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.

 

If the USA gets nuked

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
It is the fear that will drive the masses. Fear of what is next. IS there an American out there who does not puprposely still look to the sky if you hear a plane to close? I still do.Rioting could occur if an attack happens in a highly populated area such as NYC, LA or Miami and the ensuing martial law that would be put in effect will have civi casualties. THat is what we need to prepare for. It may not be a nuclear attack. How about 10 simultaneuosly car bombs at the Local Super Wal Mart? How about 5 vans packed with explosives/dirtybomb/chem/bio weapon outside of multiple state colleges? HOw would you like to be watching Monday nght Football and the halftime show is a explosion that kills 85.000. Something of this magnitude would cause MASS PANIC. People freak out if American Idol is pre-emtped with breaking news coverage for god sake. Waht are these people going to do when the s*** does hit hte fan? Prepare your self not for Armegeddon, but to get through the couple of weeks after...



JAK

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

But could the USA justify a nuclear strike as retaliation??



You don't seriously think that US would go Holocaust on the mid-east if a handful of psychopathic serial killers hiding behind religion let off a nuke in the US do you?


I doubt that the US would retaliate with a nuclear strike, perhaps only because though I believe such an act would only be perpetrated by a terrorist group, and so giving them no direct target. I remember on September 11th 2001 I was working with a friend when we heard the news. When it finally became clear what was going on, (we were listening to a very poorly tuned radio and it was all a little confusing at first), I remember saying to him that I didn't believe it was the act of a single country because I thought no one country would dare. I also remember feeling justified in that opinion when Yasser Arafat promptly appeared hurriedly stating that he had no involvement in the attacks whatsoever.

What, unless you were already at war, would be the point of attacking the US on such a scale? The US would have a legitimate target, and I fail to see how any country could offer worthwile resistance.

So I think the situation would be the same here. The only ones unafraid of the reaction would be a fanatical terrorist group not openly aligned with any one country, and willing to die to see their aims progressed.

Many years ago I remember talking to a friend of mine who had just come out of the British Army. He said it was the opinion of very many in the Army that the only reason the IRA didn't murder any immediate members of the royal family was not because they couldn't find there way past the stringent security, but because of the backlash they would recieve in terms of public outrage. So in his opinion, and that of many of his friends, we had a terrorist group considering certain actions bad PR.

If we are looking from this perspective, assuming that any such action would never be taken, by anyone, without the possible political outcomes considered, then we could ask; Apart from the deaths caused, could there be any other considered purpose? Would any such action offer the possibility for the achievement of any specific long term political goals?

I believe so.

Due to the truly horrific scale of devastation that such an attack would cause, I believe the US would have to be seen as reacting without delay, if only in point of preventing the possibility of further attacks of a similar nature.

I think that utilizing such a terrorist method would be considered ideal in hoping the outcome would be that of a knee-jerk reaction. Namely the US coming down hard on the suspected perpetrators, (and, rightly or wrongly, we all know which peoples would be the number one suspect). Thus feeding the already massive unpopularity with which the US is viewed in the middle east.

So what better then than to provoke such retaliation, if you believe the end justifies the means and that the US is 'The Great Satan'?

Both sides could end up considering their dead martyrs far beyond that of any past conflict. On one side the US with it's determination to protect the freedom worn so proudly on it's chest, on the other a people with an unwavering belief in an Islam that percieves the US as a great evil.

Err... I appear to have strayed somewhat off track. So my answer would be that I don't see the US retaliating with nuclear weapons. At least at first.

Jack

(PS: I am in now way trying to enforce any stereotypes here. I am (obviously I hope), not trying to suggest that all followers of Islam are fanatical suicide bombers who consider the US evil, just as I would not infer that Americans are all gun toting hicks.)



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JAK
I doubt that the US would retaliate with a nuclear strike, perhaps only because though I believe such an act would only be perpetrated by a terrorist group, and so giving them no direct target.


Look up a government group called MAD. It is standing US policy (in short) if we get nuked we will nuke back. If we get nuked by terrorists that we can't identify we will nuke the 3 most likely suspect countries that sponsor terrorism. There is a clear target, 1 billion anti-american muslims. Look up the policy before you start to doubt the things this country will do. A nuke goes off it will change the face of the planet.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
MAD was meant as a deterrent, so the Soviets or Chinese didnt nuke us knowing their countries would be wasted too. MAD will not work with terrorists because they want the face of the earth changed, they have no problem dying for their cause. So MAD would have no bearing on them. Thankfully, nuclear weapons are not as stable as dynamite or other explosives, and require complicated maintenance so any fabled russian nuke suitcase left hidden under some rock somewhere is probably not gonna work.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by 27jd]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAK
Due to the truly horrific scale of devastation that such an attack would cause, I believe the US would have to be seen as reacting without delay, if only in point of preventing the possibility of further attacks of a similar nature.

I think you're right. Unfortunately, in their haste, they'd be willing to bomb the first country they suspect, guilty or not. My guess is, it would probably be Iraq. Why not? They've served as a good scape goat so far.
Or maybe they'd bomb both Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a pretty safe bet that they won't get the ones who are responsible.
The problem is, what the hell is bombing the wrong country going to do to stop those who are really responsible?

Knowing what they already know about the US (that we'll most likely attack anyone, just to please the masses and say that we're responding with the utmost severity), do you think they could be setting us up?

It wouldn't be too tough right now to engage the US into a full scale war. Al Qaeda could easily lauch an attack from another country, and wham! We're suddenly at war with them for harboring terrorists.


JAK

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
JOHNSmith - it was a opinion that was offered, nothing more.

After looking it does indeed appear that the MAD doctorine may still be standing US policy.

I was under the impression that the impression that the Mutual Assured Destruction strategy had been consigned to history along with the cold war in favour of "flexible response and controlled escalation".

But I believe though that unless attacked by a nation state with nuclear weapons, or a similar threat where the adversary presents such a target, such a course of action would not be taken.

I also looked at :

NSPD-17 / HSPD 4 [unclassified version]:
National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction
December 2002

But am of the opinion that a nuclear strike of the size you, (in reference to MAD) would seem to suggest, would be reserved for hostile nation states. Not randomly thrown at anyone who could possibly be hiding terrorists

I was considering that maybe any nuclear attack, by terrorists, on the US would, at most, only hold the possibility that it would be met with such a smaller 'tactical' nuclear reaction, rather than an all-out launch; especially at such targets "the three most likely suspect countries that sponsor terrorism".

But this option, even though possibly favoured by the president, (to use on caves in Afghanistan), was not taken up previously. I still don't believe that the US would start throwing nuclear missiles at soverign nation states because of the actions of a group of terrorists, which was my point.

I know that Sept 11th would be dwarfed in comparison to such an attack, but nuking a country on such a scale which would undoubtly include civillian areas? The recent war in Iraq, making use of only 'conventional' weapons, was hardly greeted with cheers by the majority of the world.

I think it much more likely that 'conventional' warfare would be employed, to what degree though I wouldn't like to say... or see.

Then again, is conventional warfare able to deal with such a threat. In the early days of America the native Americans did not stand and fight in a conventional manner. It has been suggested that this necessitated the use of disease and the mass killing of the buffalo to achieve what the military could not. In Vietnam, again the worlds most powerful came up against unconventional warefare, and could not seem to find the answer.

Oh I don't know! I'm just leading myself round to further questions now.

I don't profess to have any knowledge of the USA's current strategy, nuclear or otherwise. I was just offering an opinion.

Jack



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well im sure most of the member of this site,(great by the way) will remember the bruce willis film "the siege" way back in the days before 9/11,

For those of you who don't remeber it, terriost cell in new york bruce is amry bloke called in to sort the mess out,

Giant's stadium as a processing centre for all asian males from 14 upward!! this is what would happen if dear old obl and crew decide to step up to the major leauges and nuke the US.

America would go into mouring for 24/48 hours then the good honset folks up in washington
would unleash the full force of he us miltary on what ever poor country has the misfortune to be supected of sponsering terrisom.

Shock & AWE , well you havent seen nothing compared to what would happen if god forbid this happens, daft wouldn't need to be brought in, people would volunteer to serve to defend their country, and the US is better equipped, better train and has some awesome weapon to play with,

Would be like walking to a loin's den and hacking off his pride & joy while he's awake. You only make him angry. and you get your head bitten off

North korea, iran, syria would all have 2 choices, ship up or get wiped out, give over your nukes, disarm, and play nice.

Would it kick of world war III? who knows for sure, what if china had a hand in then what invade china, yeah right the US dosen't have that many troops. only one way to deal with that and that make bejing glow in the dark



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAK
I was considering that maybe any nuclear attack, by terrorists, on the US would, at most, only hold the possibility that it would be met with such a smaller 'tactical' nuclear reaction, rather than an all-out launch; especially at such targets "the three most likely suspect countries that sponsor terrorism".

I still don't believe that the US would start throwing nuclear missiles at soverign nation states because of the actions of a group of terrorists, which was my point.


To your first point here, yes we would. We know who sponsors terrorism, we know what governments fund terrorism, we know a lot. Picking the most likely suspects isn't a hard call or a flimsy one.

To your second point.... We attacked a sovern nation with nothing but a couple bad intelligence reports because in a few years they "might" be a threat. You think if we got nuked the rational and cool headedness would get better? I think the more people that die the more rational thinking goes out the window and the more bombs we send. I could be wrong, we could nuke the 5 most likely suspects. At this point I could even see a preemptive nuclear strike as a warning if we find some logic that it would make terrorists think twice, and threaten to nuke the whole middle east allis and all if all members of Al- Qada weren't being killed in the streets. Yeah it's kind of sick but look at some pictures of Hiroshima and ask yourself if you want to die that way. It's war....



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

Originally posted by JAK
I doubt that the US would retaliate with a nuclear strike, perhaps only because though I believe such an act would only be perpetrated by a terrorist group, and so giving them no direct target.


Look up a government group called MAD. It is standing US policy (in short) if we get nuked we will nuke back. If we get nuked by terrorists that we can't identify we will nuke the 3 most likely suspect countries that sponsor terrorism. There is a clear target, 1 billion anti-american muslims. Look up the policy before you start to doubt the things this country will do. A nuke goes off it will change the face of the planet.


You really think bush will nuke Saudi Arabia with his connections to the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family?

If the US nukes any country, they instantly become the enemy of every country in the world.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayjay2910
America would go into mouring for 24/48 hours then the good honset folks up in washington
would unleash the full force of he us miltary on what ever poor country has the misfortune to be supected of sponsering terrisom.
Which would then screw the US more than you could imagine, You want to risk an all out war with China and North Korea?

A retalitory strike would be suicide for the US. Surely even Bush cant be that stupid.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Suicide for the US? Sorry buddy, the UK follows the US regardless of the citizens opinions, our governments do not care what we think. And it wouldnt just be suicide for the US, the whole world would be done for, China and NK included. Do you think they care that much about arab countries to launch retalation that would surely mean their end? No. China is not that stupid either.


[edit on 30-7-2004 by 27jd]


JAK

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
We attacked a sovern nation with nothing but a couple bad intelligence reports because in a few years they "might" be a threat.


Briefly:

Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense, stated in an interview with Infinity CBS Radio on November 14, 2002:

So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something...

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States, stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2002 :

But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.


But those who raise questions about the nuclear threat need to focus on the immediate threat from biological weapons.


George P. Shultz, former United States Secretary of State, stated in his op/ed published in the The Washington Post on September 10, 2002:

The danger is immediate.


www.whitehouse.gov...
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

Q: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.


The justification used was that there was an imminent threat. Then that classifaction was later changed to remove the immenent:

George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, stated in a speech given at Georgetown University on February 5, 2004 :

"They never said there was an imminent threat.


Then the argument losing all credibility started to include, at least in the UK, the grounds of moral responsibility and outrage over Saddams actions.

This is really the start of a whole new thread. There can instantly be found numerous opinions that disagree with the official justification of 'threat' for the invasion of Iraq.

Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont, in an interview with CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on February 8, 2004.
Edward M. Kennedy, democratic senator of Massachusetts, stated in his op/ed "This Country Was Mislead Into War" published by The Minneapolis Star Tribune on January 28, 2004.
Madeleine Albright, former United States Secretary of State, in an interview with Time Magazine on September 22, 2003.
General Wesley Clark, Democratic presidential candidate, in an interview with NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert on January 4, 2004.
Edward Kennedy, Democratic Senator form Massachusetts, in an interview with The Associated Press on September 18, 2003.
General Wesley Clark, Democratic presidential candidate, in an interview with MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on September 8, 2003.
Stephen Zunes,professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, in his article posted on CommonDreams.org on May 26, 2004

The list could go on and on.

So then we come to the fact that the justification was the opinion that there 'might' have been a threat. No, I don't think so. I don't believe the invasion was based upon such reasons.

My opinion: Bush wanted: Revenge for daddy no longer being in power while Saddam was, a 'strong' image to present for numerous reasons including a good stand for the next elections, and hopefully a lucrative result to offset the of the present US governments economic failings:

news.bbc.co.uk...

The US budget deficit will hit a record high of $445bn(244bn) this year, according to White House projections.


So I think it is reasonable to conclude that the US did not attack:

...a sovern nation with nothing but a couple bad intelligence reports because in a few years they "might" be a threat.

I my eyes it is not a valid point. I'm not saying here that the US would not give a massively powerful reaction to such an occurance, or that Geroge Bush is a rational and reasonable man who would be against the idea.

Only last Monday, July 26, 2004 Jimmy Carter stated that:

After 9/11, America stood proud -- wounded, but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world.
But in just 34 months, we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations.
Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism...
But recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice. What a difference these few months of extremism have made.
The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of preemptive war.
Instead, violence has gripped the Holy Land, with the region increasingly swept by anti-American passions.
This must change.


I'm sure that if, at the age of 79 he can understand the need for restraint and imperative prerequisite for good PR to win a war on terrorism, if even terrorists such as the IRA (as mentioned in a previous post) can understand the need to consider the effects of public reaction to their actions, then there must be many others who also understand this.

Rightly or wrongly, it appears the US is running desperately short of sympathetic eyes to shed tears at the death of their soldiers stationed presently in Iraq (this in respect to the policies of the US government not the personal tragedy of these soldiers deaths, and I am not stating my personal stance). I don't believe the idea of throwing nukes about, on the scale suggested, at what the US would consider a couple, maybe five, 'suspect' countries would enhance their standing in world opinion. I think the outcome of such action would only be bad for the US and that this is understood. This fact alone may well be the only thing that forces the US to show restraint, but I believe it would.

Jack



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Suicide for the US? Sorry buddy, the UK follows the US regardless of the citizens opinions, our governments do not care what we think.
[edit on 30-7-2004 by 27jd]

Yeah but if they nuked another country, the US wouldnt have a single ally left and that includes the UK. If the UK supported the US then they would too become the enemy of every single nation, not a good idea when youre in the EU.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Just wipe out the middle east, stop immigration and cut terrorism in a few neat nuke blasts......


This works for me. However, I doubt we'd use the big nukes.
Battlefield nukes work just as well AND don't have the fallout
problem over other areas.

Send 'em all to Allah. I don't care. AND I don't care if anyone
here doesn't like my attitude. This is a WORLD WAR folks.
They want us dead. They want our society dead. That means
you too.

I wouldn't worry about battlefield nukes ticking them off and
making them hate us. They already hate us. They are a murderous
cult hell bent on world domination. Find them. Kill them.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
We attacked a sovern nation with nothing but a couple bad intelligence reports because in a few years they "might" be a threat. You think if we got nuked the rational and cool headedness would get better?


Exactly what I was going to say! There's absolutely no reason to believe our government would have a logical reaction to any attack.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure the use of nukes in combat is something the world could unfortunately become used to. We've adapted to everything else.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Just wipe out the middle east, stop immigration and cut terrorism in a few neat nuke blasts......


This works for me. However, I doubt we'd use the big nukes.
Battlefield nukes work just as well AND don't have the fallout
problem over other areas.

Send 'em all to Allah. I don't care. AND I don't care if anyone
here doesn't like my attitude. This is a WORLD WAR folks.
They want us dead. They want our society dead. That means
you too.

I wouldn't worry about battlefield nukes ticking them off and
making them hate us. They already hate us. They are a murderous
cult hell bent on world domination. Find them. Kill them.


They don't hate the entire western population, just people who think like you do. The entire destruction of the Arab world, sounds like genocide to me and I do not see this so called want for world domination. Sorry if I offend you, but your post is a joke.

The US would have no support after using nukes, I think it would be the downfall of the US economy and way of life. Unless of course they invade militarily and forceably take resources needed, which is not a total impossibility.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I'll weigh in.

We would have to change or eliminate societies that produce people who think like fundamentalist. This would include getting rid of religious doctrine that promotes murder (not nessasarily the religion, but any writings that promote murder).

You can attack and invade like Bush did in Iraq. (verdict is out)

You can nuke the country and create massive fear in the population. (This worked Japan now is a wonderful peaceful people having enormous success)

You can bomb a country back to stone ages and never let them achieve a level of developement that lets them leave their own borders. (50 years and going North Korea appears to be failing miserably. Verdict is still out)

You can use political world power in attempt to change governments that allow teachings of religious murder. (we've tried this and are failing in most areas).

You can shut down the US borders so tight that America barely resembles a Free Country any longer. We could become an isolationist society.

Not many good choices. The evil choices would bring the fastest change in my opinion.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I wonder if their trying to bring as many people as they can into the inner cities so that eventually they can nuke em and operatation population control would be succeded. Just a thought.... If my area gets nuked i'm just going to walk right out in the middle of it so I don't have to worry about nuclear radiation and being slowly burned and bubbled... I'd rather just go a quick painless death.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Yeah but if they nuked another country, the US wouldnt have a single ally left and that includes the UK. If the UK supported the US then they would too become the enemy of every single nation, not a good idea when youre in the EU.


It doesn't really matter if your the enemy of every single nation when you possess the capability to flatten every single nation, and no, we're not the only ones who have that capability. So I say, every nation should cooperate and do their part to make sure NOBODY gets nuked. Wouldn't that be the best strategy? "Can't we all just get along?" Seems silly to draw these lines in the sand, when the sand can easily be turned to glass.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by 27jd]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join