Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear threat to the USA?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Edgeplay_cgo View Post
    Perhaps.

    There are several problems to this assumption. First of all, where did the nuke originate from? Can we identify the hand holding the smoking gun? Should we obliterate "all the usual suspects" for the actions of one of them? What if we determine the weapon was domestically produced from a variety of parts?
    Absolutely right. For instance, what if we traced the identity of the nuclear attackers to "somewhere" in Afghanistan. Would the next course of action be to pull US troops out and nuke the entire country? or would we (and NATO) simply pour a hundred thousand (or more) troops into the country and clamp down on any extremist activity? Should the nuclear attackers be from Kashmir, are we morally justified in nuking Islamabad? Are ALL Pakistanis our enemy in that case? Even Bush in his most hawkish mood after such an attack, certainly wouldn't think that course of action would be prudent. Of course Kashmir would suddenly become practically US administered, temporarily.

    The rules of engagement seem much simpler when you see a little green blip on a radar screen rising up from a Soviet military base, then flying over the North Pole, then destroying Indianapolis or something.
    Last edited by Goatboy; 08 Oct 06,, 05:45.

    Comment


    • #17
      We can trace any nuke back to the very nuclear plant that produced it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        We can trace any nuke back to the very nuclear plant that produced it.
        Before or after detonation? Seems to me it wouldn't make much difference sifting through the rubble for residue of plutonium to identify its point of origin.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
          Absolutely right. For instance, what if we traced the identity of the nuclear attackers to "somewhere" in Afghanistan.
          Since Afghanistan has no nuclear production capability, the weapon must have come from somewhere else. The trick would be to track the fissionable material to its source. This can often be done by the "fingerprint" of its isotopes. I'm not sure (and probably couldn't tell you if I was) if we can source trace all weapons. Right now, there are few producers, but it's getting more tricky.

          But what if, say the material came from the former Soviet Union? I doubt we'd start a nuclear war with Russia over some probably stolen materials. Then, it's back to the intel people, who are oh so reliable these days, to discover the true source. If that takes a long time, the trail may be so cold that a nuclear retaliation, while justified, may be politically impossible. That depends on the power of the Domestic Enemy at the time. If it took ten years to track the source, I would still want to turn keys, but then again, I’m a hardarse in those areas.

          Would the next course of action be to pull US troops out and nuke the entire country? or would we (and NATO) simply pour a hundred thousand (or more) troops into the country and clamp down on any extremist activity?
          NATO wouldn’t come up with a hundred thousand troops if France were invaded! It would be up to the US to defend itself. I would want to go in hot and heavy, and exterminate the source. But that source would probably be in Pakistan, so it would get very tricky, very fast.

          Should the nuclear attackers be from Kashmir, are we morally justified in nuking Islamabad? Are ALL Pakistanis our enemy in that case? Even Bush in his most hawkish mood after such an attack, certainly wouldn't think that course of action would be prudent.
          If the weapon were of Pakistani origin, then Pakistan would burn. And it should. It should cease to exist as habitable land. Pour encourager les autres. Were all Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor? Maybe we should have negotiated with them? If deterrence is to be of value, it must be unvarying and horrific beyond your nightmares. Pakistan should burn. I think it will come to that in our lifetime.

          Of course Kashmir would suddenly become practically US administered, temporarily.
          Nah. I’d simply encourage India to take the place over permanently, and finance their doing it, including weapons assistance, and possibly add some tactical resources; although India wouldn’t really need them, particularly if Pakistan were a radioactive ashtray.

          The rules of engagement seem much simpler when you see a little green blip on a radar screen rising up from a Soviet military base, then flying over the North Pole, then destroying Indianapolis or something.
          Ayep!
          - Dennis
          --
          Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
          -Sir Winston Churchill

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Nidan1 View Post
            Before or after detonation? Seems to me it wouldn't make much difference sifting through the rubble for residue of plutonium to identify its point of origin.
            After, and sure it makes sense.

            That way we know who to address our 'thank you' note too...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nidan1 View Post
              Before or after detonation? Seems to me it wouldn't make much difference sifting through the rubble for residue of plutonium to identify its point of origin.
              It makes a tremendous amount of difference to the people we would soon burn away. Therefore, it makes a tremendous amount of difference in terms of deterrence.
              - Dennis
              --
              Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
              -Sir Winston Churchill

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by srirangan View Post
                That was just crazy speak. India should be worried about nuclear disarmament of Pakistan rather than the world. Who can control loose ex Soviet nukes scattered all across Central Asia?


                Where did they train? Where did they get their nukes? Where are they from? Three guesses .. ;)
                Whatever nuke material they use would be 100% traceable, and odds are, once the feds got on the case, all the warning signs and the paper trail would be clear as day(just like 911), but of course, they'll only figure this out after the fact.

                If we are nuked we MUST retaliate in kind disproportionately.

                We MUST...or our entire nuclear arsenal will become useless and impotent in one fell swoop, and every terrorist on earth will be emboldened by a factor of 1000.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper View Post
                  After, and sure it makes sense.

                  That way we know who to address our 'thank you' note too...
                  It does not necessarily mean that the place of origin of the bomb would be the same country/radical group who detonated the device in ours.

                  What makes this scenario so scarey is the fact that a lot of these weapons can be "given" to groups like Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, or even stolen by them.
                  All the more reason for us to prevent more radical countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Nidan1 View Post
                    It does not necessarily mean that the place of origin of the bomb would be the same country/radical group who detonated the device in ours.

                    What makes this scenario so scarey is the fact that a lot of these weapons can be "given" to groups like Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, or even stolen by them.
                    All the more reason for us to prevent more radical countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
                    I agree. Here is an ellaboration, Pakistani nukes are of Chinese origins. What if the Taliban, without the approval of the Pakistani Regimes, gets hold of a bomb and nukes a U.S. base in the Middle East.

                    Who'ld America nuke in return? Afghanistan/Paksitan Border? Pakistani cities? Or Chinese ones?
                    I rant, therefore I am.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      We are no longer living in an age of Mutually Assured Destruction. That mind set worked during the Cold War because the target nations were specific, and you were dealing with people who had legitimate borders and governments.

                      The only deterrent IMO that we have to day, is to vigorously prevent nations like Iran from developing atomic weapons in the first place. We need to lobby other countries to apply what regional pressures they can exert, i.e China and Japan on North Korea to express the idea that the civilized world does not tolerate the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons.

                      Without the cooperation of the rest of the world in this, I personally do not see any way out for the US other than unilateral intervention al la Iraq, and we all know how popular that was.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nidan1 View Post
                        It does not necessarily mean that the place of origin of the bomb would be the same country/radical group who detonated the device in ours.
                        No shiit sherlock. ;)

                        Originally posted by Nidan1 View Post
                        What makes this scenario so scarey is the fact that a lot of these weapons can be "given" to groups like Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, or even stolen by them.
                        All the more reason for us to prevent more radical countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
                        Agreed.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Iran got its nuclear program from Pakistan.
                          So did North Korea.

                          To me it would make sense to take out the source as well as going after the dependents.. But no, Pakistan is our ally in the war against terrorism

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy View Post
                            Pakistan is our ally in the war against terrorism
                            Pakistan is their own ally. As are we. As are the British, etc. Each nation will look after its own interests. There are no permanent allies, although our relationship with the UK approaches that.

                            Much of the "we can't offend our 'allies'" noise is from the peacenick <spit> Left whose only interest is in crippling our operations. We can "offend" our so called allies just as they can offend us. Giving a bomb to someone who will initiate it in an American city is kinda offensive. If Pakistan, or NORK, or Iran does that, then they must burn.

                            If we waffle on that, then we are doomed, and Western Civilization with us.
                            - Dennis
                            --
                            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
                            -Sir Winston Churchill

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It is a question of deterrence. With the right deterrence, we should be able to prevent any nuclear attacks upon the United States (note that I said "should"). Here is a thought expirement on one type of response that would establish a credible deterrent. It is based on the idea of the United States establishing the concept of "total war" as its response to attacks. I believe that "total war" was coined by Union forces during the American Civil war. Total war means bringing the war to a nation or nationality as a whole and not limiting it to military targets. It is a viable method of subjugating a population, although many would argue (quite correctly) that it is an unethical method.

                              What I'm afraid of is the perception that we are too indecisive to present any proper deterrence to Al Qaeda. We have basically let them get away with 9-11, so they might think that the US wouldn't retaliate for a nuclear attack.

                              The United States should make it clear to the world that if it is attacked with weapons of mass destruction launched by Muslim fundamentalists, then the United States will not be above picking random large muslim cities and making them disappear.

                              If I had been in charge when 9-11 happenned, my reaction would have been to send the USAF on a killing spree that would have been unrivaled in all history. The only thing that can stay the hand of the Bin Ladens of the world is fear. Right now, they do not fear us. If we had taken about a million random arabs and killed them after 9-11, then I believe that they would start to fear us.

                              If you want to know how to take out a million random Arabs, here is a good start: firstly, blow the Aswan Hi Dam in Egypt right before their harvest season; secondly take out every desalinization plant along the African Mediterranian coast, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean; thirdly bomb their meager cropland with salt bombs (yes, I said salt bombs); and finally fourthly, impose a naval blockade that prevents outside food shipments from reaching Arab states.

                              Yes, I know this would all be cruel...but if you seek to inspire fear, then you have to be cruel. No one fears a nice guy.

                              The question that I do not have the answer to is as follows: Should ethics play any part in war?
                              Last edited by durtyburd; 09 Oct 06,, 10:27. Reason: clarification of the post

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by durtyburd View Post

                                The United States should make it clear to the world that if it is attacked with weapons of mass destruction launched by Muslim fundamentalists, then the United States will not be above picking random large muslim cities and making them disappear.
                                So the Taliban detonate a nuke in say, Indianapolis, and you flip a few coins to see what (random) Muslim cities are destroyed, like Istanbul, Cairo, .. maybe Jakarta too. Honestly, do you consider yourself racist? I don't think you like browned skinned people much.

                                Originally posted by durtyburd View Post
                                Right now, they do not fear us. If we had taken about a million random arabs and killed them after 9-11, then I believe that they would start to fear us.
                                You are no different than Stalin or Hitler, yes I know it's cliche' to say such things but in this case it's true, I mean for christ sakes you actually said your preferred course of action would be to kill a million "random" Muslims in response to 9/11. You might not know it, but you are trampling on the graves of dead American soldiers who died defending freedom from tyrannical regimes with similar viewpoints as yours.

                                Originally posted by durtyburd View Post
                                If you want to know how to take out a million random Arabs, here is a good start: firstly, blow the Aswan Hi Dam in Egypt right before their harvest season; secondly take out every desalinization plant along the African Mediterranian coast, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean; thirdly bomb their meager cropland with salt bombs (yes, I said salt bombs); and finally fourthly, impose a naval blockade that prevents outside food shipments from reaching Arab states.
                                ARE THERE ANY MODERATORS ON WAB THAT FEEL THESE VIEWPOINTS ARE ACCEPTABLE? I think they're ban worthy frankly
                                Last edited by Goatboy; 09 Oct 06,, 09:38.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X