If A Suitcase Nuke Went Off In NY

[Gem]

Maineman Wrote:

In answer to the question: I would be even more committed to defeating Islamic extremism than I am today....

which is clearly MUCH more committed than the two morons who jacked each other off for the first part of this thread - who are clearly much more committed to babysitting sunnis and shiites in Iraq, suffering 29K casualties, flushing a trillion dollars down the shitter, and, by their gross misuse and misdirection of our forces, allowing our REAL enemies to remain as powerful as they were the day they flew planes into our buildings.... allowing them to hold televised graduation ceremonies for suicide bombers mere miles away from the spot where they were hanging out five years ago when we all but forgot about THEM to invade Iraq.

Oh yeah...and calling into question the patriotism and citizenship of those of us who ARE worried about our REAL enemies.

Does that answer the question?

In a word, no.

No, it doesn't answer the question, because all you did was say, in a nutshell: "I'd be a better person than other people on the board because I'm right and they're wrong (oh, and they're also masturbating idiots...just wanted to throw in an insult because someone else said something remarkably similar in an earlier post and I thought it was clever). I'm not going to tell you what I think should be done...I'm just going to say something blase and pointless like "I'd be more committed..." and then criticize the current administration which totally DOESN'T answer the question, but allows me to beat up on the Bushies which is all I'm really here for."

I am not here to defend RSR or anyone else in this thread...we are all adults. I'm posting because you launched into a tirade that was completely irrelevant to the question at hand and then ended with the sanctimonious "Does that answer the question?" As if you had actually said something valid.

The question was "What would happen if a nuke was detonated in NYC." Its a valid and interesting question. Several members of the board obviously feel that their opinion is that a nuke on US soil would signal the need to be more aggressive with Islamic fundamentalists...others disagree, you, Maineman, are obviously one of them. But so far, you have brought nothing to the table other than insults of the current administration. While your criticisms may be valid...they are not relevant to this conversation unless you are going to discuss what you think Bush would do in response to a nuke in NYC.

Why am I harping on you? Because I am actually interested in hearing the opinion of someone who does NOT feel that Islamic fundamentalism should be dealt with by harsh, severe, possibly military measures. By someone who feels that there are other, better ways...that will stop "creating more terrorists" and actually deal with the problem at its root, so to speak.

But you do not seem willing to do that, even though you claim to want to...I guess I'm wondering whether you are just here to bash the right just like some others are just here to bash the left?

The question is: What would happen if a nuke went of in NYC. I suppose we could answer it in two parts. What would happen under the current administration...and What SHOULD happen, in our own personal opinions.

 

[maineman]

The question is: What would happen if a nuke went of in NYC. I suppose we could answer it in two parts. What would happen under the current administration...and What SHOULD happen, in our own personal opinions.

I have got a tee time in about a half hour, so this is off the top of my head:

1. Bush would react...and react inappropriately, IMHO.

2. We should use every military and intelligence asset at our disposal to ascertain the origin of the nuke and the location of the organizational HQ of the group that perpetrated it, and we should terminate with extreme prejudice both the supplier and the deliverer.

 

[Annie]

The question is: What would happen if a nuke went of in NYC. I suppose we could answer it in two parts. What would happen under the current administration...and What SHOULD happen, in our own personal opinions.

I have got a tee time in about a half hour, so this is off the top of my head:

1. Bush would react...and react inappropriately, IMHO.

2. We should use every military and intelligence asset at our disposal to ascertain the origin of the nuke and the location of the organizational HQ of the group that perpetrated it, and we should terminate with extreme prejudice both the supplier and the deliverer.

What do either of these mean? You are assuming that the current administration would not do #2? Let's say they or another administration wanted to ascertain, but couldn't, definatively. What should be done, then?

 

[Gem]

And when we ascertain the identify of the group responsible and we "terminate with extreme prejudice" but we leave their children behind because they weren't responsible, who hate us and grow up wanting to nuke the U.S. for revenge so we identify them and "terminate with extreme prejudice" and leave their brothers behind because they weren't responsible, who hate us and vow revenge...

It seems to me that you're method is going to "create more terrorists" just like you claim other options would.

Not to mention that you're method sounds quite similar to the way the U.S. was dealing with terrorism from Carter up through the current administration and well, we've all seen how well that works.

How is your method different...what makes it a better option?

Hope you enjoy your round...its a great day for golf!

 

[CSM]

Interesting that most of the posts so far presme that some Islamic extremists set the bomb.

what I think would happen:

Many would decry the event ("Oh the humanity!"); some would philosphize that the US brought it on themselves; the politicians would blame the opposing parties. Huge donations would be made to a fund for the victims. The UN would publish a strongly worded letter condemning the perpetrators. America's enemies would dance in the streets and burn the American flag.

What should happen:

Make every effort to find out who, how and why; find out who helped them do it, then kill them.

 

[Annie]

Interesting that most of the posts so far presme that some Islamic extremists set the bomb.

what I think would happen:

Many would decry the event ("Oh the humanity!"); some would philosphize that the US brought it on themselves; the politicians would blame the opposing parties. Huge donations would be made to a fund for the victims. The UN would publish a strongly worded letter condemning the perpetrators. America's enemies would dance in the streets and burn the American flag.

What should happen:

Make every effort to find out who, how and why; find out who helped them do it, then kill them.

I'll admit that a nutcase 'could' do so, knowing Islamicists would be blamed. Do we have an incident of such, yet? Who would you assume if it happened? A wealthy nutter, to be able to get nuke materials? Likelihood?

 

[CSM]

I'll admit that a nutcase 'could' do so, knowing Islamicists would be blamed. Do we have an incident of such, yet? Who would you assume if it happened? A wealthy nutter, to be able to get nuke materials? Likelihood?

1) I know of no such attempts but remember well the Oklahoma City bombing. Many tried to make connections that just were not there.

2) I would not assume anything though not necessaril eliminate anything either.

3) Possible but more likely a state sponsor acting through a proxy group.

4) I would expect some attempt at a chem/bio attack before a nuke attempt. Easier to fund and execute and can be far more terrifing. Also harder to trace the origin.

 

[Annie]

1) I know of no such attempts but remember well the Oklahoma City bombing. Many tried to make connections that just were not there.

2) I would not assume anything though not necessaril eliminate anything either.

3) Possible but more likely a state sponsor acting through a proxy group.

4) I would expect some attempt at a chem/bio attack before a nuke attempt. Easier to fund and execute and can be far more terrifing. Also harder to trace the origin.

In general I agree. I'm not yet sold on OKC not being state sponsored, though certainly not a 'truther' in that sense, just skeptical.

I'd feel way better on the nuke thing, if there weren't so much materials missing from old USSR and Canada.

 

[maineman]

What do either of these mean? You are assuming that the current administration would not do #2? Let's say they or another administration wanted to ascertain, but couldn't, definatively. What should be done, then?

I am assuming that the current administration would use such an attack as the perfect excuse to attack Iran. And before you object, consider our current circumstances.

I do not think any military response is appropriate if we don't know who to respond against. If another administration wanted to ascertain, they put every available bloodhound on the scent until they DID ascertain.

But would you suggest that if we could NOT ascertain the identity or location of either the supplier or the deliverer that we just throw a dart at a map of the middle east and turn whatever country we happen to hit into a radioactive sheet of glass?

take THAT, you ragheads! that'll teach ya to fuck with the united states... and if we missed the guys who did it, then you better be runnin' scared because we got more nukes where that one came from!

 

[Annie]

I am assuming that the current administration would use such an attack as the perfect excuse to attack Iran. And before you object, consider our current circumstances.

I do not think any military response is appropriate if we don't know who to respond against. If another administration wanted to ascertain, they put every available bloodhound on the scent until they DID ascertain.

But would you suggest that if we could NOT ascertain the identity or location of either the supplier or the deliverer that we just throw a dart at a map of the middle east and turn whatever country we happen to hit into a radioactive sheet of glass?

take THAT, you ragheads! that'll teach ya to fuck with the united states... and if we missed the guys who did it, then you better be runnin' scared because we got more nukes where that one came from!

Back to my question. The US is hit with a nuclear weapon. The state cannot be ascertained. What do you think the US government should do?

 

[CSM]

I am assuming that the current administration would use such an attack as the perfect excuse to attack Iran. And before you object, consider our current circumstances.

I disagree. I think the current administration and the Congress would find themselves paralyzed in debate, finger pointing and generating bullshit

I do not think any military response is appropriate if we don't know who to respond against. If another administration wanted to ascertain, they put every available bloodhound on the scent until they DID ascertain.

I would think that too. I am not as sure as you are that the current administration would NOT do exactly that.

But would you suggest that if we could NOT ascertain the identity or location of either the supplier or the deliverer that we just throw a dart at a map of the middle east and turn whatever country we happen to hit into a radioactive sheet of glass?

Naw, we have a list! We don't need to waste time throwing darts.

take THAT, you ragheads! that'll teach ya to fuck with the united states... and if we missed the guys who did it, then you better be runnin' scared because we got more nukes where that one came from! Personally, I like that philosophy!

It truly is difficult to cite specifics given the general nature of the original question.

 

[maineman]

Back to my question. The US is hit with a nuclear weapon. The state cannot be ascertained. What do you think the US government should do?

nothing aggressive or overtly hostile until the state or the location of the perpetrator's HQ CAN be determined. period.

Back to MY question that you dodged:


Would you suggest that if we could NOT ascertain the identity or location of either the supplier or the deliverer that we just throw a dart at a map of the middle east and turn whatever country we happen to hit into a radioactive sheet of glass?

 

[Diuretic]

And when we ascertain the identify of the group responsible and we "terminate with extreme prejudice" but we leave their children behind because they weren't responsible, who hate us and grow up wanting to nuke the U.S. for revenge so we identify them and "terminate with extreme prejudice" and leave their brothers behind because they weren't responsible, who hate us and vow revenge...

It seems to me that you're method is going to "create more terrorists" just like you claim other options would.

Not to mention that you're method sounds quite similar to the way the U.S. was dealing with terrorism from Carter up through the current administration and well, we've all seen how well that works.

How is your method different...what makes it a better option?

Hope you enjoy your round...its a great day for golf!

Won't happen. The group will be identified, just as they were after 9/11 and then Iran will be bombed instead of Iraq, just like after 9/11. And the group will get away with it.....just like after 9/11.

 

[red states rule]

What? No reminders that we are no better then terrorists?

to him, we are the terrorists

 

[red states rule]

The header is more idiocy by Tweddle Dum. What I'd like to know is, if a suitcase nuke went off in NY would the idiots who say "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" finally admit that they don't know what they're talking about.

But thanks so much for your elated contemplation of my home being nuked.

This is how libs would react if we are attacked. It is not the terrorists fault - it is OUR fault

 

[red states rule]

nothing aggressive or overtly hostile until the state or the location of the perpetrator's HQ CAN be determined. period.

Back to MY question that you dodged:


Would you suggest that if we could NOT ascertain the identity or location of either the supplier or the deliverer that we just throw a dart at a map of the middle east and turn whatever country we happen to hit into a radioactive sheet of glass?

If atacked in the US, it would be an awakening for most libs for a few months, and then it'd be back to business as usual. Just like 9/11, libs will put party ahead of country

 

[maineman]

If atacked in the US, it would be an awakening for most libs for a few months, and then it'd be back to business as usual. Just like 9/11, libs will put party ahead of country

the question was to Kathianne...if you are, in fact, incapable of answering it, why spam up the thread with stupid oneliners?

 

[red states rule]

the question was to Kathianne...if you are, in fact, incapable of answering it, why spam up the thread with stupid oneliners?

a one liner to you - the truth to the rest

 

[maineman]

a one liner to you - the truth to the rest

1. How can your conjecture about how you think "libs" will react in the future be "the truth" and not merely your opinion. and ...
2. regardless of the "truthiness" of your opinion, it is clearly not an answer to the question contained in my post that you felt compelled to quote before be so "truthy". Why quote questions from me if you are incapable of answering them?

 

[red states rule]

1. How can your conjecture about how you think "libs" will react in the future be "the truth" and not merely your opinion. and ...
2. regardless of the "truthiness" of your opinion, it is clearly not an answer to the question contained in my post that you felt compelled to quote before be so "truthy". Why quote questions from me if you are incapable of answering them?

Look how libs acted after 9-11. For a month or so, they were angry at the terrorists - then their thirst for political power took over

It would happen again if we are attacked