Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear threat to the USA?

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

  • #31
    I have a Morrocan uncle that I rather like (he's married to my Aunt and he kind of looks like the Dracula from the movies...he's one of those rare Roman Catholic Arabs).

    Please don't read any moral implications into what I said, Goatboy. My post was merely a mental experiment in which I attempt to come up with a solution that would actually produce a credible deterrence to an attack upon the USA. The only way to have a credible level of deterrence is to inspire true fear in ones opponents. Not necessarily fear for one's own life, since many of the terrorists obviously don't care about their own lives, instead, you would have to inspire fear of what will happen to one's family and nation. You can't get anything out of a terrorist by holding a gun up to his head, but you can get something out of a terrorist by holding a gun to his grandmother's head.

    I even admitted that it would be cruel to implement my method of deterrence.

    Cruel or not, I do believe that it would work.

    Also, please keep in mind that many people shun morality in favor of pragmatism. I try hard to be one of those that does not allow morality to get in the way of doing what needs to be done.
    Last edited by durtyburd; 09 Oct 06,, 09:38.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by durtyburd View Post
      I have a Morrocan uncle that I rather like (he's married to my Aunt and he kind of looks like the Dracula from the movies...he's one of those rare Roman Catholic Arabs).

      Please don't read any moral implications into what I said, Goatboy. My post was merely a mental experiment in which I attempt to come up with a solution that would actually produce a credible deterrence to an attack upon the USA. The only way to have a credible level of deterrence is to inspire true fear in ones opponents. Not necessarily fear for one's own life, since many of the terrorists obviously don't care about their own lives, instead, you would have to inspire fear of what will happen to one's family and nation. You can't get anything out of a terrorist by holding a gun up to his head, but you can get something out of a terrorist by holding a gun to his grandmother's head.

      I even admitted that it would be cruel to implement my method of deterrence.

      Cruel or not, I do believe that it would work.

      Also, please keep in mind that many people shun morality in favor of pragmatism. I try hard to be one of those that does not allow morality to get in the way of doing what needs to be done.
      It looked awfully vicious from first sight, I hadn't realized you were merely engaged in a thought experiment, your argument hadn't been described as such, but ok cool, im glad, perhaps my worst fears weren't realized. But, when you say you don't allow morality to get in the way of what needs to be done, I should respond that morality often defines what needs to be done.

      I don't think slaughtering a million random Muslims (somewhere in the world) to get some payback for 9/11 would be looked too kindly internationally, actually we'd lose every single ally we had, the president would be thrown in prison, the American public would be in absolute uproar -- far more so than the current debates on the Iraq war. I think in that situation America would really have become the "great Satan" just like the Ayatollah said all along, and I'd move permanently to another country, declaring America my enemy (or at least the administration that ordered such wanton killings)
      Last edited by Goatboy; 09 Oct 06,, 10:11.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
        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.
        We did it to Japan. We made two Japanese cities dissappear (although they were persistent enough to rebuild them). There was nothing wrong with nuking a couple Japanese cities at that point in time. Yes, hundreds of thousands of innocent people perished in those attacks, but that fact did not and should not have restrained the US from doing what is necessary to accomplish its goals.

        Likewise, General Sherman didn't let morality stop him from doing what was necessary to bring the insurgent populations of the South to their knees. He did what was necessary to inspire despair and fear in the enemies of the Union in order to hasten their subjugation.

        It's about accountability and the ability to hold someone accountable for offenses. We cannot fall into the trap of thinking that because the terrorists who bomb our cities are nongovernmental in nature we cannot retaliate against the cities that the terrorists call home. To fall into this trap is to give the terrorists a carte blanc to do as they wish without fear of any real retaliation.

        At some point, you have to tell the enemy, "if you kill our civilians, then we will kill your civillians". It is the way of war. It always has been, and it always will be. This is why I don't actually like war, but I will support it when it is necessary.

        One last thing, when war is necessary, it is far more effective to go into a total war that creates permanent peace rather than a half-assed war that creates permanent conflict.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
          actually we'd lose every single ally we had, )
          The only allies that the United States needs is Russia and China. If we could get them on our side we could tell the rest of the world to go to hell.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by durtyburd View Post
            Likewise, General Sherman didn't let morality stop him from doing what was necessary to bring the insurgent populations of the South to their knees. He
            did what was necessary to inspire despair and fear in the enemies of the Union in order to hasten their subjugation.
            He certainly didn't advocate the slaughter of a million random Southerners.

            Originally posted by durtyburd View Post
            At some point, you have to tell the enemy, "if you kill our civilians, then we will kill your civillians". It is the way of war. It always has been, and it always will be. This is why I don't actually like war, but I will support it when it is necessary.
            In a total war situation that appears to be the case, although I don't advocate slaughtering random local Afghani tribesmen because some Al-Queda set a bomb off and killed some civilian red cross workers.

            Originally posted by durtyburd View Post
            One last thing, when war is necessary, it is far more effective to go into a total war that creates permanent peace rather than a half-assed war that creates permanent conflict.
            What about "peacekeeping", say in Iraq? Most wars aren't total anyway. England wasn't about to nuke Buenos Aires in 1982, nor was it going to shoot down Argentinian commercial airliners. But I agree in some wars, total war is required -- like say WW2.

            But why do you equate an attack on the US (say 9/11) that was carried out by Islamic fanatics as a war against ALL Muslims worldwide? you did say a good solution would be to kill a million random Muslims.

            Anyways, ill leave the thread for a few days, gotta crash, 2:30am here

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
              He certainly didn't advocate the slaughter of a million random Southerners.
              Well, a million was an arbitrary number that just popped into my head as an example. Also, given the population ratios of 1863 vs 2006, a million wouldn't be that far off the mark (just adjust for inflation!)

              Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
              total war is required -- like say WW2.
              This war is bigger than WWII (er, well, I mean, it will be bigger than WWII before it is over)

              Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
              But why do you equate an attack on the US (say 9/11) that was carried out by Islamic fanatics as a war against ALL Muslims worldwide?
              Because in the days after 9/11, I remember seeing thousands of muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere celebrating what happenned. That image froze my heart against Islam.
              Last edited by durtyburd; 09 Oct 06,, 10:59.

              Comment


              • #37
                2nd warning for Muslims to leave U.S.A before attack
                http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=52460

                This is the second notice for Muslims to leave America. The first was issued to Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in the wake of 9/11.
                http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52460

                Comment

                Working...
                X