 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:37
|
|
If you're a smoking hunk of glass, it's damned hard to plan the next bombing.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:37
|
|
Not responding to the nuking of 20 cities with millions of dead would increase the amount of terrorists 20 fold.
There is no pretty answer. Destroying their population base would make it safe for you to raise your kids and not live in fear, so that's what would be demanded by the majority.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
I fear that Lancer is right. Most Americans would support genocide if several American cities were nuked by terrorists. And genocide would happen.
The US would be remembered in the world history as the most murderous empire that ever spanned the planet, but it wouldn't matter. |
American cities being nuked by terrorists is what then?
What would you suggest be done by France, Spif, if 20 French cities were nuked?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Trip
What, would Americans start bombing themselves?
Giving ordinary Muslims a reason to hate America isn't what I would call making it safe to raise one's children. Start nuking an entire region and instead of a few thousand people trying to cause your country harm you'll end up with hundreds of millions. |
Trip, where you from? What would you do to reply to the nuking of 20 of your nations cities?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:37
|
|
Airburst can be achieved by carrying a bomb up in a high rise. Not as hard as it sounds, just ship it in a freight elevator to an upstairs office, like it's a copying machine. Someone can be in the box and push the button when the elevator stops.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003 time: 23:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lancer
The question was "What would we (US) do...not 'is it justice'. No it's not justice, since you ask. There are loads of innocent people in these countries. That wouldn't save them in my opinion. They, and the terrorists that live among them, that are recruited down the street at one of their churches, would get nuked. That was the question, what would happen...and it's a matter of opinion certainly. How to react though? Your 'massive invasion' is pure BS. You going to go in with the first wave? Would you have invaded Japan instead of nuking? Would you have sacrificed a million american boys and many millions of Japanese men, women and children who would have assualted into our machine guns or fell victim to our tactical and strategic airstrikes? Sure, inocents died in those Japanese cities, but every american drafted was an inocent in that way. All those Japanese kids given sharpened sticks and told to repel the invasion were innocent...
I just love the bleeding heart solutions.
War is a dirty business, and if the enemy nukes 20 US cities, then we'll get really dirty, really fast. That's my take. |
Your Japanese analogy is piss poor at best.
First of all WW2 was a war between states, and between populations who supported those states. Many if not most japanese civilians would have attacked US troops with bamboo sticks if necessary had Japan been invaded. Likewise both Japan and the US recognized bombing of civilian targets as legitimate war objectives, the atom bomb was no different and in fact killed less people than some other bombing raids like Dresden or Tokyo.
What would the US do? Probably nuke the middle east, especially if Bush or some other extremist Republican is president. I don't disagree with that assesment. I simply pointed out that such a thing is just as big if not bigger atrocity as the nuking of US cities because, as I stated, the war against terror is NOT a war between states insofar as a state does not exist which openly harbors and supports those terrorists (as was the case of the Taliban).
Seriously, what would nuking accomplish if not just personal revenge and satisfaction? What if the terrorists were Iraqis, would you nuke the country you just pledged to reconstruct? If they were Saudis or Pakistanis would you nuke your closest allies in the region? Would you nuke Syria and Iran and why if they had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks? Lastly what if they were Egyptians which were also openly against their governments (as most terrorists are) and guilty of attacks in their own country, would you still nuke Egypt despite the terrorists being both country's enemies?
It's utter stupidity plain and simple. It would be the most hideous case of mass extermination and genocide in world history that would make even the Nazis look like the good guys. Is that what you'd want your country's legacy in world history to be like? The mass murder of 400 million people as revenge for the acts of 40?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:37
|
|
"Seriously, what would nuking accomplish if not just personal revenge and satisfaction? "
Revenge and satisfaction would be a part, but not the object of retaliation. I'm not sure that people here understand what the nuking of 20 American cities would involve. Consider how long it would take to bury the dead. Consider the TV images, once they got the power back up, of smoking irradiated cities where once grandma Gertrude lived. Imagine the death toll among friends, family. All of a sudden, a dozen or more Poly posters would vanish. Our money would become useless and the survivors would find themselves destitute. Food would run shjort until transportation could be reestablished. and there would be the dead, always more dead. The survivors in the suburbs would be drafted into burial details and would work day and night burying the dead in mass graves in an attempt to halt the spread of disease. People who were once family, nieghbors, reduced to rotting corpses.
The retaliation would be in kind, to insure that it never happened again. It would be massive, to insure that it never happened again, and it would be the end of the moslem world, to insure that it never happened again. To civilized human beings, revenge wouldn't be the object. Though it would be to some, certainly. I would hate the retaliation as much as the attack on my country, but I would see the need for it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000 time: 21:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lancer
The US would be finished as a major power for quite a while. Sure, we would nuke every terrorism supporting state back to the dark ages. That point is moot. The resulting new power structure, with China at the lead, is what would interest me. Our financial and production backbone of our country would be wrecked. All of a sudden we would be at the national level of the UK, but still with a super military. That should remain super for maybe 20 years assuming no great tech advances make it obsolete, and we don't get involved in a war in which we couldn't replace essencial vehicles or parts.
The free world would lose it's strong leader. A consortium of fearful euro powers I wouldn't expect much from, except for the UK of course. They never fail to rise to a challenge.
What would China do? In ten years I bet they have Tiawan. Japan would have to quickly get off its ass and look to its own defense or become Finlandized by China. |
I saw we nuke china, Japan, Russia, and all of Europe too (don't forget Australia) to bring them back to our level. That way we don't fall behind in world dominance.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell
Why on Earth would they only hit population centers? Patroklos did a fairly good job with his list, but you're both off.
I think it would be far more damaging to America if they hit all the major points in the West. Paris, Berlin, London, Tokyo, and/or at least one of the bases in central Asia or Europe that the US has. And then they would start working on American targets.
It would be far more devestating than just American population centers...
--
Now as for what happens after? We are screwed. We probably try to take them down with us. |
The scenario in the OP was 20 nukes in America. So it was on that basis I created my list (and no, I didn't take half an hour to really research it). But why would they hit population centers and not military bases? Well first of all, they are terrorists, not generals intent on invasion. Their intent is to disrupt and destroy our society. If we lost a lot of our military it isn't going to destroy our society, if we lost a lot of our people, companies, leaders, buildings, and cities, yes that would do a helluva lot of damage to our society.
Plus its a lot easier for someone to covertly set off a nuke in a major city than in a military base. Plus military bases, as far as I know, are fairly spread out, and wouldn't make for as dense a target that a small scale nuclear bomb would have as large of an effect on.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|