Jump to content
laripu

Hypothetical question

Recommended Posts

What should be the US response if terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States?

 

I'm not going to suggest a response, I'm just going to read others' responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

difficult answer, one should ask what should be a US response if terrorist or any nation state should detonate a nuclear weapon anywhere where people live today.

 

I think the answer lies in the effort to prevent something as mad as that event would be. And that it should be ongoing now, and with every effort we have at our disposal, now today. And this includes our own effort in the US to do away with nuclear arms. Nuclear weapons are pure evil beyond ones imagination. And yes, we used them against Japan, even though the Emperor of Japan had already surrendered. And yes, it was a major atrocity beyond compare.

 

Might my friend, just isn't right. History tells us this. Look as Tolstoy wrote about the infinitesimals of war long ago. Or look at India when in 1947 they became an independent nation after many years of British rule, they divided themselves into mainly Hindu, and mainly Muslim sects, and then committed unimaginable atrocity against one another. Women, children, old people were slayed openly in front of the world. Journalist reported even little babies were thrown down on charcoal spits and burned alive.

 

The US isn't any better in the parlance of history past. This must be said.

 

So yes, we must make it an imperative to rid the world of these evil weapons in the world as soon as possible. When we say, who are we, we should be speaking to the world where we all live. The Spartan of hope and peace lies in the discovery of green energy and no more wasted resource. I tell you life can be sweet, if people like us stand together and find a way to be grateful - without war.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent perspective on the subject OldBarn.

 

There are currently 9 nuclear armed nations. That's nine too many.

 

USA

Russia

United Kingdom

France

China

India

Pakistan

North Korea

Israel

 

The more countries added to the list, the greater the danger becomes.

 

Diplomatic efforts are currently underway to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Presumably part of our diplomacy, the US has recently made public its Massive Ordinance Penetrator. They are huge, non-nuclear bombs designed to destroy the most deeply buried, massively reinforced facilities. If we had to use it, I hope to God we would warn Iran well in advance so they could evacuate the facilities. Iran has a history of sponsoring terrorism.

 

Terrorism is part of asymmetrical warfare. We seem to be bombing the Middle East, for one reason/excuse or the other, on regular basis. If we used the massive ordinance penetrator on Iran's underground nuclear facilities, there would probably be retaliation in the form of terrorism in the US. So more war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are good and valid opinions, but both skirt the question as framed. If terrorists manage to smuggle in and detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil, say in NYC, what should we do?

 

It's a very difficult question. I doubt any but the most right wing politicians would answer it directly; they'd respond in kind, stupidly, on someone, probably not the actual perpetrators. Shouldn't the left also have an answer that makes sense, is internally consistent and doesn't look like evasion or right wing stupidity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding a loaded subject such as this.... I think it would be appropriate for the OP to venture an opinion before asking others to do so. This is not kindergarten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, ok. If I have to go first, I'll go first. I believe conservatives would reply in kind, a nuclear weapon, and I want to avoid that. Nevertheless, for psychological reasons, both internal and external, a violent response is unavoidable.

 

My assumption: The current group of terrorists is using religion and fear to gain power. (I sometimes wonder whether they believe their own religion, or just use it; but let's take them at their word.)

 

The first thing to do will be triage in the US location that has been hit. There will be many casualties, many people that need to be evacuated and treated. There will be lots of anger, and the president will have to make sure that the anger is directed to useful work, helping the survivors. A nuclear attack on NYC would likely cause 4 million deaths within a week, and more over time. And lots of injuries, cancers, and other diseases over the coming years. The psychological impact would be incalculable.

 

At the same time, intelligence must make sure there is no second weapon. War measures may temporarily suspend constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.

 

While that's going on, intelligence must be directed to determining with absolute certainty, who did it and all the cities and towns in which they're holed up. I expect that to take up to 16 weeks, but it could take double that.

 

Terrorists are able to thrive where they are because locals are afraid to fight them. The locals need to be motivated by a greater fear. When the cities and towns harboring the guilty terrorists are known, these places should be flattened. Not with nuclear weapons, but carpet-bombed so that nothing is left standing. Word will get out. For maximum effect, the delay between attacks should be a few days. I expect most of the casualties will be innocent people, just like in NYC.

 

The next thing is an object lesson. The attackers used religious motivation, and the response must have a religious component. The kaabah in Mecca should be destroyed with 1,000 lb bombs, leaving a crater at least 50 meters deep. Same with the burial place of Mohamed, the Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina. The Israelis should be encouraged to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque.

 

This sounds horrible, and it strikes at innocents. But a nuclear attack also strikes at innocents, and the death toll will be much higher on our side; by doing these things we assuage our justifiable anger without using nuclear weapons ourselves. The messages sent by the responses I gave above are: "if you are too afraid to resist the terrorists, you will be killed", and "your religion is powerless, you can't depend on it".

 

So now, what would you do?

 

Would you avoid the use of nuclear weapons? Would you do something to prevent or deter any future attacks on American soil? What is the minimum you can do to change the minds of people that would detonate a nuclear weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur with your outline of triage and emergency procedures at and around the scene of devastation.

 

=================================================================================================

 

REPRISAL:

 

I wouldn't go as far in retaliation. I don't believe in sinking to terrorists standards by striking at innocents. I believe it would make a far more effective statement to the world by using intelligence and, in the most massive manhunt in history, going after every last terrorist involved and killing them or taking them prisoner. Since some may be innocent, having been caught in the dragnet, all should receive a trial. Those found guilty should be executed. That is all.

 

The only situation available for comparison and the only one remotely like the detonation of a nuclear bomb was 9/11. After 9/11/2001, we committed most of our forces in retaliation against the wrong country. We lost much international respect. Instead of establishing democracies, we caused a state of chaos and fanaticism in the Mideast as has never been seen before. And we encouraged more terrorism.

 

The best thing we did was go after Osama Bin Forgotten and kill him. And we deep-sixed his corpse so it could not become a shrine. Beyond Pakistan's dismay at the military penetration, there was virtually NO protest from any country. Whether by loud approval or conspicuous silence, EVERYONE acknowledged justice had been done.

 

If we seek revenge by flattening historic shrines, we will have sunk to the level of ISIS which is destroying antiquities as we speak. And we will encourage a wave of asymmetrical warfare and terrorism at levels never before seen. More atrocities and further escalation. We must maintain our own ethical and moral standards instead of getting dragged down to the sociopathic behavior, so common among terrorists.

 

=========================================================================================

 

SOLUTION TO END LARGE SCALE TERRORISM IN THE USA:

 

We need not wait for a nuclear catastrophe to cease most of our military activity abroad and put far more into domestic security. The end of foreign aggression will release vast funds, manpower and resources for beefing up homeland security to many times what it is now.... ensuring no further large terrorist act will ever again recur. Switzerland is an example of a country which became neutral and heavily armed itself against attack.... So much so that, although on Germany's southern border, and having a large German speaking population, they were never attacked during WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one else is replying, I guess because the question makes everyone uncomfortable ... and it should. Hard questions do that. It's why I would hate to be president.

 

So to reply to you, Bludog, I think your suggestions are probably the most moral, and would be endorsed by respected people who's job it is to speak to morality: the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and if there was one, a modern-day Gandhi.

 

I think it would be politically wrong, for both internal politics and international politics. Further down I'll explain why, but first I want to speak to your bin Laden example.

 

Had Bush never gone into Iraq, just captured bin Laden in Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban who had harbored Al Qaida, and left without trying for reconstruction, without leaving soldiers there, that would have been just as respected as merely killing bin Laden. And the economy would have been stronger too, than the post-Iraq economy.

 

Back to my objections to your plan. While your plan is moral, it takes a thoughtful and morally evolved person to recognize and value that, and the world is not made of such people. Look at 50% of America for a local example (conservatives), and we should note, that most of the world is actually worse than that. Politically, that's who we're playing to.

 

They would see your moral response as weak, and would understand that the terror network had gotten away with it, losing only a few people. They would see it as a victory for the terrorists, for Islam, and for their idea of oppressed people. They would be encouraged to try again.

 

As a parallel, the Nazis also controlled Germany through fear. Germany felt like they had the short end of the stick. They were primed to be told that they deserved greatness. Maybe 60% of Germans supported them, but for Naziism to be defeated, Germany needed to be humbled. Could Germany have been defeated with a moral strategy? Was the Axis threat worse than a threat that would detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities?

 

I think the current Arab world has a cultural inferiority complex that parallels, psychologically, how the Germans felt after WWI. They once had a great civilization; now no more, now poverty. They believe they are in possession of the final religious truth; but their tiny hated enemy, the Jews, exceed their achievements everywhere. How can they not believe whatever religious conspiracy an ISIS or Al Qaeda leader sells them on?

 

In 2002, a Pakistani journalist I admire noted that in the history of Arab culture from Mohamed until then, fewer books had been translated into Arabic than Spain translates into Spanish in one year. The origin of this fact was an Arab writer working for the UN. (This may have changed by now, I don't know.) That tells me that the problems in the Arab world are largely generated by the culture of the Arab world. (See http://www.dawn.com/news/1072611/analyse-this and http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2002e.pdf )

 

I'm still interested in hearing other suggestions, or other objections. This kind of discussion makes me sharper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

difficult answer, one should ask what should be a US response if terrorist or any nation state should detonate a nuclear weapon anywhere where people live today.

 

Does anybody ever wonder why... or how come... such an event has not occurred given the proliferation of nukes and all the baddies who are supposedly climbing over each other to "destroy us".... It's not like they are short of funds to buy a few you know.

 

 

The next thing is an object lesson. The attackers used religious motivation, and the response must have a religious component. The kaabah in Mecca should be destroyed with 1,000 lb bombs, leaving a crater at least 50 meters deep. Same with the burial place of Mohamed, the Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina. The Israelis should be encouraged to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque.

 

Indoctrination exhibit A: by "terrorists"... you specifically mean middle eastern muslim baddies.

 

 

This sounds horrible, and it strikes at innocents. But a nuclear attack also strikes at innocents, and the death toll will be much higher on our side; by doing these things we assuage our justifiable anger without using nuclear weapons ourselves. The messages sent by the responses I gave above are: "if you are too afraid to resist the terrorists, you will be killed", and "your religion is powerless, you can't depend on it".

 

... and how is this any different than the past fifteen years?

 

Your scenario of a nuke attack is just a levelling up the 2001 scenario. And your proposed response to your scenario simply levels up what the Bush administration's response was in 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting response: mostly, you say that my ideas are wrong and I'm indoctrinated. Buy how would you respond to the nuclear attack? How about grappling with this really hard question?

 

As to why such an event has not occurred, there are a number of possibilities. Maybe no country or group is willing to sell a nuclear weapon for fear of reprisal, maybe the expertise to make the smuggled components of a nuclear weapon function together correctly is lacking, maybe there's fear of the reprisal, and maybe one has already been smuggled in and intercepted by the authorities, who don't make it public for fear of inciting panic. Maybe somebody is waiting for the right moment.

 

ISIS has made such a threat, but experts are saying it's just hot air, that they can't do anything yet. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/nuclear-experts-play-down-threat-uranium-stolen-isis-n152926

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like AshleyXI said, your terrorist nuke scenario is just a variation on 9/11. Terrorism's goal is to elicit a response. Sometimes, the best response is the least. Heal, repair, rebuild... Our 9/11 response was way overdone. We were OK maybe up to the point where we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan using mostly special forces, Northern Alliance allies, and airpower. Everything after that was counter-productive. We spent billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and damaged our international reputation while achieving no lasting result. The domestic security changes were also an overreaction. Securing airline cabin doors would have been sufficient. Instead we create a whole new agency just to make air travel slower and less efficient.

 

9/11 was a success, not because of the damage it did, rather because of the reaction it provoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one else is replying, I guess because the question makes everyone uncomfortable ... and it should. Hard questions do that. It's why I would hate to be president.

 

So to reply to you, Bludog, I think your suggestions are probably the most moral, and would be endorsed by respected people who's job it is to speak to morality: the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and if there was one, a modern-day Gandhi.

 

I think it would be politically wrong, for both internal politics and international politics. Further down I'll explain why, but first I want to speak to your bin Laden example.

 

Had Bush never gone into Iraq, just captured bin Laden in Afghanistan, destroyed the Taliban who had harbored Al Qaida, and left without trying for reconstruction, without leaving soldiers there, that would have been just as respected as merely killing bin Laden. And the economy would have been stronger too, than the post-Iraq economy.

 

I once took a political position test and scored left of Gandhi.

 

Had Bush never gone into Iraq, there would be no ISIS now. In WWII we had a wise policy of giving Japanese prisoners excellent treatment despite their fanatical resistance to us.... We maintained a policy of no torture all the way until the W. Bush presidency. We were respected even in the most brutal countries. Up until W. Bush, US hostages were almost always treated well. Our policy of torture in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and foreign surrogates set the stage for torture and beheadings of American prisoners.

 

Obviously, even the most regressive and brutal people can appreciate a high moral standard of behavior and respond positively. By committing acts of desecration, disrespect and cruelty, we would be giving slingshot momentum to a spiral of violence and military escalation. Vastly more young Islamic men would be inspired to throw away their lives, if necessary, to destroy the great satan. But behaving as civilized human beings, even after a devastating attack would reap dividends of respect and peace.

 

 

Back to my objections to your plan. While your plan is moral, it takes a thoughtful and morally evolved person to recognize and value that, and the world is not made of such people. Look at 50% of America for a local example (conservatives), and we should note, that most of the world is actually worse than that. Politically, that's who we're playing to.

 

They would see your moral response as weak, and would understand that the terror network had gotten away with it, losing only a few people. They would see it as a victory for the terrorists, for Islam, and for their idea of oppressed people. They would be encouraged to try again.

 

To reiterate, it does not take a morally evolved person to respond to moral behavior. If you had substituted the word 'sociopathic' for 'morally evolved', I would have agreed. But, of course, most terrorists are not sociopathic but principled by their own rationale.

 

There would factions, both domestically and abroad who would see simple criminal punishment, absent of panic and revenge, as weak. But most would react with respect and admiration. By refraining from committing atrocities, we could avoid a true mobilization for jihad in the Islamic world. And thereby avoid a modern continuation of the crusades.

 

 

As a parallel, the Nazis also controlled Germany through fear. Germany felt like they had the short end of the stick. They were primed to be told that they deserved greatness. Maybe 60% of Germans supported them, but for Naziism to be defeated, Germany needed to be humbled. Could Germany have been defeated with a moral strategy? Was the Axis threat worse than a threat that would detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities?

 

No meaningful analysis of Nazi Germany can leave out Hitler, his deluded state and his charismatic effect on most Germans. Although there may have been some superficial psychological similarities with the Arab world today, the differences are too numerous and substantial.... Far too many to list here.... So it's not a good parallel.

 

 

I think the current Arab world has a cultural inferiority complex that parallels, psychologically, how the Germans felt after WWI. They once had a great civilization; now no more, now poverty. They believe they are in possession of the final religious truth; but their tiny hated enemy, the Jews, exceed their achievements everywhere. How can they not believe whatever religious conspiracy an ISIS or Al Qaeda leader sells them on?

 

ISIS is a result of excessive retaliation. We should learn a lesson from that.

 

 

In 2002, a Pakistani journalist I admire noted that in the history of Arab culture from Mohamed until then, fewer books had been translated into Arabic than Spain translates into Spanish in one year. The origin of this fact was an Arab writer working for the UN. (This may have changed by now, I don't know.) That tells me that the problems in the Arab world are largely generated by the culture of the Arab world. (See http://www.dawn.com/news/1072611/analyse-this and http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2002e.pdf )

 

It strikes me that the analysis in the links is probably accurate. But ignorance, resentment and widespread feelings of inferiority are not an excuse to commit atrocities and acts of inhumanity to get revenge.... No matter how badly we have been damaged. To destroy wantonly and hurt innocent people needlessly would harm US in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like AshleyXI said, your terrorist nuke scenario is just a variation on 9/11. Terrorism's goal is to elicit a response. Sometimes, the best response is the least. Heal, repair, rebuild... Our 9/11 response was way overdone. We were OK maybe up to the point where we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan using mostly special forces, Northern Alliance allies, and airpower. Everything after that was counter-productive. We spent billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and damaged our international reputation while achieving no lasting result.

 

9/11 was a success, not because of the damage it did, rather because of the reaction it provoked.

 

Well put. I couldn't agree more.

 

 

The domestic security changes were also an overreaction. Securing airline cabin doors would have been sufficient. Instead we create a whole new agency just to make air travel slower and less efficient.

 

If guns and bombs can be brought on board, securing airline cabin doors is not sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't replied till now, cause I don't come on that often.

 

My opinion is to "turn the other cheek."

 

As technology advances, individual people gain more power to possibly do damage. As time moves forward, more people will have more and more power. Unless we can prevent such massive attacks, Humanity will not survive. The way to survive is to make life viable for everyone. That means the rich can't take more than their fair share, and push everyone else into dire poverty.

 

I suggest now is the time to start avoiding such nuclear catastrophe and stop the wars, stop the dysfunctional economies. Make everyone's life valuable at least to himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't replied till now, cause I don't come on that often.

 

Great post. I for one, would be better informed if you posted more often.

 

 

My opinion is to "turn the other cheek."

 

Yes. I have often thought of it. What a bold, pioneering act of forbearance it would be. As a PRACTICAL matter, we must end the practice of legalized mass murder by war.... Or go extinct as lethal technologies improve. Who better to set the very first example but the most powerful military force on Earth.

 

 

As technology advances, individual people gain more power to possibly do damage. As time moves forward, more people will have more and more power. Unless we can prevent such massive attacks, Humanity will not survive. The way to survive is to make life viable for everyone. That means the rich can't take more than their fair share, and push everyone else into dire poverty.

 

Economic warfare is another form of violence that people have practiced on each other since the neolithic revolution. It too must be brought to a close so that all people can have a strong sense of self-worth.... And the will to carry our species forward.

 

 

I suggest now is the time to start avoiding such nuclear catastrophe and stop the wars, stop the dysfunctional economies. Make everyone's life valuable at least to himself.

 

Exactly. As for now. We need to stop this endless war and cease our foreign aggression.... And use the money, manpower and resources to increase homeland security to the point where large scale domestic attacks are nearly impossible. In fact, if we started doing it now turning the other cheek would not even be necessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you say that my ideas are wrong and I'm indoctrinated.

 

I haven't said or implied that your ideas are 'wrong'... I asked how was your response different from Bush & Co's.

 

Indoctrination yes, the op asks how would we respond if there was a terrorist nuke attack, and your response indicates the perps were obviously Islamic fundamentalists, hence bombing of mosques and what not. Terrorist = Islamic baddies, in your mind. So yes, indoctrination.

 

As to why such an event has not occurred, there are a number of possibilities. Maybe no country or group is willing to sell a nuclear weapon for fear of reprisal, maybe the expertise to make the smuggled components of a nuclear weapon function together correctly is lacking, maybe there's fear of the reprisal, and maybe one has already been smuggled in and intercepted by the authorities, who don't make it public for fear of inciting panic. Maybe somebody is waiting for the right moment.

 

That's a lot of maybe's. If I asked you how would you grapple with being in a devastating car accident, and your response was it's not likely. And I said, well it's not likely because maybe this, maybe that, maybe maybe... you'd probably wonder why I was being such a pessimist lol.... or you'd probably wonder if I was trying to sell you some kind of insurance :)

 

ISIS has made such a threat, but experts are saying it's just hot air, that they can't do anything yet. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/nuclear-experts-play-down-threat-uranium-stolen-isis-n152926

 

... on this note, lets "grapple" with the "what-if" of a nuke attack by some baddies lol...

 

Triaging and disaster relief I think goes without saying. I would commission three separate inquiries into who the perps were, because lets face it, the perps are in no hurry to die off by themselves.

 

Your op doesn't say who the perps would be, and neither does my commission findings lol.. so I cannot further this response.

*** i would commission three separate inquiries... and let them take their time and do a thorough job.... because lets face it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the reason the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program has been unproductive is because, at some point, all technological species in our Universe bring extinction on themselves using weapons of mass destruction.... Namely, there might be some determinative aspect built into the laws of our particular Universe that make self-extinction of technological species inevitable.

 

Many scientists have suggested nuclear annihilation for technological species based on the Fermi Paradox:--

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.[1] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:

  • The Sun is a typical star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
  • With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets.[2][3] Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.
  • Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. But Fermi saw no convincing evidence of this, nor any signs of alien intelligence anywhere in the observable universe. Hence, Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the reason the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program has been unproductive is because, at some point, all technological species in our Universe bring extinction on themselves using weapons of mass destruction.... Namely, there might be some determinative aspect built into the laws of our particular Universe that make self-extinction of technological species inevitable.

 

Many scientists have suggested nuclear annihilation for technological species based on the Fermi Paradox:--

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

nice post, Blu.

 

i think it was Brian Cox that said Space/Time is so unfathomably vast, that even if great civilizations lived and died naturally, the chances that one civilization would encounter another civilization are beyond astronomical.

 

space and time and space/time are infinite to us... making this one incredibly lonely universe.

 

his statements made me sad, as a SciFi guy.

 

but he also said... chance are, there are 2 reasonable possibilities: 1) they are already living with us 2) they never will be. so... for those that oppose, maybe they have always been here.

 

_____________________________________________________

 

another good paraphrase by Neil Degrasse:

 

the difference between humans and chimps, from a DNA standpoint, is less than 1% - such a minute difference. just 1 tiny percent is the difference between landing a robot on to a comet, and scratching your ass for 23 hours a day.

 

now image what 2% would do.

 

_____________________________________________________

 

another one... (i forget who)...

 

we are surrounded by oodles and oodles of life on this planet and we rarely try to rate it's intelligence because we have a very narrow concept of intelligence. we see a bacteria, and we treat it like bacteria. if we were to encounter intelligent life on another planet, we probably wouldn't even recognize it anyway.

 

(sorry to get off topic. i've been reading everybody's responses.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What should be the US response if terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States?

 

first, i strongly believe in nuclear deterrence theory. war between countries is not going to happen. it's a lose/lose scenario, and no nation wants to lose.

 

second, today, it's VERY difficult for a terrorist to build a nuclear bomb. you need materials that are just too difficult to acquire without a wealth of nations behind you.

 

i simply don't see a nuclear "hit" happening by a foreign country or a foreign-based terrorist group. what i do see, is the incredible profits the military industrial complex has made by propagating the irrational fear of nuclear war.

 

 

what i think will happen:

first - marshal law will be declared. and tens of thousands of Muslims would be legally imprisoned and tortured in order to find an answer. those that are not legally objectified, will be lynched by the fearful American class. and we all know this - we all lived through that fear and anger after 9/11. personally, it took me WAAAYYYYY to long to recognize this in myself after 9/11, i hate to admit.

 

second - we would strike ALL countries that knowingly harbour terrorists and/or are knowingly researching nuclear capabilities, under the justification that they did not / are not doing enough to combat home-grown terrorism in their country, and we cannot take a chance with any nuclear program they may be working on. these strikes would include tactical nukes - for efficiency and economy.

 

third - the UN would be all but dissolved, and a world government will be created in order to counter future attacks. all nuclear powers and the G8 countries would lead this organization.

 

fourth - find the fucker that did it, and silence him for good.

 

fifth - the military industrial complex and the "bilderbergers" (or whatever you want to call them) would rule the world, forever.

 

 

 

what i want to happen:

first: ensure we have an elected government that we truly feel represents the people (and not the best interests of "the country".)

 

second: find the fuckers that did it, and prosecute them in open court. (if we didn't go into Iraq (and Afghanistan) with the intent we had, we would have found bin Laden MUCH sooner.)

 

third: ally with (not destroy) all Muslim countries to end terrorism. this will involve massive crack downs, but also political/economic negotiation, like the Palestinian question.

 

 

 

what i want to do to PREVENT this from happening:

first: ensure we have an elected government that we truly feel represents the people (and not the best interests of "the country".)

 

second: ally with (not destroy) all Muslim countries to end terrorism. this will involve massive crack downs, but also political/economic negotiation, like the Palestinian question.

 

(the only difference between prevention and response is we don't need to find the fuckers that did it. pretty good trade off IMO.)

 

 

so... nuclear war/hit - NOT going to happen. however, if it does, it's perfectly clear, IMO, who the victors would be. it's NOT "we the people" and it's NOT "the terrorists".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every weapon that's ever been invented has been used. That includes nukes, which we used on the first day possible. Biological warfare was used in the middle ages, lobbing plague ridden corpses over fortress walls with trebuchets. Gas in WW1.

 

I don't believe the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) theory will work much longer to prevent nuclear exchanges. Rival nuclear powers like for instance, India and Pakistan each have incentive to bomb the other first, wiping out their enemy's capability to launch. All that's needed is..... the wrong leader at the helm.... false intelligence.... a fatal mistake somewhere along the line.... or tension rising to intolerable levels.

 

We need worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every weapon that's ever been invented has been used. That includes nukes, which we used on the first day possible. Biological warfare was used in the middle ages, lobbing plague ridden corpses over fortress walls with trebuchets. Gas in WW1.

 

I don't believe the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) theory will work much longer to prevent nuclear exchanges. Rival nuclear powers like for instance, India and Pakistan each have incentive to bomb the other first, wiping out their enemy's capability to launch. All that's needed is..... the wrong leader at the helm.... false intelligence.... a fatal mistake somewhere along the line.... or tension rising to intolerable levels.

 

We need worldwide nuclear disarmament.

we've used nukes - but not on a nuclear power.

 

we've used bio weapons - but none of these ever had the threat of annihilation. nukes do.

 

India and Pakistan would still both lose in a nuclear exchange. first, each's nuclear weapons are so well protected and bunkered it would be WAY too risky to attempt a first strike meant to disable the others' nuclear capacities. it would only take one nuke to destroy the economy and send the country tail-spinning into a depression, and a medical catastrophe that would take decades to recover from. second, retaliation would also come from the west. all trade would stop. sanctions. embargoes. financial support completely stopped. the leaders would be targeted (from within) for destroying the economy. the people would not stand for it. the aggressor would be crippled (if not completely destroyed). there is ZERO incentive for a nuclear war, even between Pakistan and India.

 

every country is ruled by the corporate elite. their goals are financial profits, and ONLY financial profits. and nuclear war is simply not profitable.

 

even psychopaths like Kim Jong-un are handled by the elites. they have TOO MUCH TO LOSE by the deranged acts of any one psychopath. and even psychopaths like Kim Jong-un know that a nuclear strike would end him.

 

even the extreme religious, like Iran's leader, will, conveniently wait for "god" to hold the Jews accountable for their sins, instead of causing their own annihilation by striking first.

 

there is only ONE PERSON that would use a nuke. a trapped animal. Games Theory rocks the truth.

 

i support global nuclear disarmament - but only under a type of "world government". aside from that scenario - it simply will not happen. so why bother with the fight. however, i do support limiting nuclear weapons (Reagan style).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct. Global nuclear disarmament under some new type of 'world government' is the only way it would work.

 

All the reasons you gave why it would be logical and sensible not to use nukes are valid. Still, they are poised to strike.... Useless if otherwise. So some kind of mishap could, and probably will trigger a nuclear exchange. The elites could only watch in dismay, their money being useless at the moment of liftoff. They could only look on in horror watching "too much to lose" being lost.

 

Trapped animals don't have nukes. Humans, trapped within their paranoid imaginings do. A nuclear exchange between for example, Pakistan and India could easily trigger a global nuclear cataclysm. And so, feature a sixth major extinction.

 

It's not sufficient for the US to call for Iran or North Korea to eschew nuclear weapons. We must be willing to set the example before we pressure others to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans, trapped within their paranoid imaginings do.

yes - this is scary. have to admit.

 

btw: i really really hate making these claims of "impossibility". i am notorious for being wrong. i once argued (in front of many) that Robert Plant would NEVER do another concert. and lo and behold, that very night, on the radio, was the announcement of his "limited engagements". ever since then - and years of people reminding me of it - i try not to say "impossible". (i'm much too passionate sometimes.)

 

time for wine!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

another good paraphrase by Neil Degrasse:

 

the difference between humans and chimps, from a DNA standpoint, is less than 1% - such a minute difference. just 1 tiny percent is the difference between landing a robot on to a comet, and scratching your ass for 23 hours a day.

 

now image what 2% would do.

correction - "imagine what 1% in the other direction would do"?

 

here's the clip. interesting perspective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...