It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What will be the American reaction to a nuclear strike on the US?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Unless the attacker is a major nuclear power, I seriously doubt you'll see us retaliate with nukes. Even tactical nukes are a weapon of last resort. Simply too much chance of irradiating the neighbors...and that is not the goal of course.


That's not your goal? Or that's not Cheney and friends' goal? Becuase, I think it's a very real goal for them. Read up on Cheney's "Second 9/11" plan..you'll see what I mean.




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
At worst, I agree with DeltaBoy as far as us deploying nukes. Also, remember, if the US suffers a nuclear attack it probably won't be airborne, because even Captain cuckoo cocoa bananas over in Iran isn't nuts enough to nuke us directly (more like, hand a nuclear device over to his terrorist buddies.) I don't foresee mass panic, really, either. Some people moved their families away from cities on 9/11, there will probably be more people like this - I don't expect mass exoduses like a major hurricane warrants (e.g. reversing interstates, highways, etc. to double traffic flow - and STILL massive deadlock.) In fact, I think 9/11 was a more successful than a nuclear attack would be.

There was a popular piece by a British writer that was against European anti-Americanism who praised how tempered the US response to 9/11 was, noting that the US could have "opened up the gates of Hell, like nobody else" if it had wanted - but didn't. To be honest, I don't expect a nuclear response on our part. We don't need to use nukes.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
There was a popular piece by a British writer that was against European anti-Americanism who praised how tempered the US response to 9/11 was, noting that the US could have "opened up the gates of Hell, like nobody else" if it had wanted - but didn't. To be honest, I don't expect a nuclear response on our part. We don't need to use nukes.


We didn't use nukes or cause mass destruction in response to 9/11 because the reason we staged the attacks in the first place was to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the corrupt Taliban, and set up our oil pipeline that we couldn't set up while the Taliban was in power.

This time, if a nuke goes off over here, staged or not, we WILL use nuclear weapons in a response. It WILL be directed at Iran. I refer back to Cheney's "Second 9/11" plan. I guess this isn't a very commonly known plan here at ATS otherwise you people would know what I'm talking about.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US vice president is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)


Cheney's Second 9/11



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
We didn't use nukes or cause mass destruction in response to 9/11 because the reason we staged the attacks in the first place was to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the corrupt Taliban, and set up our oil pipeline that we couldn't set up while the Taliban was in power.

This time, if a nuke goes off over here, staged or not, we WILL use nuclear weapons in a response. It WILL be directed at Iran. I refer back to Cheney's "Second 9/11" plan. I guess this isn't a very commonly known plan here at ATS otherwise you people would know what I'm talking about.


My calling isn't psychiatry, so I cannot posit a worthy response or diagnosis. If such things were given and proven, I wouldn't need such a degree or profession. But this is a post in the War on Terror forum, not Rants or Conspiracy or Mental Health. If you want to post theories or ideas of why/who/whatever 9/11 happened, there is a place for it.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I don't think there is any "conspiracy" about it. It's all facts. You just have to go out and find them. This "War On Terror" was started by our corrupt government and their hidden agendas. So posts about future plans or how the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated ties this War On Terrorism thread with the 9/11 Conspiracies thread, therefore, I am on topic. Especially considering you mentioned Iran.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Use of tactical low yield nukes against camps or high concentration of enemy personnel. As well as still using conventional weapons of course when close to high populated cities or towns.


And where is this enemy? Where is the high concentration of enemy personnel? This is the part that is completely lost on the average American. There is no enemy to drop bombs against. You don't defeat an ideology with a bomb. You defeat an ideaology by appealing to the hearts and the minds of the people. Only education and a cooperative effort with the moderates in the region will lead to victory. A military response is exactly what the extremists want. Sadly, Bush and his collection of hawks will happily oblige and retaliate with a nuke or two in return.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast

Originally posted by deltaboy
Use of tactical low yield nukes against camps or high concentration of enemy personnel. As well as still using conventional weapons of course when close to high populated cities or towns.


And where is this enemy? Where is the high concentration of enemy personnel? This is the part that is completely lost on the average American. There is no enemy to drop bombs against. You don't defeat an ideology with a bomb. You defeat an ideaology by appealing to the hearts and the minds of the people. Only education and a cooperative effort with the moderates in the region will lead to victory. A military response is exactly what the extremists want. Sadly, Bush and his collection of hawks will happily oblige and retaliate with a nuke or two in return.


That is all true, but, can you really have a nuke go off in your country, and not respond with a nuke of your own? I don't agree with nuking innocent civilians..it's not their fault..but..you can't really be embarassed like that. That will basically excuse the attacks and lead to further attacks. At what point do you draw the line?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
As of late, there have been a number of "warnings" from Al Quaida, Bin Laden, Iran and just about every other "enemy" of the United States and the West in general. Terror isn't the exclusive province of Al Quaida and Bin Laden nor is it exclusively limited to hi-jacking planes to be used as "guided-missiles".

Any number of terrorist groups exist with "reason" (often of their own making through their own unique, and often twisted, paradigm) to do the US harm. But with more and more discussions on the news and on conspiracy boards such as ATS concerning the use, by these terror groups, of nuclear weapons and/or the so-called "dirty bombs", it is unfortunately now considered "prudent" to think of the aftermath of such an attack. Alas, to think that any terror group having access, much less using, a nuclear device used to be limited to adventure novels or the rantings of ultra right wing radio talk shows. But such is the world today.

If a state; i.e., Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, should, for whatever reason, see fit to attack the US -- directly or indirectly -- one could expect, I'm certain, a swift and devastating nuclear response. But -- and there always seems to be a "but -- the difficulty will be in "proving" the source of the attack without a shadow of a doubt.
This is why it only makes sense that whatever attack against the US might occur, it will be done through "indirect" means. That is, through the "cover" of a terror cell.

However, I have started thinking that should any attack occur against the US, this administration might not hesitate to respond against it's perceived "enemies" without really waiting for proof. Using philosophical beliefs -- based upon the writings of anonymous right wing T-Shirt manufacturers -- such as "Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out", I now believe that any attack on the US would be met with devastating nuclear response. M.A.D. -- Mutual Assured Destruction worked well (sic) throughout the cold war and I'm afraid that this mentality or political philosophy remains in the hierarchy of the US government -- Republican and Democratic-- and with some "merit".

If a nuclear device were to be set of in, say, New York City, the death and destruction would be horrendous. Certainly beyond the scope of our imagination. This trauma to the American psyche could only be answered with a response that would make the instigating attack pale in comparison. And, with an enemy whose identity remains uncertain, it would not do to simply sit back while committee after committee discusses "who dunnit". At this point, I believe, the government would not be trying to discern the actual culprit. As far as this administration, or even a Democratic one, is concerned, the American people would demand retaliations and that is what they would offer -- a swift and decisive NUCLEAR attack against........


In my opinion; Iran, Syria, Pakistan and, for good measure, North Korea. Yes, I believe that all of these countries would receive an "unmeasured shared response". the fact that some, if not all, of these nations were not to blame would be inconsequential.

Of course, the world would raise a hue and cry that would be fierce but all it would be is "lip service". The world would undoubtedly be cowed by fury that the US would unleash. As far as the US would be concerned, even if they did not respond justly, at least they would no longer have to deal with these nations as "threats" for decades to come.

I know that this sounds harsh and, please, do not associate this concept with any beliefs that I, the 'benevolent tyrant' might hold personally. I am only expressing my opinion on what I believe might transpire.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I really don't know what the response would be... But you can bet there would be a huge economic recession around the world, and the US and other countries (like Britain and Israel) going on a rampage at invading countries and bombing them. Warranted or not.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
I don't think there is any "conspiracy" about it. It's all facts. You just have to go out and find them. This "War On Terror" was started by our corrupt government and their hidden agendas. So posts about future plans or how the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated ties this War On Terrorism thread with the 9/11 Conspiracies thread, therefore, I am on topic. Especially considering you mentioned Iran.


Well, that may be correct, but this isn't what the thread is about. Perhaps I should have mentioned neither Iran nor 9/11. I only did so because others in the thread did. I don't believe the original poster of the thread was debating the facts (some have their own "facts") of the War on Terror. He posed a valid question, and I know from his previous posts that he is a rational, intelligent individual - I was trying to respect that by positing my opinion of the matter. You say it's all about facts, but I and many others also think it's about all facts.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana

Originally posted by DickBinBush
I don't think there is any "conspiracy" about it. It's all facts. You just have to go out and find them. This "War On Terror" was started by our corrupt government and their hidden agendas. So posts about future plans or how the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated ties this War On Terrorism thread with the 9/11 Conspiracies thread, therefore, I am on topic. Especially considering you mentioned Iran.


Well, that may be correct, but this isn't what the thread is about. Perhaps I should have mentioned neither Iran nor 9/11. I only did so because others in the thread did. I don't believe the original poster of the thread was debating the facts (some have their own "facts") of the War on Terror. He posed a valid question, and I know from his previous posts that he is a rational, intelligent individual - I was trying to respect that by positing my opinion of the matter. You say it's all about facts, but I and many others also think it's about all facts.


I agree, but, I have stayed on topic for most, if not all of this discussion. Sometime debates take you to other topics or events that may seem off topic, when really, it's all connected. I've respected the creator of this thread's topic and stayed on, while also holding civilized debates on topics such as a response towards Iran, which would most likely occur if the attack, mentioned in the subject of this thread, occured.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Agreed 100% benevolent tyrant. Couldn't have put it better myself



EDIT: I've been warned before about quoting un-necessarily. So, QUOTE EDITED!!


[edit on 21-9-2006 by DickBinBush]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
If there's a mulitple strike nuclear attack against the US by terrorist means the Chinese and the Russians will launch ICBM's at the US to finish us off within 24 hours of the initial strikes. They'll do this because they feel they won't have a better chance to nuetralize the US military's technological advantage. The surviving US nuclear equipped forces will strike back at China and Russia. A nuclear strike on a major US population center will lead to all out nuclear war. That's why it's called MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction). There are certain political elements on both sides of the East/West conflict who don't care if billions die as long as they survive to proclaim victory for their side.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I just really really really hope nothing like this ever happens...It is just a horrible thought.

So many would die. And the world would be pushed to the side lines while the US and Britain and Israel to attack ANY country they want (Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Somalia) And it won't be like Germany invading Poland and Japan in the Pacific, it will be like a group countries the world cannot stop.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
If there's a mulitple strike nuclear attack against the US by terrorist means the Chinese and the Russians will launch ICBM's at the US to finish us off within 24 hours of the initial strikes. They'll do this because they feel they won't have a better chance to nuetralize the US military's technological advantage.


Would they want to though?

In my opinion, at least as far as China is concerned, I would think they are smart enough to realize that war with the United States, whether we are beaten down and weakened or not, is not in their best interest. We could still do massive amounts of damage to them, even with us being weakened. So, accounting for the economic and human life damage China would suffer, on top of the even more economic damage China would suffer (the world for that matter) with the United States gone, would they really want to "finish us off"?

I'm not saying China wouldn't want to be the superpower of the world (which requires our almost complete, if not total destruction), and I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to finish us off if we were weakened. But, we would still be able to do alot of damage to them as well.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by DickBinBush]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Hopefully we'll unveil some kind of secret weapon. A neutron bomb would be nice.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
And where is this enemy? Where is the high concentration of enemy personnel? This is the part that is completely lost on the average American. There is no enemy to drop bombs against. You don't defeat an ideology with a bomb. You defeat an ideaology by appealing to the hearts and the minds of the people. Only education and a cooperative effort with the moderates in the region will lead to victory. A military response is exactly what the extremists want. Sadly, Bush and his collection of hawks will happily oblige and retaliate with a nuke or two in return.


I don't think so. To be perfectly honest the US could accomplish more with conventional weapons than they can by nuking someone. There are three Ohio class submarines that have had their Trident missiles removed and replaced with about 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. There are plans in place to replace the nukes on some ICBMs with conventional warheads. The B-2 can strike anywhere in the world with conventional weapons in 24 hours. Who needs nukes? Blown away is blown away, the people on the recieving end won't be in a position to care if their ashes glow or not. The only reason that Iran and North Korea are trying to make nukes is to be able to threaten the rest of the world if they don't get their own way. My biggest fear has been mentioned in this thread. My fear is that if a nuke is detonated in the US that the politicians will cave in to the initial public pressure to respond in kind. If this does happen I think that it will happen after January of 2009. I don't think that they have enough balls to do it while Bush is still in office. I doubt that a missile will be used, because it would leave a trail right back to its launch point and I don't think that any country is that stupid as it would mean the end of their existance. Some people here may bad mouth Tom Clancy, but read "The Sum of All Fears". Don't watch the crappy movie, read the book. He creates a scenario that given current events, is down right scary and becoming more believable with each passing day.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
To say China and Russia would try to finish the US off is ridiculous. Okay so they nuke the US mainland. What about the nuclear subs and bases around the world? They wouldn't nuke the US or go to war if there was a massive terrorist attack. That is just unfounded craziness.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Most likely a domino effect. No matter how much attempted diplomacy is shoveled out a nuclear retaliation would spell the end of mankind. In some ways it might not be such a bad thing. For the most part this planet & its citizens are festering in a day to day sewer so why not just start over again. I'm certain we can't do any worse.

brill



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join