Congressman "throws out idea" for possible nuclear retaliation..why not bomb mecca?

[Louis VI the Fat]

We're just taking the piss

It's more aimed at people like that gun-toting 'let's nuke Mecca' congressmember.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, but it gets old after a while.

Crazed Rabbit

[Idaho]

Yes, but it gets old after a while.

Crazed Rabbit

So does macho sounding bullsh*t spouted of the top of people's heads.

[Tribesman]

So does macho sounding bullsh*t spouted of the top of people's heads.
But Idaho , isn't your statement macho sounding bull spouted of the top of your head ?
Or did you put lots of thought into it and really mean it from the depths of your heart ?

[Papewaio]

Nuke the country of the nuker.

Therefore:

Iff Timothy McVeigh had used a nuke you would nuke the country he came from.

Or if the British Terrorists had used Nukes on London, the response from the UK government would be a nuclear strike on the UK. Now that would be taking the stiff upper lip to a whole new level.

[JimBob]

If it was from a fairly distributed terrorist group with no solid connection to a govt, then no...not after the first one at least. However, that is somewhat unlikely as a scenario. A nuke is not something a terrorist group is likely to get their hands on and be able to successfully detonate without the backing of a nuclear nation.

Actually there was a study a few years back where reaserchers built what experts believe would be an operable nuclear weapon using parts easily obtained, the only missing part was uranium. This is not a multi megaton weapon, but a weapon maybe half the size of the Hirosmima and Nagasaki bombs, but that is enough to do serious damage.
Then there are dirty bombs, chemical weapons, and bio weapons, these are considered the same for retalitory purposes and those weapons can be gotten by terrorists without nation state support.

[English assassin]

IMHO we have been lead astray by the slightly random nature of the congressman's target.

IF no nation could be firmly linked to the terrorist nuke, then obviously nuclear relatiation is out of the question. If the nuke comes with "a gift from pakistan" stenciled on the side then IMHO nuclear retaliation is perfectly sensible (although I admit I personally wouldn't have the, whatever you call it, to order the deaths of 100,000s of people even if I do think in the long run it would save lives. If I was PM and they ever opened the box with the secret nuclear orders in it all they would find would be a stale cheese sandwich and an old copy of the Beano.)

[Don Corleone]

Actually there was a study a few years back where reaserchers built what experts believe would be an operable nuclear weapon using parts easily obtained, the only missing part was uranium. This is not a multi megaton weapon, but a weapon maybe half the size of the Hirosmima and Nagasaki bombs, but that is enough to do serious damage.
Then there are dirty bombs, chemical weapons, and bio weapons, these are considered the same for retalitory purposes and those weapons can be gotten by terrorists without nation state support.

Isn't that a bit like saying we had everything we needed to make a campfire, except the wood? The control of the Uranium is how the international community attempts to restrict the access to the nuclear bomb. The general premise is actually rather simple. Take two piles of Uranium, each at less slightly less than critical mass, then at the key moment, mix them so they are now well beyond critical mass. Voila. The details aren't even all that hard to work out, and I'm not sure if this is an urban myth (i've never looked) but I've heard there's working blueprints available on the web. The big thing is getting yourself some fissable Uranium.