Perhaps because we’d only be pissing them off even more?
Perhaps because we’d only be proving to be The Great Satan?
Maybe because it’s, I don’t know…WRONG???
Yeah, what a wonderful idea. To deter someone from nuking us, let’s nuke someone that only marginally resembles them! in a country they aren’t even from!
Erek
That was beautiful.
Nothing against the OP, just against the general concept of “nukes are useful answer {insert complex problem here}”.
H8 2 W8, I’m trying to understand what on Earth you’re on about here. Is your idea that our dropping a bomb on an Arab country would stop them doing the same to us? This dependent on the dastardly Arabs planning to send a nuke to a capital city any time now. Is that about right? If so…
-
Even terrorists operate to a code - they think what they’re doing is right. So they won’t necessarily all be out to destroy the world like a James Bond baddie.
-
If any extremist nutters with access to a nuke as well the means and ability to transport it to the US - without being spotted or stopped - were considering this, the one thing that would tip them over the edge would be a bomb strike on their people.
Your other point is about replacing the Govts from within. We’re doing that already in Afghanistan. So what’s the issue?
Oh, to hell with trying to understand your point of view: the idea of ‘dropping a nuke in the middle of nowhere’ is stupid, wrong, cruel, dangerous, and demonstrates a severe lack of understanding and compassion for humanity. The world doesn’t work like a Schwarzenegger movie, you know.
First, as others have pointed out, using a nuclear device to ‘make a point’ will instantly convert your allies, plus neutrals, into enemies.
I can assure you as a Brit that it’s one thing to react to an appalling terrorist attack by forming a world-wide alliance and involving the United Nations. We support the US in well-considered military action (and have duly sent in ground troops to Afghanistan).
Drop the bomb to scare people, proving that you are a terrorist nation (terrorist: one who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a Government or community), and the rest of the world will drop you like a shot.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: sarcasm warning :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Interesting concept that the US ‘controls’ Afghanistan. I thought there were a lot of Afghan Warlords with private armies which heavily outnumber the US (and British) troops.
Are you familiar with the history of the country? Especially recently when the Soviet Union failed miserably to ‘control’ the country despite spending years and committing hundreds of thousand of troops.
Do you not know what would happen if there were moderate US casualties in Afghanistan? The pressure to pull out ground troops would be immense. Do you not remember Somalia?!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: sarcasm warning :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
(I apologise
- if this is a bit strong for this forum
- for any implication that the US was not trying to conduct humanitarian operations in Somalia.
I just feel H8_2_W8 has insufficient knowledge of history, war and the repugnance decent people feel towards violence).
Why not drop the nuke in the middle of a populated area in Afghanistan. One cannot possible kill enough Afghanis (sp?) to compensate for the loss of those upstanding, moral, important, significant Americans that died in 7/11. No human deaths have ever held more significance than these American deaths. They were Americans, afer all!
Mind boggling at potentially racist jokes involving “Afghanistan” and “7/11” per previous poster . . . Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!!!
head explodes
H8_2_W8: While there are situations in which I might consider using nukes, I think any Arab, or anyone in the world for that matter, with the intelligence of a small mollusk already knows we have them. Apparently some of the terrorists aren’t overly impressed by that knowledge. I want to see bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda scum dead, but I think the ultimate political consequences of using nuclear weapons in Asia for the second time in 60 years (I am counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki as one event since the bombs were dropped, rightly or wrongly, to end WW2) will be vastly detrimental to the United States in the long run.
And while I’m sure Collounsbury and Tamerlane will mock me for this thought, I’ve had a sneaking suspicion ever since 9/11 that one of al-Qaeda’s goals is to provoke this country into lashing back so hard it causes a Third World War, the U.S. vs. the Moslem world, and the al-Qaeda leadership intends to use this war to gain control of the Arabian pensinula and possibly other territories. Call me paranoid if you like, but I think bin Laden is a very smart devil and he is still relatively young.
I guess we disagree on “sending a message.” At no time during the cold war did we perform and overt act as a demonstration of what we would do if … But that is sort of a quibble so let it go.
The thing you propose seems to me to have a major defect that others have referred to. It is an idle threat. The national leaders that we would be “sending a message” about supporting terrorists are well aware that we aren’t going to drop a nuclear weapon on them even it we did what you propose.
They are. But that does not mean those who attend schools in the Midwest are originally from the Midwest.
You don’t? I seem to recall a recent thread where you praised terrorists, calling them “heroes”.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out the obvious. To wit:
Terrorists/Muslims/Arabs (note that these are all distinct categories, conflated only in the OP’s mind) have no central controlling authority to appreciate MAD and prevent terrorist attacks in light of that appreciation.
Really, what could you expect? At the next worldwide conference of Arabic Islamic Terrorists (next year in Chicago!) that they’d pass a resolution not to detonate a nuke in light of the U.S.’ demonstration?
In fact, you provide a mechanism for states to attack each other: Egyptian terrorists sets off a nuke in New York, playing the odds that Bagdad, Tehran, or Tripoli gets it rather than Alexandria.
Now why would you think that?
Would it shock and amaze you if I said I think you might be at least partially correct ;)?
In fact I DO think that some of the radical Islamists, including IMHO ObL, would dearly love to set such an action in motion. They’re deluded of course. The Muslim world is no more likely to rally under his banner for a final apocalyptic struggle than we are likely to detonate a nuke in the middle of Afghanistan to demonstrate our prowess. But fanaticism is often blind and I do think ObL would like to see himself as ‘Caliph’ of at the very least, Saudi Arabia and probably the larger Arab world. Cynically manipulating a conflict to widen it is a well-established fanatic’s trick. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are working to undermine peace and widen the conflict in the occupied territories every day ( which is why I don’t think it is “terrorist appeasement” to continue to try to reach an agreement of sorts - It is terrorist appeasement if you don’t - that’s just what Hamas wants ).
Now I’m not sure if ObL is necessarily thinking of trying to trigger an actual WW III ( though he might be ). But a hardening of positions and a turn against Westernism and eventually widespread Islamic revolutions and the expulsion of Western influence ( and Israel )- Yes, I’m sure he’d cynically sacrifice millions of lives to achieve that.
- Tamerlane
My dear fellow, let me echo Tamerlane the destroyer
Why would I mock you? This is spot on. Not explicitly, but implicitly their magical thinking is that reaction will be such that somehow the masses will be converted to the cause. Same thinking among Xtian and Militia radical fringes in the US, a la Turner Diaries and Tim McVeigh. Apocalyptic thinking sadly seems to be a Abrahamic disease.
I’d like to add a small voice here, to be heard above all of the shouting. While demonstrating nuclear capability is not the best idea (though France detonates nukes without loosing friends all of the time and so did Afghanistan and India) I might add that with third world nations gaining the technology of Nukes that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, SOMETIME IS GOING TO TOSS ONE!
Understand?
These new nations have not grown up with the technology like the US, Britain, Russia and Japan have. Even the French. To them, in lands that have been at war one way or another for a few hundred years, it is a NEW, BIG WEAPON and what do you do with a new weapon.
You use it.
Someone will.
After they do, and depending upon where they do, our response will be in direct proportion of a perceived or real threat. After all, we have a lot of Nukes gathering dust that military types just want to use.
[Scene: Two moderate Arabs are having a political discussion]
“Abdul, have you heard the news today?”
“Yes, Habib. Although until today, I have been content to allow radical supporters of terrorism to rule our country, the detonation of a nuclear bomb by the United States in Afghanistan has caused me to soberly reflect on my political stance. I now realize that we must replace our leaders with the non-terrorist-supporting variety. Shall we proceed with the revolution?”
“Yes, let us do so now.”
WTF, you better have a quote to back that claim up. Or better yet let us not hijack this thread, we should move this disscussion over here. I would rather take it over there, because I can flame you for your self-rightous, arrogant and willful ignorance all I want in the pit. Shall we?
YOu know what? That sounds perfectly plausible that they would have that in mind. We’re dealing with some serious wackjobs here.
It would have been best not to have heard your small voice, as it was wrong.
French nuclear testing, halted, in the South Pacific most certainly did do damage to French standing in the region as any of our downunder posters can tell you, substantial even, your ignorance not withstanding.
Further, Pakistan not Afghanistan tested nuclear weapons --they are in fact two different countries as a brief review of the regional map might teach you-- and was subject to international sanctions. Only the extremity of recent events and our (Western) need for Paki cooperation saw them lifted. The same story for India, which at the very least you got the name right.
Shouting via capitals does not make a point any better. Yes, perhaps someone will use a nuclear weapon. It does not follow that terrorists, at least without state support, will use them in the near future. Nuclear weapons are complex, bulky and difficult to maintain.
The real danger is probably in a ‘dirty’ conventionally charged bomb using radioactive wastes, say spiritied aboard a container vessel and exploded in a major harbor.
Far better than you, evidently.
“Even the French” — you seriously imply that somehow the Russians have had a more mature political system than the French?
As for the Russians, well, you need to read quite a bit more before making such a silly assertion about Russian society and technology.
Ahh , the vague appeal to racism through the vague “them folks, dey’s always been at war” – of course this is both afactual and inane. Europe was far more often at war in the 19th and 20th centuries than say its colonies, under enforced peace.
As such the statement is neither analytical nor factually correct.
There is, of course, a real concern that Pakistan and India do not have the controls and institutional rigor in place to control their nuclear programs, although on the other hand both invest (waste) large resources in ensuring that such programs are well-funded etc, so judging institutional status by the sad services which the populations gets is not perhaps the best yardstick.
Actually, my experience speaking with responsible officers has led me to believe that the “military types” as you so charmingly put it are not at all eager to use nuclear weapons. There are far better choices, evolving advances in smart weaponry for example.
However the comic book and video game level of analysis crowd seems rather willing to use them so they can see the "kewl’ booms.