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.
Originally posted by Wolf321
In relation to war with nations, I am against first strike. The same for action against an organization within a nation without that nations approval.
In situation you presented, if the nation in which they are in with the weapon(s) gives the green light, we execute by whatever means they allow quickest. Ideally, that would be a precision air strike and not a ground team.
If the hosting nation is not cooperating, the congress MUST declare ware, and then whatever force we deem necessary takes care of the situation.
Originally posted by Republican08
what way should this situation be handled?
Originally posted by Republican08
Let's assume though that we are unsure of where the location of the Nukes are, that we know they are in the country, but are unsure where,
...
Also, I'd like to know what you would expect as the means to stop this.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by Republican08
what way should this situation be handled?
Discreetly.
Bombard the area with radiation or a strike from orbit. Deny everything.
Or if one wants to remain conventional, send in special forces to disable the device and kill all those who know how to use it. Deny everything. Have the assault team dress up as Arabs too.
Then there is airstrikes using stealth craft. That could be used to get into another country.
*From orbit, recovered meteorites could be dropped onto the target, steered by a discarding/self-destructing guidance system and shield.
This would make for a good plausibly deniable strike.
Originally posted by Republican08
Discreetly wouldn't fly, the backlash from the Arab countries would be tremendous.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by Republican08
Discreetly wouldn't fly, the backlash from the Arab countries would be tremendous.
Well then that wouldn't be discreet would it?
So you and I aren't talking about the same thing.
By the time we got done with whoever had that nuke, there would be nobody left to talk about what happened, the electronics in the area would all be fried and there aren't going to be any pictures or video coming out.
*And if the owner of the country wants to cry foul, then they must have been working with the terrorists and their terrorist nuke. Tough luck for them.
The Muslim Hashshashin (Assassins) of the late 11th century and later were known for going into their missions knowing that death was virtually certain, and energized by the promise of Paradise that had been made vivid for them in an artful scenario that was used as a recruitment tool. Allegedly the prospective assassin would be given hashish and then taken into a garden full of beautiful women, and told that he was enjoying a taste of Islamic Paradise, after which he was told that to return to that paradise he had to go out and kill his victim, and be killed in the process.
Originally posted by Republican08
I guess you're talking about detonating an aerial EMP?
Still though, when all contact is lost within an area, eyebrows will be raised.
Originally posted by area6
And then you send SF in to verify you got what you came for.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by area6
And then you send SF in to verify you got what you came for.
Or drones.
Properly equipped drones.
Originally posted by area6
Diplomatically, this is the kind of situation where you just do it and say you're sorry later - at least, that's how I see it being played out.