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

[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]

I'm just curious what Louis would do if he was Emperor of France & they nuked Paris, or if Idaho was made King of England, pre-magna carta limitations and the terrorists nuked London? What's more, let's say your intelligence chief came to you and said "One can never be 100% certain about these things, but we are as sure as we can be that the terrorists received the bomb, the training, and safe passage from the Iranian Intelligence Service". Make some glib jokes at your citizens that want a retaliation, as you have here?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Ahaha!

If terrorist ever get a nuke, chances are they will have stolen it from Russia, or an ex-CCCP country...

No country will give terrorist a nuke, the most likely scenario is that they'll take it from someone rather unwilling to give it to them.

So you feel like bombing Russia? I am not sure they'll take it kindly, and they can still wipe you and everyone on Earth pretty fast...

In the VERY UNLIKELY SCENARIO that someone will have been dumb enough to give terrorist a nuke (but given how countries are paranoid about that, the chance they'd give it to an uncontrolled organisation is pretty nihil), then it's not a terrorist attack, it's a State attack... And then well, normal retaliation in case of State attack would happen. But that's not what we're talking about; state sponsored terrorism is a thing of the past, or a convenient excuse to invade a country

(and in case you wonder, Iran is one of AQ worst ennemy... Evil Persian Shia...)

There is nowhere to nuke bomb AQ, if they ever get a nuke, it won't be given by a State, but stolen from it. Who are you going to bomb?

Louis,

[Don Corleone]

Ahaha!

If terrorist ever get a nuke, chances are they will have stolen it from Russia, or an ex-CCCP country...

No country will give terrorist a nuke, the most likely scenario is that they'll take it from someone rather unwilling to give it to them.

So you feel like bombing Russia? I am not sure they'll take it kindly, and they can still wipe you and everyone on Earth pretty fast...

In the VERY UNLIKELY SCENARIO that someone will have been dumb enough to give terrorist a nuke (but given how countries are paranoid about that, the chance they'd give it to an uncontrolled organisation is pretty nihil), then it's not a terrorist attack, it's a State attack... And then well, normal retaliation in case of State attack would happen. But that's not what we're talking about; state sponsored terrorism is a thing of the past, or a convenient excuse to invade a country

(and in case you wonder, Iran is one of AQ worst ennemy... Evil Persian Shia...)

There is nowhere to nuke bomb AQ, if they ever get a nuke, it won't be given by a State, but stolen from it. Who are you going to bomb?

Louis,

I never said Iran would give Al Queda nukes. But can't you just picture them sending their own henchmen, Hizbollah, out there to do their deeds? Do you really honestly believe state-sponsored terrorism no longer exists? Have you been paying attention to what's been going on in Lebanon?

[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.

[Ronin]

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.

yeah....but them you start hearing about some ex-eastern block countries that go like "ups...we´re missing some uranium, i wonder were it could have gone"......and it gets a bit more worrying

[Don Corleone]

yeah....but them you start hearing about some ex-eastern block countries that go like "ups...we´re missing some uranium, i wonder were it could have gone"......and it gets a bit more worrying

Aye, and therein lies the rub. That's when I freak out, not when people claim to know how to make an atom bomb. I know how to build a combustion engine, but I seriously doubt Ford or GM view me as competition.

[Xiahou]

Coincidentally enough, I caught parts of a local AM radio show this morning where they were interviewing a local author Paul Williams
He said himself and many others believe that there are already many tactical nuclear devices in terrorist hands in the US that have been smuggled across the US/Mexico border. Going from memory, I believe he said they got the weapons via the pakistani nuclear scientist who was recently arrested for selling nuclear secrets to Iran (I think). He also said Al-Qaeda's main funding source was from the drug trade- particularly heroin from Afghanistan and that theyre using their money, among other things, to train and hire technicians and buying materials to maintain and eventually build more nukes.

Among other things, he referenced how Ridge and Bush regularly referenced nuclear terrorism as their 'greatest fear' as evidence that the administration is aware of it. He also referenced this article by Time magazine, which unfortunately, I can't read since I don't subscribe.

I quick google search also shows things like this Washington Post story, which seems to support him. Personally, I'd like to think that its all a bunch of conspiracy theory garbage, but if any of this is true we are in serious trouble. And are porous borders are definitely criminally negligent.

[Divinus Arma]

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

[Dâriûsh]

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

Yet your rhetoric is strikingly similar to that of the entity labelled ‘Al-Qaeda’.

[Idaho]

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

Get this man away from any sharp objects.. or busy roads

[Tribesman]

I'm still trying to see how killing soldiers in combat = mass murderer. Tribesman is working on milking it for all its worth...but it doesn't make a lot of sense.
It makes a lot of sense. Tribesman's point was that Samson was a mass murderer because he was a Jew killing Philisitines. Apparently repelling invading armies qualifies as mass murder in Tribesman's book, at least it does if you're a Jew or a Christian.
However this particlur instance falls more inline with his normal attempts of being caustic and sarcastic instead of attempting to have a rational discussion on an issue when faced with an opposing viewpoint. Its really rather childish and is nothing but an attempt to be a bully in the discussion. Best ignored - or ridiculed for what it is.

Well Red , Don and Harvest .

you ever heard of martyrs? Someone who goes off and gets killed for his religion,
what you mean like Samson ?
So do I call him a "massmurdering Jew" or do I call him a religeous martyr ?

No of course not , after all he mass murdred the very people that God had put in place to punish the peole who had turned away from God in the first place .
That second post is a response using the words that Roark had used .

But if you want to debate mass-murder then answer me , if someone goes to town and kills 30 men so that he can steal their clothes and give them to people who he lost a bet to , doesn't that not only make him a murderer but a thief aswell.

Religeous texts eh ?

[rasoforos]

I was once chastized here for recommending we "turn the middle east into a sheet of glass". Looks like I am not the only one thinks this isn't a terrible idea.

I would rather see the sands of the middle east melted into glass from superheated atomic energy then see a nuke go off in the west. Can you imagine if Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, Los Angeles or New York were completely annihilated? The west only wants freedom for the people of the middle east!

I would rather free them than kill them, but I would rather kill them than die. It is a terrible thought, but...

Look into the eyes of your wife, son, daughter, husband, parents, or someone you deeply love tonight. Imagine them screaming in agony as the radiation melts off their skin. Wouldn't you rather it happen to the enemy?

Extreme yes. But extreme problems call for extreme solutions.


And BTW, I am not a religious zealot.

So lets destroy any country and kill all people because some ppl there might want to destroy us....


....it makes perfect sence....


....now just sit down and relax and wait for those nice people in a white van, with white clothes, come and help you wear a nice white shirt with no buttons in front so they can take you to a nice biiiig building and give you free accomodation in a nice white room with no doorknob on the inside....

...you are plain crazy.


And, by accepting nuclean anihilation on billions as a precautionary measure , as a legitimate post, this forum has reached a new level of tollerance towars intollerant people yay....