very little chanse of fixing that potential error.
There were many assumptions made before the invasion of Iraq to, but the actin taken towards Iraq is not a final solution... a nuke would have.
What im saying is that you have options until you use a nuke.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nilsen et al, the primary function of nuclear retaliation is to prevent a similar attack in the future. Casualties are not even a secondary concern. However overdoing it can lead to a future war where your enemies won't give you the chance of retaliation. Of course that is if your enemy cares about retaliation in the first place.
If a rouge nuke launch is answered by a "ten fold" response that country may very well launch everything they've got while your birds are in the air. If they can't reach you they could launch against their local enemies.
The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.
I tend to agree, even though im a right wing nut job, and as much as I like to kiss arse and take names later when it comes to dealing with countries giving us problems. I do think the use of nuclear weapons would be a big mistake. Just imagine what would happen the first time a major super power launched a nuclear attack, every crazy out there who had is hands on one would blow something up thinking the day of reckoning was upon them.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.
and if one side refuses to use nucks after a nuclear attack, then the nukes have allready stoped being a deterrent
-
May have even more options after. I agree with GScholz that the primary goal of swift hard retaliation is to prevent further attacks. However, an even harder retaliation may not only deprive this enemy of his will to attack but also his ability.
Maybe we should take a survey now to see how many in the middle east would applaud a nuclear terrorist attack against the US. Think they'd tell us?
-
Invasion but allow use of tactical nuclear weapons and carpet bombing,
show that we are not afraid to use nukes but the civilian and enviromental damage will be greatly reduced as to a stratgic bombing.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
May have even more options after. I agree with GScholz that the primary goal of swift hard retaliation is to prevent further attacks. However, an even harder retaliation may not only deprive this enemy of his will to attack but also his ability.
Maybe we should take a survey now to see how many in the middle east would applaud a nuclear terrorist attack against the US. Think they'd tell us?
Do you think the __fundamentalist__ would be frightened into submission when a nuke hits their "lands" or do you think they would only grow in numbers?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nilsen, I think what AKIron is saying is that their number would not grow because they would all be ashes, including their base of recruitment, i.e. everybody.
But muslim fundamentalists if we are talking about them are not only from one country or place
-
aha.. would need to retaliate with alot of nuke warheads then....
-
Hehe, no, not really all of them. 10 times 100K is only a megaton. After we level, I dunno, say Tehran, we get an atitude check. Unsatisfactory or unconvincing we level a few more. Sooner or later they will cry uncle. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating a preemptive strike. Once pandora's box has been opened though, it won't be closed to placate any Euro sensibilities.
-
what will then feed the american economy and who will trade with them when/if they find the fuel? Remember what happened to the economy after the """"minor""" (please, im talking in comparison to this stituation) attacks on 9/11?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
aha.. would need to retaliate with alot of nuke warheads then....
There are now roughly 9600 nuclear weapons of 10 major types in the U.S. arsenal
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There are now roughly 9600 nuclear weapons of 10 major types in the U.S. arsenal
That is what one can call "overkill" :)
-
thats also 9600 chanses of an accident.....and thats only in the US arsenal. :(
-
At the peak in 1965, the USA had over 30,000.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yup, and you'd better start using them ... you don't want all that expensive hardware to spoil in some warehouse now do you? ;)
I was ready to use half of 'em on the middle east, and if one went errant and hit Norway you guys would understand, right? But no one ever listens to me anyhow. ;)
-
Im aware that alot of people dont agree with me when it comes to using nukes but that does not really bother me. Im suprised tho that this thread has stayed civil. Im used to beeing flamed for my views but i suspect that having skuzzy taking part in the discussion even if he disagrees with me has prevented alot of the usual stuff.
i was actually suprisend (in a good) way that he took part in the debate even if he is doesnt agree. Ive known that all the HTC crew members have had strong feelings about the subjects on this board but have restrained themselves. _Personally_ i think its better when they express themselves then not in things that it woudl otherwise be normal for them to debate but i see that they have many considerations to take before they do (business wise)
skuzzy!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was ready to use half of 'em on the middle east, and if one went errant and hit Norway you guys would understand, right? But no one ever listens to me anyhow. ;)
i have a bot tracking you Iron so dont worry...your voice is heard :)
-
Man, serious responsibility there, I'd be real sorry I'd been elected if I had to make that decision. The first thing I'd do as president would be to come to the AH BBS for advice.:D After reading and re-reading the posts so far, searching my soul, and considering my responsibility as president, with great sadness I would push the button that would launch an overwhelming nuclear strike that would leave their population centers in ashes. I would then issue a statement explaining that........
"As president my responsibility is to the United States. I was elected to do what I think will be best for this country. In order to ensure that no one EVER thinks they can do something like that and not pay the price, it is necessary that no trace of civilization be found in xxxx country. Please pray to whatever gods you worship for the souls of the innocent dead. Forgive me."
I'd then sit down at my big desk, remove my .45 from the desk drawer, and put a slug into the center of my forehead.
Well, maybe I'd wait for a few more posts.:D
cars
-
lol Cars.
but seriously. If i worked in a nuke silo and did not have a family + acutally fired one then i belive i would have taken the 45 myself.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
These things I learned as a small boy who got picked on in elementary school till I taught a lesson to the bully. He figured out then after I knocked the piss out of him with my 23" Louisville Slugger wooden baseball bat that you don't mess with me.
I certainly hope you had the brand up young man. Money don`t grow on trees ya know.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It's just New York.
:D
LA is a more likely target, considering the numerous ports.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LA is a more likely target, considering the numerous ports.
Any way to revive the boat thread or is it gone?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
what will then feed the american economy and who will trade with them when/if they find the fuel? Remember what happened to the economy after the """"minor""" (please, im talking in comparison to this stituation) attacks on 9/11?
The fuel would then be there for the taking. It would just require the use of a large scale glass cutter to get through the top crust.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The fuel would then be there for the taking. It would just require the use of a large scale glass cutter to get through the top crust.
but who would work in a highly radiated enviroment just to pump radiated oil and then transport it?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So if this situation shuld happen in america then you would disregard your family and your own safty and go "hunting" for the regime that took over knowing that you and your family would be hunted down and killed if you did not succed (or maybe even if you did)
Yes. That is how this country was founded. Several brave individuals took it upon themselves to do whatever was necessary to end British control. Had the Revolutionary War turned out the other way, they'd simply have been tried and executed. Would I do the same if we were somehow taken over? You're damned right I would.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The primary and only use of nukes are as a deterrent. The day they are used is the day they sease to function.
Wrong. They were already used once. The deterrent has been working pretty well ever since.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Yes. That is how this country was founded. Several brave individuals took it upon themselves to do whatever was necessary to end British control. Had the Revolutionary War turned out the other way, they'd simply have been tried and executed. Would I do the same if we were somehow taken over? You're damned right I would.
Ok. Im to fond of my family to worry about my goverment first. But then i havent been in that situation and neither have you
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No Nilsen. The GUARANTEED use of nukes in retaliation is the deterrent. If you don't respond to a nuclear attack with nukes, they lose their deterring effect in the future.
No more calls please, we have a winner.
Damn, I agree on something with Scholz. Dear Lord, the end must be near.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Wrong. They were already used once. The deterrent has been working pretty well ever since.
Only used when the enemy dint have any to fire back
-
I bet ill have plenty to answer in the morning, but im going out to the nightcubs now and sleeping later so i wont be answering any calls and flames until tomorrow.
Have a good night and sweet dreams :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Only used when the enemy dint have any to fire back
And no country that DOES have the ability has fired them either.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Ok. Im to fond of my family to worry about my goverment first. But then i havent been in that situation and neither have you
In the situation you describe, my love for my family is the exact reason I WOULD fight. To force them to endure that sort of future is cowardice of exponential proportions.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So you have concluded that all or even the majority of muslims would support that attack on NY harbour?
btw...nobody said that muslims or muslim ___fundamentalists___ were behind the attack. you just assumed?
assumtion is the mother of all ****ups ;) And with a nuklear resonse there would be no second chanse to fix a mistake if one was made bacouse of an assumption
I sure am glad to see you being so noble about the death of
200,000 Americans nilsen. Not like you have to worry about the
possibility of your family getting vaped.
As far as assumptions go, aren't you assuming that the folks
of the middle east are NOT supporting the terrorists? Since I'm
not seeing any groundswell of revulsion from our "pals" in the
ME, I'm thinking most of them could care less how many Americans
die.
There was no shortage of "friends" telling us how evil we were
to invade Iraq, funny how little is said concerning Al Queda. We
apparently had all the world's sympathy till we actually started
reacting to 9/11. Only victims get sympathy and support huh?
-
You must nuke them. Worse then they nuked you. Probably take down any major population centers.
Not kidding.
-
Shuckins I must congratulate you on a most provocative thread.
I have only read it thru once very quickly. Also I am surprised and heartened by the responses of those I normally disagree with.Except for nilsen [ I do hope he is playing devils advocate], I do find a level of seriousness not seen before. I will read it again to make sure I did not miss any nuances that would change my opinion.
Number 2 alone is no option. As soon as we knew which country was responsible, I would order the bombing of all military installations .Except for what would be needed for home land defense,I would order all fleets and air units that could to disperse.I would order all ground units to disperse, with in reason.Easier said,no pearl harbors.I would call all nuclear powers and tell them[not ask] that we are moving against said country.I would tell them we are not interested in them and ask for their help logistically.I would warn each one to not try to take advantage of our situation.I would go to def con 4.I would be ready to retaliate against China or Russia if and that is a big if they decided this would be a good time to hit us.
I would make it known to the people of said country if they did not overthrow their leaders within 2 weeks that I was prepared to level their main citys.I would not send any troops in on the ground period . they used them once they would again.
If they overthrew their leaders I would stop the bombing and slowly take over the country.I would make it plain any terriorist attacks we would leave and level their citys.I would execute all leaders and publicly wrap each body in a pig skin and bury them in a mass grave. The rest of the pig would be spread over their graves.America would rule[ not in a hard handed way] over that country until the time was right for them to start over.We would use their resources until we were able to re build and replace everything lost.
If they did not overthrow their leaders I would level their cities and anything else important.I would use all branches of our military to show the world it all works.Be cause of the use of nuclear weapons I would not stay in the white house,but would go somewhere,so the troops would know I was a part of it to. I would try to save the resources of said country to use to rebuild.If I couldnt so be it. There are many assumptions in this.I would not allow martial law to come about unless pushed to the limit.
I would not allow protest such as during the veitnam war,I dont believe there would be.The welfare of our military familes would be my first concern,as they would have to know America was behind them to do what had to be done.Nuclear war would be very hard on all of us.
After America settled down I would resign.Who knows what a person not filled with hate can take, and I believe America would heal faster if the person that had to make the decisions was not at the forefront.
Now I will make many of you mad so be it,I would pray a lot I would encourge those that wanted to to attend a church to pray for me and our military and the out come.I would personally shoot any aclu types that tried to stop ANYONE in goverment or the nation from worshipping as they please.
-
Thanks dmaw, appreciate that.
By the way, left a list of books on the Crusades in the thread Allah is Greatest for ya.
-
I'm hoping most of you never have a chance to push that button.
-
What is frightening is that we may see these events played out in our lifetime.
God forbid.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I'm hoping most of you never have a chance to push that button.
yup. Better hope no one nukes me or mine and I have one or more to lob back.
-
I dont think it will be 2007. How about 2005
-
demaw,
I figured it wouldn't happen before 2007 because it will take at least that long for Americans to become complacent again...which is always when our enemies strike.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
demaw,
I figured it wouldn't happen before 2007 because it will take at least that long for Americans to become complacent again...which is always when our enemies strike.
Who doesn't want to relax and be free from worrying about some wacko fanatics trying to kill us? Somebody has to do the worrying though, they have my support.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I sure am glad to see you being so noble about the death of
200,000 Americans nilsen. Not like you have to worry about the
possibility of your family getting vaped.
As far as assumptions go, aren't you assuming that the folks
of the middle east are NOT supporting the terrorists? Since I'm
not seeing any groundswell of revulsion from our "pals" in the
ME, I'm thinking most of them could care less how many Americans
die.
There was no shortage of "friends" telling us how evil we were
to invade Iraq, funny how little is said concerning Al Queda. We
apparently had all the world's sympathy till we actually started
reacting to 9/11. Only victims get sympathy and support huh?
All i can say is LOL. You dont read news or pay attention to what happens around you at all do you?
-
I cant vouch for anything I am going to say, you all will have to make up your own minds.I was listening to a radio program driving home the other day.The guest were the senior senator and att.genl of texas. Seems they and others in texas were tired of the border problems. They said many thousands of terrorist were crossing the border into texas and arizona and have been moving into small and medium size towns. they are doctors,dentist,professonial people along with blue collar types.Guess the texas rangers were given the job of keeping an eye on the ones they know about.The senator just that day had been given the ok to talk about this from someone.There is some kind of fight going on between the goverment and texas over the border. texas wants to close it.
Also a retired fbi and cia agent have written a book about the missing suitcase bombs [15].They have traced many of them to the u.s. Some entity in Russia sold them to the terrorist about 2 years ago [ they believe it was russian mafia] I guess.Bottom line, they believe somethings going to happen first of next year.Just repeating what I heard
-
Must be GS, there was nothing but errors in his post. Except for how he feels about what i say cause everyone is entiteled to an opinion. What he says about Al Quaida not an opinion but he is statig facts that are wrong.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
I cant vouch for anything I am going to say, you all will have to make up your own minds.I was listening to a radio program driving home the other day.The guest were the senior senator and att.genl of texas. Seems they and others in texas were tired of the border problems. They said many thousands of terrorist were crossing the border into texas and arizona and have been moving into small and medium size towns. they are doctors,dentist,professonial people along with blue collar types.Guess the texas rangers were given the job of keeping an eye on the ones they know about.The senator just that day had been given the ok to talk about this from someone.There is some kind of fight going on between the goverment and texas over the border. texas wants to close it.
Also a retired fbi and cia agent have written a book about the missing suitcase bombs [15].They have traced many of them to the u.s. Some entity in Russia sold them to the terrorist about 2 years ago [ they believe it was russian mafia] I guess.Bottom line, they believe somethings going to happen first of next year.Just repeating what I heard
Fact or fiction? None of us know. The story about the missing suitcase bombs are old and may actually be correct. Lets pray the bombs are not missing.
-
I started trying to read the whole thread then got kinda bored with it all. But in the spirit of pretending to be the POTUS after it got nuked by militant muslim terrorists ... the following seems evident:
The people will want blood (just like everytime our soil's been attacked in the past). The fact a nuke was used will undoubtedly cause many to call for equal measure. But in reality, it doesn't matter if they used a nuke or a thousand and one terrorists went on a killing spree with butter knives. You've got a really big stick.
a: If you give them blood, later they'll say you went too far.
b: If you don't give them blood, they'll say you're impotent.
c: Whatever choice or tactic is chosen, you probably won't be
president next term.
So that pretty well takes domestic politics outa the pic.
So then .... what we have here is escalation of world tension caused by extremists bent on irradication of everyone who isn't a fellow extemist. Nuking capitals will probably make everyone nervous (not just Middle East potentates) and it may cause all the sheiks to tow the line but the crazy holy men will simply martyr the dead and keep stirring the jihad pot. IF you get away with one nuking that don't mean it'll end the thing, at all. And additional nukings will just end up leading to someone, somewhere, with a button we don't control .... pushing it.
Americans haven't been well loved or respected by much of the world since around the time of the Vietnam war. AAMOF, that's usually one of the battlecries - "Remember VietNam!" Yet the security of U.S. citizens and the responsibility of protecting U.S. soil from all forms of attack pretty much demands a swift and unmistakable response. It demands a policy set before the nuke even got detonated. And this policy better damned well not be set by foreign governments.
That's right. May as well release a hundred as well as one. And yup ... everyone that didn't decide to unite against terrorism should be taken out.
Make the policy known. Make it simple and easy to understand. Make it as certain as the rising sun. If a nuke is detonated on U.S. soil .... any nuke .... anytime .... we launch. Better not be on our watermelon list. Thank you.
And you do it .... no debate .... no waffling .... no waiting. Big boom here .... well, they're on their way. Jihad is over. Welcome to a brave new world that glows in the dark.
Someone said .... nukes aren't worth a damn if they're used. They sure as hell aren't worth a damn if everyone knows you WON'T use `em. So there you go. M.A.D. II. That's how it works. :D
-
Yup. So don't fug up. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Americans haven't been well loved or respected by much of the world since around the time of the Vietnam war.
I would like to correct you here Mr. Remember back in the days after 9/11 including when action was taken in Afghanistan? You had everyone on your side and you still do...below the surface of the political games beeing played. It was when the Iraq mess started that things got bent out of shape. And even the recent report stated that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11.
Oh cod....here i/we go again :D
So tired of this subject and the thread wasnt even about this in the beginning.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would like to correct you here Mr. Remember back in the days after 9/11 including when action was taken in Afghanistan? You had everyone on your side and you still do...below the surface of the political games beeing played. It was when the Iraq mess started that things got bent out of shape. And even the recent report stated that Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11.
Oh cod....here i/we go again :D
So tired of this subject and the thread wasnt even about this in the beginning.
Neh. Too much waffling, not enough getting together and getting the job done. Doesn't matter. Simple policy. Fug us again and the game is over. Suggest all parties rethink their stances.
Gotta play the nuke game the way it was meant to be. And if it leads to the inevitable destruction of the globe, well ... that's how the game panned out. We're crazy cowboys, man. You don't wanna fug with us, people. We'll throw nukes around like they were promotional frisbees at a Lakers game. Just sayin', Mohammed. Better not. :cool:
-
(http://www.armynavyshop.com/closeups/rc6637.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Neh. Too much waffling, not enough getting together and getting the job done. Doesn't matter. Simple policy. Fug us again and the game is over. Suggest all parties rethink their stances.
Gotta play the nuke game the way it was meant to be. And if it leads to the inevitable destruction of the globe, well ... that's how the game panned out. We're crazy cowboys, man. You don't wanna fug with us, people. We'll throw nukes around like they were promotional frisbees at a Lakers game. Just sayin', Mohammed. Better not. :cool:
Ok, message is sent to all the fundametalist nutjobs trawling the flightsim scene :D
-
(http://jollyrogers.info/CAG44/dr_strangelove.jpg)
Then my work here is done.
-
lol..
signing off this thread. time is better spent on the boat (to hot and humid to spend time ont he pc)
-
I think it is a mistake to hold the people of a country accountable for the actions of it's government in this scenario.
Also realistically I think the appropiate response could be tempered on the realtionship that countries govt. e.g Saudi Arabia. It is not too much of a stretch to link the attacks on 11/9/01 with the Saudi's, but the appropiate response there was not the leveling of Ryiadh but co-operation.
My option would be an allied response against the terrorist group(s) (exactly like the Afghanistan campaign), and if the case for the responsibilty of the govt involved was sound enough, the complete destruction of that govt. by conventional arms only like the attacks on the serbian infrastructure/army/govt. during the kosovo campaign, and only if possible the capture and subsequent trials of the leadership.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
but who would work in a highly radiated enviroment just to pump radiated oil and then transport it?
Put some of the experienced workers from Chernobl to work . :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol..
signing off this thread. time is better spent on the boat (to hot and humid to spend time ont he pc)
No air conditioner?
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
No air conditioner?
hehe no. Once i got out i realised that beeing outdoors is not so bad. Many colours and smells im not used to!
Better not overdo anything so i just snuck in for some r&r from all the 3D stuff out there.
-
Tronski re: would not use nukes.
Tronski I think I see a fatal flaw in your post.
It was said that said country still has a few nukes. May be you didnt know that and I wonder if it would change your mind?
I believe it would be wrong to take the time for u.n. resolutions etc. To keep credibilty we would have to move fast. Would you really consider sending in our military with conv. weapons when they had nukes[ sorry but not my son you dont] For some reason, I dont understand how you could risk our future just because ,what ? I dont know the reason. Do you think they wouldnt use them again.? When they hit us do you have any idea the number of our countrymen we would lose,also if that happened I promise you china would hit us somewhere.
I also believe this would be our fight and no one elses.
Respectfully,demaw.
-
Years of playing Civilization 3 has taught me one thing: If something like that ever happens, you retaliate with the same, if not greater, force that they used to attack you.
I would nuke their capitol, no buts about it. Say the terrorist was from Iran (which would be entirely likely). Well, they released a nuke in NYC. Why not release a nuke in all of their collective cities? The damage would still not be done, because Manhattan is far greater than all of the cities in Iran.
The solution? Carpet-nuke the entire nation of Iran. This is, of course, if the nuke is a real nuke, and not a dirty bomb. If it's a dirty bomb, just attack Iran full-force with conventional methods, and purge their government :aok .
If it's any other Mid-Eastern nation, however, just attack them and destroy their government. Chances are, the populace rarely agrees on anything their government does (this was evident in Iraq and Afghanistan).
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Tronski re: would not use nukes.
Tronski I think I see a fatal flaw in your post.
It was said that said country still has a few nukes. May be you didnt know that and I wonder if it would change your mind?
I believe it would be wrong to take the time for u.n. resolutions etc. To keep credibilty we would have to move fast. Would you really consider sending in our military with conv. weapons when they had nukes[ sorry but not my son you dont] For some reason, I dont understand how you could risk our future just because ,what ? I dont know the reason. Do you think they wouldnt use them again.? When they hit us do you have any idea the number of our countrymen we would lose,also if that happened I promise you china would hit us somewhere.
I also believe this would be our fight and no one elses.
Respectfully,demaw.
I think the nuclear path is one that should never be travelled. Nuclear weapons are nation killers and are far too indiscriminate in their nature. The premise always stated there was at least some time between the terorrist act and your choice of action, time enough for convential arms to be massed. It is also not need the UNSC (although that would be prefunctionary issue) but the NATO treaties and the like would probably be in play here.
I don't believe China would suddenly strike
Tronsky
-
China definately wouldn't strike, even if they had a better military at the time (Here's looking at you, Japan, circa 1941). The Chinese aren't stupid.
-
Nuke the crap out of them. Turn it into a wasteland as a lesson to the rest of the cameljockeys.
-
"if" that happens and it can be traced back to a Middle Eastern country say hello to world war III.
You have one other factor to consider, Israel. If a Mid East country is in any way involved Israel is going to be on the front lines. I think we can all agree that the odds are Israel already has nukes, do you think they will wait for the next country attacked to be them?
-
#1
>>does killing 200000 more give you some pleasure? <<
No, but it imediately destroys the infrastructure of the offending country. The number one duty of the U.S. is to protect it's sovereinty. Getting the aproval of the rest of the world is a very distant second.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
China definately wouldn't strike, even if they had a better military at the time (Here's looking at you, Japan, circa 1941). The Chinese aren't stupid.
Better look again. China already has a 2 million man army among other things...
-
Originally posted by DipStick
Better look again. China already has a 2 million man army among other things...
What're they gonna do with it if we leave it there? March it to L.A.?
-
Tronsky re: nuclear use
How can conventional weapons get close to said country? Any invasion would be meet with 1 mushroom cloud and in 1 sec.you would have no conventional weapons ,what would you as president do then.Unless it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they had no more nukes;the first use of nukes changes everything. Using bows and arrows againt gatling gun would be a recipe for total defeat.
Once a nuclear weapon is used all treaties will be null and void.
The more time wasted is more time for the arabs to gain confidence in allahs will.
This would not be just a attack ah la Iraqi style,but you would have to have a strong deterrant against several present nuclear powers . 4 times I know of this year China officals have said war with America is inevitable sooner than later. What part of inevitable dont all of you understand? It is not a matter of stupid it is a matter of opportunity and the willingness to lose a billion people.
If America was strong in her resolve their would be no ww3,If America was decisve Isreal would follow our lead.But if weakness creapt in anywhere yes that would be a disaster.
Tronsky I do understand where you are coming from,thank you and the others for a reasoned debate.
.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
4 times I know of this year China officals have said war with America is inevitable sooner than later. .
Sources?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nuke the crap out of them. Turn it into a wasteland as a lesson to the rest of the cameljockeys.
Jesus was a cameljockey and Andre the Giant was French.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Jesus was a cameljockey and Andre the Giant was French.
Don't worry .... they're clear of the blast radius now.
-
I would invade France to set an example.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
#1
>>does killing 200000 more give you some pleasure? <<
No, but it imediately destroys the infrastructure of the offending country. The number one duty of the U.S. is to protect it's sovereinty. Getting the aproval of the rest of the world is a very distant second.
No way to protect its citizens like turning the entire world against it. Just as long as one country is down though, I guess that solves everything.
-
Originally posted by DipStick
(http://www.armynavyshop.com/closeups/rc6637.jpg)
Beret is the wrong color
Gunns
-
x2lee re: sources
In my job I do a lot of driving , a lot of news I hear comes from the radio, all news station knxt, was one source. kfi was another and kabc was another....I am 90 percent sure I read it in the o.c. register dont know what mo. for the register,been a while. btw I am remembering now one of the ministers of china told America somethig like ..I would be more worried about Los Angeles than..... I do not remember what the [then] was.
-
I have read through the thread, and have noticed that the Idea of a "Nuke" is emotionaly charged beyond its reality, Nukes are just big poision bangs, our FAEs are allrady more powerfull than what we used on Japan, and any expolsion is not all powerfull. A long time ago a man said "You dont own it till you stand on it." and lobbing explosives wont do it. if you want it permenent, Dust em, powdered plutonium and St90 will make the place absolutly un inhabitable for years if not centurys, as an allternetitive, go in and buy them out culturally, barbie dolls and rap, with a mix of hard core propaganda , using the ever present friction between children and parents and destroy the local culture. Remove them as an Identity and replace them with something more attractive, look at what China did to the Mongols, at what the OstroGoths did to the Iberians, and what Rome did to Carthage. Externally imposed culturall modification has happened before and can happen again, sap thier resolve, discredit thier leadership, hand them another view of the rest of the world, and destroy them as a meaningfull part of the world.
Gunns
-
If China decides to attack, they really won't do much damage. We have far greater technology, and our industrial capacity is second to none.
China is finally industrializing, however, the fact remains: China has over 800,000,000 people who are peasant-class. Their economy is still in shambles for the most part, and they really don't have much in the way of infrastructure (though cities like Shanghai and Beijing are improving).
Our military isn't as large, but we have many more weapons, our air force is superior to any other in the world (China still uses MiGs), and we have a navy that China couldn't even hope to out-class.
The Chinese government may want a war, but the Chinese people don't, and I am sure of this. Remember, they are still oppressive Communists.
-
Originally posted by gunnss
as an allternetitive, go in and buy them out culturally, barbie dolls and rap, with a mix of hard core propaganda , using the ever present friction between children and parents and destroy the local culture.
(http://jollyrogers.info/CAG44/dr_strangelove.jpg)
Nein mein fur ... errrr .... no way. Smothering the enemy with Barbies CANNOT take the effective place of MADII!
-
Originally posted by 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?
conventional. whats the point of vaporizing a bunch of women and kids who had no say in the decision. that and the joint chiefs comment wouldnt apply. unless someone had icmb fields like russia we could shut down their ability to deploy even a tactical nuke through other means.
-
just a reply
the point anonymous is simple...[forgive me i am going to be a little stronger this time]..how can you possibly send conventional weapons against nukes. why is that concept so hard to understand. If you sent 200000 of our military in youare going to lose 150000 can you deal with that. Their woman and kids are not innocent, as that philisopy is ingrained in them. Also we must not allow any country to get away with nuking us even if we could take them out conventionaly,because we must show everyone the price paid for using a nuclear weapon OR ELSE SOMEONE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
I thought I had a reasoned response to this, guess the world doesn think so ,oh well, but how easy it seems to be you all dismiss the 200000 killed in new york.You see I am just an old fashion fool, I feel if an American is killed in this way It is the same as if my mom/dad/wife/ son /daughter were killed.
p.s. you all and you etc. is just generic .
-
Originally posted by demaw1
just a reply
the point anonymous is simple...[forgive me i am going to be a little stronger this time]..how can you possibly send conventional weapons against nukes. why is that concept so hard to understand. If you sent 200000 of our military in youare going to lose 150000 can you deal with that. Their woman and kids are not innocent, as that philisopy is ingrained in them. Also we must not allow any country to get away with nuking us even if we could take them out conventionaly,because we must show everyone the price paid for using a nuclear weapon OR ELSE SOMEONE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
I thought I had a reasoned response to this, guess the world doesn think so ,oh well, but how easy it seems to be you all dismiss the 200000 killed in new york.You see I am just an old fashion fool, I feel if an American is killed in this way It is the same as if my mom/dad/wife/ son /daughter were killed.
demaw i dont agree. give iran ten or fifteen tac nuke warheads. think about how modern warfare goes. we would dominate the c4i aspects of the battle so totally that they be popping a tac nuke to kill a company of marines and twenty thousand of their own people. saying that they could knock out 150000 of 200000 is dead wrong. and saying that women and kids are ingrained to sneak nukes into the us is dead wrong as well. if you dont want to apply modern military sci to the problem and the moral question is should a nuke from terrorist be answered by a nuke to the nation that backed them i say thats not the right path to take. the people youd end up killing wouldnt have a lesson to learn. everyone responsible would be long gone by the time the nuke got there. do you really think that women and children in some nation are guilty of being indocd to hate usa? that hasnt been my experience.
-
Your sig says it all, anonymous.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
just a reply
the point anonymous is simple...[forgive me i am going to be a little stronger this time]..how can you possibly send conventional weapons against nukes. why is that concept so hard to understand. If you sent 200000 of our military in youare going to lose 150000 can you deal with that. Their woman and kids are not innocent, as that philisopy is ingrained in them. Also we must not allow any country to get away with nuking us even if we could take them out conventionaly,because we must show everyone the price paid for using a nuclear weapon OR ELSE SOMEONE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
I thought I had a reasoned response to this, guess the world doesn think so ,oh well, but how easy it seems to be you all dismiss the 200000 killed in new york.You see I am just an old fashion fool, I feel if an American is killed in this way It is the same as if my mom/dad/wife/ son /daughter were killed.
p.s. you all and you etc. is just generic .
hey look at it this way guy. say that nuke gets popped in london. say the backer of the mission is iran. safe bet that us would tell uk that full might of us would seal off iran take down leadership and find those responsible. nukes were power equalizer for global warfare between two most powerful nations to ever exist. they pretty much useless for anything else unless you are talking about special yield for deep penetration for heavy underground fortification.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
hey look at it this way guy. say that nuke gets popped in london. say the backer of the mission is iran. safe bet that us would tell uk that full might of us would seal off iran take down leadership and find those responsible. nukes were power equalizer for global warfare between two most powerful nations to ever exist. they pretty much useless for anything else unless you are talking about special yield for deep penetration for heavy underground fortification.
It wouldn't take much yield to do that. Most of the meltdown part of a nuke blast goes straight down.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
It wouldn't take much yield to do that. Most of the meltdown part of a nuke blast goes straight down.
Les
i think they are actually some kind of shaped charge type nuke. cant say for sure because fortunately for everyone living within a few hundred miles of various nuclear labs i am not a nuke designer. :)
-
Gosh, how many kinds are there? Shaped charge?:D
Anyway, just sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong. Nothing personal. I't's too serious for me....this discussion. I'm not imaginative enough to foresee the situation in 2007. If other nations lose respect for the US, then I would say something like being nuked is a distinct possibility. If that happens, nothing we could do could stop it if we didn't react quickly and with equal retaliation. This was understood by the Soviets and China. Why do you think the Soviets backed down during the Cuban Crisis. China doesn't even need nukes if we were in a war with them. They could beat us with sticks.
Terrorist countries should learn from them, at least as far as watching out for their own population when it comes to using nukes. Let's hope and pray Mid East countries are smarter than to do that.
Les