Let’s assume some terrorist organization based out of the middle east finds a way to set off a nuclear weapon In NYC or DC or LA. Or even a biological weapon. Let’s assume millions of americans are killed and the city is all but useless after the attack.
What should the US response be? Who do we hit? With what? I asked some people this last night, and someone said the first thing to do is take out Baghdad, a couple minutes after it happened. He seemed to feel this should occur whether they could show any involvement on Iraq’s part or not.
It is a damn tough question. You don’t want to start global armageddeon, so you need to allign your decisions with the rest of the world - at least with countries which have WOMD. I can’t even begin to answer the question. What solution is there that doesn’t start up 50 new problems?
IMHO, Fuck the rest of the world. As unlikely as such a large attack would be, (we are talking hypothetical here arn’t we?) if a million Americans were killed then the rest of the world should be the ones playing it safe and either continue following our lead or find the deepest hole they can find and hope they did not get our attention when we retaliate.
With the loss of so many lives and that pandoras box opened then zero tolerance should be redefined. Any nation who harbors or tolerates terrorists in any form should be attacked either conventionally or unconvetionally. Any form of practice of terrorism would have to be eradicated immediately. Hamas, Hizbollah, IRA, even American militant groups would have to be eradicated with extreme prejudice.
I do not think I say this with conceit. But with the destruction power of just one medium sized bomb, (one single could easily take out a country like Isreal and a lucky one could cripple the US government substantially) the threat would require no other alternative. For the kind of destruction you described the ‘terrorists’ would have to have a significant state backing like from Russia because only a bomb in the multiple megaton size range would make such destruction.
Now lalaland aside, if a suitcase sized nuke was to go off and take out several thousand citizens that were attributed to muslim. mid-east terrorists, there would probably be a desert storm type, worldwide coalition in most of the mid-east countries. WOMD would be more likely to be used in the conflict, but it would still not be certain to be used by us. Many Cuntries in the region will surely roll over and give us leave to do what we think needs to be done. But there would be more Afghanistans like Iraq, maybe Iran, Syria, and possibly the Palistinians. Because world tolerance of terrorism would drop significantly. And Counties like North Korea would have alot to worry about.
That is all my knee-jerk speculation, and probably wrong on most accounts. But one thing I can tell you is if there is another significant attack on the US, the size of or greater than WTC, then Powell would probably resign because of the dificulty of his job and many of the pleasentries would be shaken off. With Bush in the office it would be more of the same, just more signifcant and expanding.
First off dalovindj, you should tell the person you were atlking to last night that to quote Lewis Black, HE’S AN IDIOT!!!
Ok, now that that’s out of the way, let’s try and think a tad bit rationally. If they used a nuke in DC, a good part of the government would be killed, which would forestall any immediate and stupid decisions like bombing Iraq/North Korea/Iran back to the Stone Age until some semblence of government was back in effect.
Also, despite what the American people might want, the US IS NOT the sort of country to go around destroying other countries with no evidence. Which means that there would be a period of several months during which intelligence would be gathered and THEN there would be a month or so of buildup of troops etc. Then and only then would an attack take shape, and even then the US would have to be damn sure that they had the right targets.
Saen,
Sorry to tell you this, but you’re dreaming if you think that the US would blatently target and try and eliminate US militia groups such as the KKK, WAR. etc. That would really open up a Pandoras box because then not only would we be fighting a foreign war, there would be a guerilla war which would be waged on US soil. Do you have any idea about the kind of chaos that would cause?
I’ll go with WSLer and say that you’re dreaming Saen if you think the US would take on local militias but for different reasons.
We still have a rule of law in this country. There is nothing illegal about a militia group in and of itself. Anyone is free to stomp up-and-down in the woods playing war games and spewing any propaganda they wish. As long as they aren’t breaking any laws (such as possesion of bilogical weapons) they are free to continue. Frankly, that’s the way you want it too. Better the enemy you can see than the one you can’t (what’s that old aphorism?..“Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer”).
Even after a nuke being set off in this country I don’t see how turning on militia groups helps anything. Frankly, they’re probably exactly the rabid mofos you will want to be sending overseas in the near future given what just happened.
Stomping all over people’s rights, even people you don’t like, diminishes your rights. Look to kick ass elsewhere.
Apparently the preface to my statement wasnt as obvious as it was intended.
I did not mean every militant group who has a beef with the government or another organization. I mean those that practice terrorism like those that bomb churches, abortion clinics, commit race crimes, or any that would currently use terrorist tactics to get their views across.
If there was a major nuclear attack on this country then everyones rights would be severely restriced. Right to privacy that we complain about now would be a wet dream compared to the rights we would lose, albiet temporarily, if such a thing were to occur. Individual freedoms, even those constitutionally protected, are inconsequential when it comes the public safety.
Maybe. He didn’t seem racist in his motivations. His point was that if something like that happens, the world has become too dangerous of a place to let any of our enemies have any kind of power. Anyone who is an enemy gets shut down with incredible speed was his point. Make a list of who hates us, or harbor those who do, and crush those countries without mercy right away. He feels that this would be the only way to re-establish deterence as an effective shield. Show that if things get out of hand we wipe our enemies off the face of the planet whether they were involved or not. Tough, a little rash, and maybe too extreme, but I cannnot dismiss it as idiocy. If a million people die I’m gonna want to make sure it’s the last damn time anyone ever tries that shit again.
Let’s hope it never comes to that, but I know there are plenty in the world who would do it if they could. It doesn’t have to be a nuclear bomb either. Biological weapons can be just as effective (if not more effective) killers.
There is no way that personal freedoms would be impeded very much. America has always been built on the idea of individual freedom. Groups such as the ACLU would not let the government do much.
A lot of what WOULD happen I think depends on the method in which the bomb is used. If it is planted in a building, and set off, the government would be more inclined to strengthen measures entering buildings. That has already been done to an extent after 9/11, and I do not the end result would be beyond what it is right now. If it is a car nuke, then maybe they would implement background checks on people renting cars (which might actually be feasible, seeing as how they already have background checks for many other things). If it is dropped from a plane, odds are we would declare war.
If the bomb was dropped on DC, I do not think our government would be severly impeded. I think (though I may be mistaken) that we have a fully functional "shadow government" ready to step in should something such as that happen.
The ACLwho? heh. Not much a bunch of liberal lawyers can do once Executive Orders are put into effect. They can file file lawsuits until their peckers and tits fall off, but immidiately it wont make a bit of a difference. It’s funny you mentioned “shadow government” Go to any search engine and type in ‘fema government’ and see what you come up with. Once you get past all the conspiracy theorists and look at the heart of the arguments you will see all of the Executive Orders that will be implimented in case of a National Emergency Declaration specifically designed for nuclear threats and such.
Look people, we aint talkin bout no suicide bomber, or wtc attack, or even an AUM Shinrikyo Tokyo subway gassing. I am talking about the OP’s “Let’s assume millions of americans are killed and the city is all but useless after the attack.” If such a weapon were placed in a suburban suv or on the roof of the capitol building wont matter a flying fart once it happens. And no amount of “background checks” or "strengthen measures " will make any difference when we are talking about nukes.
Millions dead…No nation in the history of the world ever endured such a single disaster, natural or man made. Hell, The US has never lost that many in all wars it has ever faught combined. We are talking about a disaster of “biblical proportions” here.
We are also talking about an AG like Ashcroft, who inherited a Reno Justice department who has Waco, Ruby Ridge, And most important OK city bombing, wich they take personal because they were the ones targeted. I am not saying the guy is a megalomaniac. I personally believe he is far from it. But from his actions I can tell you that if he thinks your right to assemble is a serious threat to everyone elses right to life, that he would do everything he can to shut you down without losing a bit of sleep.
On 9/11 we were in shock because we heard reports of possibly 20 thousand dead, stock market plumeted and doomsday was in the back of everyones mind. When we realized on 3,000 died and the market rebounded we mourned our loss and got angry more for the fact that they would do this to us. The President named the guilty and we justifiably commenced to whooping on one of the poorest and undefended nations in the world. We also started accusing, pointing fingers, and barking in the direction of others, who may or may not, be planning or helped or profited from our loss.
If millions died all of the barking and finger pointing and accusations would stop. It would turn into a bite that would not let go. We would make more enemies than friends and even your most faint of heart would most likely support a nuke or two here or there if it was deemed necessary.
I think you people fail to grasp the magnitude of such a disaster and the literal and virtual fallout that would effect the lives of every person in this country and the rest of the world in years after.
But like I said before. It’s all MHO, and could be wrong
Um, this may come as a shock to you, but the KKK and War(all 15 members of them) are not militia groups. The militia consists of the whole of the people.
Total estimated deaths from the detonation of a Hiroshima-sized nuclear device in the port of New York City: Over 250,000
Total American deaths in the Civil War: Up to 600,000
Total deaths from the 1931 Huang He valley floods in China: 3.7 million
Total deaths in the United States from the worldwide influenza epidemic of 1918-1919: 550,000
Total deaths in India from the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919: 12.5 million
Total Soviet deaths in World War II: 20 million
I have to agree with Saen, to an extent. An attack of this magnitude would definitely lead to increased police powers. I don’t think it would turn the US into a police state, but many measures of debateable constitutionality and governmental merit would be passed. For example, there would be no argument over the propoed expansion of FBI powers.
We’d also see the military used domestically more often, as potential terrorist hideouts are stormed by the SEALS instead of just the FBI. We’d also see martial law declared more often than it had been in US histpry, whenever there was a credible threat of a repeat attack (treat the terrorists like they were a foreign invading force instead of criminals, in other words).
Abroad, the US (and its allies; the rest of the West, parts of Asia, Israel, and even Saudi Arabia would be scared shitless) would take a harder “don’t fuck with us” strategy. I think a doctrine stating that the US has the right to invade and root out any possible source of terrorism against the US (from Afghani camps to unguarded Russian warheads) irregardless of the nation in question’s thoughts on the matter (or even complicity in the terrorism) would not be totally unimaginable. ABC weapons would only be used by the US if they were strategucally sound for the operation. A nuke may be used to detroy an advancing Iraqi army, but not to kill Baghdad for no good reason. I could also see a scapegoat nation (such as Iraq) chosen if the guilty party cannot be found, but the indiscriminate nuking of innocent cities.
Well apparently a Hiroshima-sized nuclear device is not equivilant to a multiple megaton device.
My death estimate was battle deaths of service members.
And I am well aware of the millions that lost their lives in wars and epidemics. To me neither a war nor an epidemic is a disaster in the definative senseof a catastrophe.
Although I was unaware of the death toll of the 1931 Huang He valley floods in China. now that is a disaster of biblical proportions. But I am sure neglect had alot to do with it too. At least I would imagine.
Indeed.
In WWII, China had 2.2 million battle deaths. The U.S.S.R had 7.5 million battle deaths. The countries that had roughly the same number or more than 250,000 battle deaths are the U.S.S.R, The United States, China, Poland, India, Germany, Japan, Romania, France, and the United Kingdom.
In WWII, single attacks on the same scale of destructiveness as a nuclear bomb occured in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, and no doubt a couple of others I’m forgetting.
If a city in the U.S. were nuked, the U.S. would do about the same thing it’s doing now, albeit with a little less finesse and a quicker timetable. But no one’s going to go around blowing up things randomly just to teach someone a lesson. The people in power will make a deliberate effort to improve the security of the nation in the best way they know how.
If the attack were nuclear, the response would be nuclear, and it would be massive and out of proportion to the initial attack described in the OP. It would be all about deterence of a second attack on the US. It would be the ugliest chapter in human history.
Biological attack? Depends. That at least gives the president some leeway in the magnitude and type of destruction he orders.
Hasn’t the use of nuclear weapons always been considered by the US to be an appropriate response to biological and chemical weapons?
