Nuclear Response to 9/11?

bullshit

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

pigshit

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Makes farm food yummy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/features/hogfarm.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So why do the saudis adjust oil production to maintain dollar value?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001405.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm

 

This would be used only following a WMD attack on US soil. If a US city is nuked, we won't give a fuck about the press or any boycotts. We'll want blood.

 

and if we were attacked first, the backlash for a retaliation would be pretty small.

 

I'm not sure how "we'll want blood" can be a good answer when in all likelihood 99% of the casualties would likely be innocent people living near the terrorists (counting deaths from fallout.) It's like learning your wife has breast cancer so shooting in the chest with a shotgun to kill the cancer cells.

If the terrorists present us with a neat little target that allows for a clean nuclear strike against the bad guys and no one else, great. They're almost certainly not going to do that though.

We may "want blood," but at some point we're going to look back and question whether "innocent blood" was what we had in mind.

 

Once again: if we are attacked by a terrorist group that has no central base of operations, and operatives from many countries, what would be the target for this massive retaliation? Mecca?

 

If it were mecca, you'd have an entire world to fight.. ..literally.

The response to 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan, And that was whole heartedly supported by the entire world, as it was recognized that the Taliban were responsible in some way. But the invasion of Iraq was unwarranted.

Nuclear warfare is never a good thing unless you are pushed to your last option ,or when millions of more innocents are at a stake.

 

You're living in a dream world.

 

Tell me then sam, in the real world, if we were nuked by a group saying "we are from _____" and then we bombed them back, would the backlash really be bad?

 

If your the guy who lives next to ______ and are forced to watch as 20% of your population dies of cancer and children are born with birth defects over the next few years, you might well be pissed.

In any event no state sponsored terrorist is going admit because states make lovely targets (for conventional weapons as well as nuclear ones). Even if they did admit it, and we had some way of being certain that they weren't lying, the age when we condoned needless civilian casualties is over (at least for the moment). The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo (with conventional weapons) are now looked at as overkill by many of those sympathetic to them, as as unprosecuted war crimes by a lot of other people.

The world might be sympathetic to the U.S. position, but suppose your child were to tell you that a neighbor molested him, so you blow up the neighbor's house, killing everyone inside (including the neighbor's kids). As another one of your neighbors, I may feel sympathy for your pain and your daughter's pain, but I'm still going to condemn your counterattack. I think that's how the world would see a nuclear strike, unless conventional force simply was not an option (which seems unlikely).

 

And why should anyone give a fuck whether you condemn something or not? And I think that's the major point here ...agreed, some people, perhaps even most people, would condemn the attack(s), but what does that mean, and who the fuck cares?

Let me give YOU an example; Darfur -- everyone on Earth condemns the killing and forced relocation of the native tribes. Does that stop any of it? With all of the people "caring", how many Darfurians have been killed ...with no one doin' a fuckin' thing about it? See? Out of the media eye, out of mind! After Iraq was obliterated and the dust settled, people would go back to their lives as if nothing much happened.

Baron Max

 

Unfortunately your cynicism is well placed, in the end, if it directly doesn't affect them, they won't care. Its the same with anything, no matter how much you try, unless you can make it affect them, they won't do a thing.

 

If radical Muslims who preach "convert or die" are allowed to operate madrassah's that recruit terrorists inside the borders of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, then aren't those countries risking the lives of the 99% who are moderate, who just want to live in peace inside that country? It seems to me that the West is the only region of the world putting pressure on those countries to clean up their own house, and that surprises me because the terrorists have cells all over the world.

There may come a time when nukes are back on the table if the Islamic world cannot police itself any better than it has done in the last thirty five years.

 

You realize that, to follow your example, you are equating the U.S. use of nukes in response to a terrorist attack with the people committing genocide in Darfur. Thank you for further buttressing my point (even though though you apparently thought your were attacking it).

Would condemnation stop the U.S. immoral action? Maybe not. That we might go through with it anyway does not change the moral character of the action though. It simply means that we might commit n immoral act. In fact, it's possible that condemnation *would* stop the U.S. (assuming the strike is not a fait accompli at the time—and even if the deed is done, it might make us reconsider in the case of subsequent similar attacks), because on the whole Americans are a moral people who take "doing the right thing" seriously. Those responsible for atrocities in Darfur do not.

I don't think your analogy holds up in that regard because there is very little equivalence between the collective moral character of the U.S. and the collective moral character of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed.

 

If the U.S is putting pressure on all muslim nations, why not Saudi Arabia ?, Its royal family still holds a lot of religious sway over its populace. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening there as well.

 

Becasue its not in its interests to do so.

Didnt '15 of the 19' hijackers come from S.A.?

 

Huh?

Most of the radical preachers have a very small following. The major ones are on the run or maybe living under protection in the West (lol). Saudi Arabia has arrested many radical preachers, killed many extremists, the same can be said all over the Muslim World. The Muslims have done more to fight extremism than the US could ever do, their war of terror has achieved next to nothing.

Terrorists have been killing innocent Muslims in Islamic countries for many, many years. Well before 9/11. Look at Afghanistan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia etc.

The World does not revolve around America.

*yawn*

 

When you say "if more simply followed us", I assume you mean "if more were simply subservient to us", because I can't believe that anybody would promote the USA's behaviour as the route to peace. Surely, you meant to suggest that more nations should model themselves on, say, Sweden, or Switzerland.