No one gets killed this time and we get the Arab world’s attention that we are dead serious. We make it very clear that if Islamist terrorists ever detonate a nuke in the U.S. or the free world, then we will retaliate by taking out Baghdad or Tehran or whatever. No months of analysis and investigation, just immediate launch on a randomly selected Islamic capital.
Eye for an eye, millions of innocent civilians on each side. This would encourage true Islamic people who do not hate to get control of their countries or face death themselves.
The cold war worked (in a sense that we’re all still alive) between US/NATO and Russia/China, why couldn’t it work again?
Yep, threatening to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets in other countries will certainly end terrorism worldwide. I’m sure the EU and any other current ally of the US would be happy to go along with the plan, and I’m sure it wouldn’t create any terrorist martyrs.
Dropping a nuke should never be considered as an option. There are simply too many consequences to consider. I will not be the one that tells the future children of any nation that the irradiation of their land, water, food, and air was an “acceptable risk”.
What is going to stop leaders of the Islamic world from supporting terrorists? Maybe the people in these countries need new leaders who will not support terror and will shut down these extreme fanatics.
Let’s revise the OP a little then - retaliate with a small nuke on a randomly selected military bases with a threat to do more if these governments don’t root out the terrorists or get replaced with more moderate leaders. I don’t want innocent people killed anywhere, but I don’t doubt that if these Islamic terrorists had access to a nuclear bomb they would use it in Washington DC or New York.
This is supposed to be an idea to get these governments replaced from within, not to kill people.
Well, by all means, let’s then adopt their stellar strategic options as our own.
I can’t believe that there are people out there actually jonesing to see nuclear weapons used on the battlefield. If it fascinates you so much, there’s plenty of footage around from the tests in the Fifties or the bombs dropped over Japan. Go watch it.
JJIMM - you don’t say which idea you oppose - the initial warning nuke in the middle of nowhere or the retaliation nukes on cities (or military bases) or the attempt to replace a hostile government. Or, is it just the use of any nuke anywhere that you oppose?
David Simmons - I think the whole 40 year long cold war was about sending messages - if you launch we launch - we all die, so don’t launch your nukes. It seems like the US voters kept moderates (compared to the rest of the world) in power over the years who wouldn’t try a sneak attack and get us all killed and obviously the Russians and Chinese didn’t try anything either.
The US has gone to war over 3,000+ victims of terror and the threat of more. What do you think the US will do in retaliation if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb and kills 3,000,000 in this country anyway?
Our president has already said that countries who support terrorists are terrorists themselves. I bet 99.999% of the residents of Baghdad don’t want to be martyrs and many would revolt against Saddam if their own lives were at risk.
As you might be able to tell, you idea has, thus far, elicited contempt, not only for your plan, but also for your intellect, and humanity. Why is this?
. Perhaps it is because there is no possible strategic gain to be made by dropping nukes more or less at random on the territory of the last Islamic nation to cooperate with us. Perhaps because many others, unlike yourself find killing people at random to be a bad thing. Perhaps because giving the Islamic world a single incident of utter moral depravity as a rally symbol would almost guarantee that another generation of committed terrorists would be launched against the United States. (This time without the troublesome association with anti Israeli rhetoric.) Perhaps because it is a mindless spewing of jingoistic hate mongering, and the American People are not yet so ready as you wish to begin the Holocaust of the twenty first century.
Terrorists, even in the most staunchly anti-American nation in the world, at any time in history, are a very small minority. I question even the use of field artillery against such a target, in the case of Israel. You want to go nuclear.
Perhaps I have over analyzed this. Perhaps it is just because your idea is entirely moronic. Yeah, that’s it. Sorry.
Tris
“For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” ~ Sun-tzu ~
pldennison - how are we adopting their options as our own if our first nuke is dropped in the middle of nowhere killing no one?
It would be a shot across the bow to get the attention of the people in these countries. The first nuke of the terrorists would be killing millions, but since I don’t want that to happen I wanted to discuss an idea to prevent it from within by removing the support systems for terror.
I had always been led to understand schools were better in the Mid-West.
Well, here is a bit of news:
(a) Few leaders in the Islamic world support al-Qaeda and the related organizations. Those organizations have been underground for a long time, as they also target the very same leaders - although to be more clear, this is more or less a phenomena of the Arab world and not really of the larger Islamic world, with the main exceptions of Iran and Pakistan.
Perhaps instead of posting drooling idiocy, you should first do some basic reading to ensure that you do not post in a manner indicating that you don’t have the most elementary grasp of the subject nor have bothered to make the slightest effort in that regard. There are several threads ongoing which have contained references to works which might, if one is to be frightfully optimistic, have the capacity to disabuse you of your misconceptions.
I would further recommend reading Espisito’s works on political Islam to get a sense of the real relationship between the Islamists and the governments in the region.
Here, even better. Let’s abandon this whole idea of using a nuclear weapon against nations already cooperating as one of such stunning idiocy and ignorance as to surprise me. Let me suggest a better idea, rather than adopting terror tactics only different from those of al-Qaeda in that we would have the capacity to kill millions of innocents rather than mere thousands, we adopt an intelligent policy.
Say a policy of engaging the governments to get their (sometimes secret) cooperation, of making such gestures towards hostile governments so as to discourage possible tactical support for al-Qaeda and its siblings, and invest in longer term strategic options.
Those options would include: economic liberalization in the region such that some of the main drivers of radicalization (poverty and corruption) are removed, appropriate political liberalization --which might or might not include immediate steps to democratization depending on the actual social infrastructure, but certainly steps towards liberalizing the press and so forth, and longer term cooperation with moderate elements in the ‘Political Islam’ so as to help remove the idea that we are ipso facto opposed to religious revival.
Well, it is an idea bereft of any semblance of rational analysis or informed support, it is in fact an idea of drooling idiocy. Try again, I’m sure you can get it right eventually.
Trisk - you make a certain amount of sense - if this would make more Islamic people hate the US instead of wanting to overthrow their governments then it would be a bad idea. I don’t know that so I thought we could have an “intellectual” debate with out being called a moron.
BTW, the choice of Afganistan as an initial detonation site was suggested because we control the country and could designate a “safe” area for a small test bomb, one that wouldn’t kill anyone. I never suggested randomly dropping nukes in Afganistan for that first warning detonation - - “random” was for the retaliation phase, which I hope we never need (and which I scaled back to military bases anyway). Perhaps an initial warning detonation isn’t even necessary if our stated policy is to retaliate against any and all military bases of countries who supported a terrorist nuke attack in this country.
But, exactly who am I mindlessly hating, other than the terrorists and the hostile leaders of the countries who want to kill me (and that’s not mindless)? Not Islamic people in general, who I think would only want peace and freedom like everyone else in the world.
As for intellect, I put forth an idea for debate to motivate the Islamic people under the control of these hostile governments to change leaders. Maybe it is a bad idea, maybe not if it would work and the world would be safer. Maybe bringing nukes into the picture would also bring in Pakistan, India, China and their nukes, which obviously is not good. Perhaps traditional warfare with these extreme Islamic countries to remove the leaders is the better path.
My only concern is that there are probably terrorist cells, possibly already in this country, who are working on a nuclear bomb for detonation in a major U.S. city and time is running out.
Collounsbury - I agree with many of your ideas and think they should be initated - but they may take a generation to work and we may not have that much time (assuming we don’t want millions to die in a nuclear terrorist attack).
BTW, I do know not all Islamic countries support terrorist activity and that Arab doesn’t equal Islamic (even a slobbering imbecile knows that).
Folks, I just wanted to ask a question and generate some debate around an idea - one that I admit I don’t fully understand and hoped that others could help flesh out the pros or cons. Well, I gotta go now so I can change my saliva soaked shirt and maybe start a new topic.
Okay, assuming your idea isn’t totally stupid (which I don’t) and assuming it would have the effects you describe (which it wouldn’t), you still have a big problem.
If, as you say, we detonate a small nuclear device in a remote corner of Afghanistan in such a manner as to cause no casualties…who’s going to know we did it? I doubt it would be visible very far off—certainly not in Baghdad or Saudi Arabia! You think al-jezeera (sp?) is going to broadcast a live show, with proper western-friendly spin for you? You’d only end up scaring the shit out of some nomadic goat-herders. (Actually, maybe not even that—they’re probably used to hearing explosions now and again. Maybe you’d startle their goats…)
If, as you seem to believe, a demonstration of our nuclear might would be enough to awe the Islamic world into compliance (Ha!), you’d need a whole lot more than one tiny nuke in the middle of the mountains.