# Bombing America a Good Idea? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470 "2005-01-30T20:39:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/41 "2005-01-31T20:59:59Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > We are not necessarily dealing here with rational people, or with persons who at the very least have some fundamental understanding of the minds of their enemy Do you mean on our side or theirs? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/42 "2005-01-31T21:08:41Z")
> [@](#): > > _toadspittle said:_ > Summation: It seems to me that the best course of action for militants would be to ensure that there are NO > attacks on US soil, while concentrating efforts on US troops abroad so as to increase casualties and loss of materiel to enormous levels. > That way, voting Americans may, evntually, do the math: No one is attacking us here, but they keep killing everyone we send over > there; maybe we should stop sending people over there. I could see MENA militant strategists being unhappy with the open-endedness of waiting for the American public to vote their way. The American public is also unlikely to be the wiser if the US continues to fund governments the MENA militants find oppressive or sacrilegious. I agree that the “slow bleed” approach is the one likely to be adopted: it is the path of least resistance. I am just unsatisfied with the fear of a possibly psychotic over-reaction being an argument against the tactic. Over-reaction of the “oppressor” is often actually counted on by terrorist/partisan groups when composing attacks. > [@](#): > > _El Kabong said:_ > but if these people are at all rational they might realize that further domestic attacks cannot induce sufficient casualties to make any > strategic difference unless they could employ special weapons that clearly are not available at present. If you’ll re-read the OP you’ll see there is nothing about “inducing sufficient casualties”- it is about forcing the defense of thousands of miles of above ground infrastructure. > [@](#): > > In sum, there seems to be little strategic purpose to launching attacks on US soil again at this time. How about this time in two years? When the financial/bloody burden is too great and the US decides to withdraw, will another poke of the stick get them back in? Would 1 big bomb every 5 years on US soil keep the US entrenched indefinately? > [@](#): > > _SuaSponte said:_ > They don’t take much infrastructure and the US certainly isn’t well gear-up to prevent them. I believe that they haven’t happened > because Al-Qaeda, etc., haven’t chosen to use that tactic here. But why not? IMO, it would be effective. Exactly part of my curiosity as well- do they think the tactic unfeasible or unwise? Or are they biding time while getting in place for a long undercover run? I was hoping a few more of the armchair generals of the SDMB would come out for comment. Surely this is a possible route MENA militants could take…I’ve seen other threads/posts advocating the effectiveness of a “smart” bombing campaign - no words of wisdom here? I don’t believe we can count on the fact that they are scared of retaliation. No one wants to discuss how the US would actually counter the logistics of this endeavor it seems. Armchair generals- Are there MENA militant organizations sophisticated enough to pull it off? Can the US defend or continually repair it’s miles of rail, oil, power grid and communication lines in an effective manner? Can they do so while maintaining multiple occupational forces and/or combat operations in MENA? Could specific combat actions effectively curtail a domestic bombing campaign by taking out overseas training, recruitment or financial operations? Is commercially available ordinance on the domestic US market up to the job of large-scale sabotage? What would be a “target rate” of sabotage to force defensive home-front action? Will US law enforcement be able to track their weapons and operatives of choice? People focus on port security but aren’t reasonable personnel and materials available within the US borders? more of a legislative question I guess which leads to… Armchair economists/politicians: What would be the economic and diplomatic ramifications of MENA wide punitive bombings? How would further combat operations be funded and staffed? If no civilians are initially killed in the sabotage campaign- what would be the best spin to do “what was necessary”? Does EVERYONE believe punitive bombings WOULD happen, regardless of what evidence is found? > [@](#): > > _GuyIncognito:_ > _crosses CarnalK off the list of people who’ll ever hold a federal job or run for office…_ I guess because Tommy Thompson was retiring anyway, he didn’t mind getting crossed off the list too. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/43 "2005-01-31T21:19:55Z")
If you want nuclear Armageddon, sure. If you don’t, no, it’s not a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Ghost\_of\_Marlowe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Ghost\_of\_Marlowe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghost_of_Marlowe)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/44 "2005-01-31T22:25:36Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So you’ve started a couple of false front threads during your short guest membership, eh? Hur, hur, hur. “Ghost” of “Marlowe” ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/45 "2005-01-31T23:28:08Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > If you’ll re-read the OP you’ll see there is nothing about “inducing sufficient casualties”- it is about forcing the defense of thousands of > miles of above ground infrastructure. Ah, I see. Well, IMO, combating that would be easy: 1. hire/draft thousands or millions of police/troops/private security forces to patrol the US 2. use DHS and something like the defunct TIPS to form a Stasi-like system that uses snitching, spying on neighbors, unrestricted wiretaps/mail reading/eavesdropping/etc. to get the majority of US residents under the govt. thumb 3. enjoy your wartime police state, with frequent interruptions of power/fuel/food/sewage/water supplies due to sabotage, plus massive unemployment (though the need for troops and the construction of materiel could offset that), etc. I think you’re crazy to think that any attack on US soil–even if it’s just on infrastructure, rather than people–would LESSEN our desire for war. > [@](#): > > How about this time in two years? When the financial/bloody burden is too great and the US decides to withdraw, will another poke of the stick get them back in? Would 1 big bomb every 5 years on US soil keep the US entrenched indefinately? Yep. Middle East groups could DESTROY America this way–at least the America we know today–but I do not think they could DETER it. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/46 "2005-02-01T00:24:07Z")
> [@](#): > > _toadspittle said:_ > I think you’re crazy to think that any attack on US soil–even if it’s just on infrastructure, rather than people–would LESSEN our desire for war. You’re not quite getting me. I am not concerned about how bloody minded Americans can be or their “will to fight”. The MENA militants want actual troops out of their region - attacks on the American mainland makes the US take actual physical precautions. American desire for war is of no consequence if it is directed back to South America or the hills of West Virginia. I see you’ve suggested the implementation of a police state as the most likely way to defend against a geurrilla assault. When you say “enjoy your police state” I’m not sure what you mean: I’m neither a MENA based terrorist or an American. I can’t imagine the MENA groups losing sleep over an American Stasi- except as to how it would curtail their abilities. So you honestly think Americans would be psychologically incapable of bringing troops back to defend home turf? It would be too much of affront to honour or bravery or something. A draft and secret police would be more palatible to the American public. That’s a rather dismal assessment. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/47 "2005-02-01T00:39:34Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > So you honestly think Americans would be psychologically incapable of bringing troops back to defend home turf? So is your proposed strategy, then, that militants would attack the US homeland simply with the expectation that it would force the US to divert a finite resource (troops) from foreign lands to the homeland? I think our main difference of opinion is this: I think, if troops are needed at home, the US will _create_ more troops–not move existing troops home from abroad. The finite resource of troops and materiel is not as finite as your scenario envisions. Our nation is not yet so poor, so destabilized, nor, sadly, so sick of war, that it cannot muster up new troops and materiel. You seem to think that the troops abroad would be desperately “needed” at home. Short of invasion by the Russians or Chinese, there would likely be no crisis so immediate and dire that it could not be dealt with in a stopgap fashion by existing domestic law enforcement (and the scant few Natl. Guard units still in the States) until new troops could be inducted and trained. I don’t believe that militants engaging in terrorist activities of the sort you describe could possibly create such a need. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/48 "2005-02-01T01:04:21Z")
> [@](#): > > _toadspittle said:_ > I think our main difference of opinion is this: I think, if troops are needed at home, the US will create more troops–not move existing troops home from abroad. The finite resource of troops and materiel is not as finite as your scenario envisions. > Our nation is not yet so poor, so destabilized, nor, sadly, so sick of war, that it cannot muster up new troops and materiel. That is indeed where we differ. I wouldn’t say “so poor”, I would say the budget is stretched as about as far as it can go. Recruitment is currently down from expectations (I seem to recall) but I’m sure even casualty free attacks could jump start that. > [@](#): > > You seem to think that the troops abroad would be desperately “needed” at home. Short of invasion by the Russians or Chinese, there would likely be no crisis so immediate and dire that it could not be dealt with in a stopgap fashion by existing domestic law enforcement (and the scant few Natl. Guard units still in the States) until new troops could be inducted and trained. Here we disagree as well. If attacks seem to be occurring all over the country wherever you don’t have gaurds then you have to start playing the zone. It’s not a matter of expelling a huge force- it’s a matter of trying to be everywhere at once. This is assuming they are able to counteract traditional FBI tracking- which I do not take as a given. However, the “lone bomber” isn’t the easiest suspect to catch though if he is workmanlike rather than simply a sociopath. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/49 "2005-02-01T01:12:46Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Here we disagree as well. If attacks seem to be occurring all over the country wherever you don’t have gaurds then you have to start playing the zone. It’s not a matter of expelling a huge force- it’s a matter of trying to be everywhere at once. > > This is assuming they are able to counteract traditional FBI tracking- which I do not take as a given. However, the “lone bomber” isn’t the easiest suspect to catch though if he is workmanlike rather than simply a sociopath. I still think that you are sorely overestimating the amount of people you could find for such a task. The amount of infrastructure damage required to pull troops out of, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan would have to be comparable to a full blown civil war and nigh continuous. Lone bombers simply would not be up to the task and once you involve groups it becomes much easier for the FBI to track suspects and deals. And once it becomes clear that that the country is the target, you’d get a lot more volunteers in the military and even at the civilian watch level. It’s not impossible, but it’s purt near. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/50 "2005-02-01T01:44:50Z")
Well the Eastern time zone has had it’s power knocked out by an ice-storm and a fire at a single installation. There is a lot of ungaurded freight train lines. A small oil pipeline explosion could wreak untold environmental damage. Let’s just say I think massive havoc is a lot easier to unleash if done with cunning and organization. If everyone agrees that a) American money and troops are in practice limitless and b) America would willingly take on the costs of a large security force at home while upscaling overseas action then I would concede yes, the OP’s tactics would be unsuccessful. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/51 "2005-02-01T03:11:11Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > /makes popcorn for impending flame war This sort of thing is expressly forbidden in the **BBQ Pit**. We don’t expressly forbid [your exact comment](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=5022732#post5022732) on **GD** _because we expect that everyone already knows better_. Understood? [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470/52 "2005-02-01T14:56:12Z")
This isn’t to rebut any previous arguments. I’ll just toss out a few numbers and see if it provokes any different perspectives here. 🙂 When the Center for Strategic Studies did a simulation called “Silent Vector” on a possible terror threat to east coast infrastructure they assumed: • Nuclear Power Plants (43) • Refineries (7) • LNG/LPG Storage (above ground) (50+) • Pipelines • Petroleum Terminals (110+) • Chemical Operations (1400+) • Dams (25+) Current attacks on Iraqi infrastructure may be useful models. Here’s a straight list of attacks on Iraqi infrastructure: [Iraq Pipeline Watch](http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm) [Brookings article:](http://brookings.edu/fp/saban/luftmemo20040617.htm) > [@](#): > > The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority has made protecting the pipelines and restoring Iraq’s oil industry a top priority. > An operation called Task Force Shield employs about 14,000 security guards deployed along the pipelines and in 175 critical > installations, including 120 mobile patrols. This effort has brought down the number of attacks but has by no means solved the problem. > [snip] > The saboteurs are tactically sophisticated. Their targets are carefully chosen and their explosives are well placed—aimed to damage the > system at critical points such as junctions and to destroy custom-made parts that take weeks or even months to replace. The impact of > an explosion often extends beyond the precise section attacked, especially because the Iraqi system is old and neglected, causing leaks > and cracks down the line. So MENA groups already have people experienced in the sabotage of oil infrastructure- I wonder how many would they have to sneak in to be a problem to really worry about and would they sneak in some to merely train domestic operatives? I’m not sure if “Task Force Shield” is the total so I can’t say what the troops/mile of pipeline in Iraq. According to that article, Iraq has about 4,300 miles of pipeline so TFS is currently staffed at 3 guards/mile. In the US [( poorly formatted DOE report)](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2004/Pipestor04/ngstorpipe04.htm): > [@](#): > > Nationally > > At the close of 2003, the U.S. natural gas transportation network included more than 226 gas pipeline systems, more than 306,000 > miles of pipeline Anyone know how much petroleum pipeline there is or their gaurds/mile? I know there’s an oil industry buff out there. At this point, I must presume that it is the learned opinion of the SDMB that American foreign policy is immune to domestic military interference other than goading. This by dint of it’s massive financial/troop supply and “mess with me and die” attitude- given another superpower is not directly involved. I must say I’m surprised at the unanimity so far displayed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bombing-america-a-good-idea/287470.md?page=2)