The response to a terrorist nuke?

After reading this thread, If terrorists got and atomic bomb, what would they do with it?, it got me to thinking what the response would be if Islamic terrorists used a nuke on a city in the west, specifically the US.

For many years the US and the USSR had nukes pointed at each other in such numbers that it guaranteed that both countries would be completely annhilated no matter who fired the first shot. Both countries were willing to completely wipe out everyone in the opposing country even though they knew they wouldn’t survive. I imagine that there were many scenarios considered where each side tried to determine how it could win such a war while still surviving the exchange and neutralizing the threat against them permanently.

The response to the ~3000 people dieing in the WTC attack was to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. While the attack was tragic and senseless there was little concern for the survival of the US as a nation or for the safety of the vast majority of its people.

  1. What would be the response if Al-Qaeda or Iran got their hands on a nuke and set it off over New York? We can assume a lot more people would die than in the WTC.
    A second nuke goes off over Washington.
    A third nuke goes off in the port of Houston.
    Can you assume that the terrorists don’t have more nukes after 1, 2, or 3?

  2. What happens on the home front? Given the response of some people in the US to their Muslim neighbours after 9-11, what would happen after one or more nukes went off? Would we see camps like the Japanese were put in during WW2? Would there be shootings and lynching? How would the authorities try to stop such killings and what if they were occurring country wide?

  3. At what point does it become a war of ‘survival’? Would the response be just against those who perpetrated the crime (was Iraq involved in 9-11?), or against the culture in general who allow guys like Osama to flourish, or people like President Ahmadinejad to come to power? What I’m asking here is whether there comes a point where it is determined that Islam and the West have ‘irreconcilable differences’ and one has to go? Remember the vast majority of both people in the US and the USSR were more than willing to allow the other side to live and let live did, but would still have ended up as ash for what their leader’s choices were.

Standard disclaimer. I am not advocating anything here least of all genocide. The topic is the response to a terrorist nuke attack in all its aspects not limited to my scenario above. That being said I don’t think it necessary to go into details on how a bomb might be acquired by terrorists, or delivered to specific targets, as that has been covered in other threads (and maybe this topic has, too, but I couldn’t find anything recently).

The response to a terrorist nuke? I think the government will frantically attempt to negotiate with the terrorists, possibly contact their leaders and agree on a course of action: US withdrawl from Iraq, removal of American bases from Arab nations, and possibly an end to support of Israel. And I think America will do what the terrorists want. And then, honestly, I think the terrorists will stop attacking us.

The US will realize that there is nobody to nuke in response to a terrorist bomb. Not Russia, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran - there’s no tangible enemy, only the vague shadow of “terror.” They will realize that the “war on terror” is unwinnable. They will simply have to negotiate after being faced with the vulnerability of the U.S.

A public statement will be issued on the news and on television in the style of the state of the union address - in which a desire to negotiate with the terrrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, is expressed.

Someone at the helm of these groups will speak for them in negotiations, and certain terms will be agreed upon at some kind of summit meeting. These terms will include the ones I mentioned above on the part of the U.S., and an end to terrorist activity on the part of the terrorists.

In all likelihood, the terrorists will probably stop if their demands are met. Osama himself offered us a truce, remember?

Remind me again what the terms for this truce were?

It is important IMHO to notice once again that Iraq was not related to the attack.

And this is why: I’m convinced Al-Qaeda does want to force a global war of Islam against the West. If an attack described in the OP does happen, I do think a terror attack of this nature will be timed to make us go to war with the most likely suspect, my fear is that much later we will find that that suspect was innocent.

Now, one can say then that the main suspect got their just desserts anyhow if we bomb it, but the fact remains that it was at best a mistake or at worse a lie why we invaded Iraq. This creates major problems for allies and even Muslims that are opposed to fundamentalists; when confronted with the evidence on how wrong we were regarding Iraq, anyone that is in support of truth and justice has a hard time being on our side; it will be much, much, worse if we let “gut feelings” decide who to attract in retaliation with nuclear weapons.

However, under the leadership of a more capable leader, I do think we would be able to use the groundswell of support a dastardly attract like that would generate, once we properly ID the organizers and their location, even the nuclear option will be deemed valid by the world if a country or a region is foolish enough to protect the organizers after such a crime.

How about the Pakistan/Afghan border? Falujah-like hotbeds of anti-American extremism? There is a shitload of targets the US could lash out at if it had the motivation. I wouldn’t suuport any administartion that proposed to submit to the will of terrorists. Especially if the dmage was widespread and killed anyone I knew.

Until they, or another group, finds something else to get pissed about. Maybe we can help them create a fundamentalist’s world order one nuke at a time.

If the US was willing to wipe out the entire USSR in a war of mutual destruction why would it not be willing to wipe out all the Muslims to ensure its survival? What would it take for this to happen if it ever would? 1 nuke, 2, 3, or more?

As I did note in my OP. Iraq was attacked and it had no discernable relation to 9-11. I mentioned it to emphasize that not only those responsible for the attack ended up paying for it.

An attack on a nation and its territories is different than a genocide of an entire religion.

It depends on who’s in charge at the time. If it happened now, here’s the scenario I think likely :

1 : The surviving government goes into hiding in bunkers.

2 : Civil rights are massivly curtailed, and most people submit to it.

3 : Iran and Bin Laden are blamed, but there will be little or no investigation as to the real culprits.

4 : As little as possible will be done to prevent further attacks, as each nuked American city increases the Right’s grip on power.

5 : The major population centers of Iran are nuked, and the rest of the country conquered with great brutality. Christian missionaries closely follow the troops. Eventually, this happens to most of the ME.

6 : The draft will be reinstituted, and the military increased in size.

7 : The majority of Islamic people, other non-Christians and left wingers are put in camps; many are tortured and killed. The rest are used as slave labor for Haliburton and other Republican favorites.

8 : Fundamentalist Christianity becomes the American state religion.

9 : Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. public education, and all other scoial programs are abolished and the money diverted to churches and corporations. Charity is made illegal, and the poor starve or are forced into labor camps.

10 : Any other country that expresses displeasure over all this is threatend with nuclear attack.

Crazy ? No, but I think the people in charge are.

I’m sorry, but most of these are so absurd that. I don’t know what to think. I’m not insulting you but I really can’t believe that you’re serious.

This isn’t a dystopian wasteland. Our constitution is not going to erode because of nuclear attack.

I’m sorry, but most of these are so absurd that I don’t know what to think. I’m not insulting you but I really can’t believe that you’re serious.

This isn’t a dystopian wasteland. Our constitution is not going to erode because of nuclear attack.

A few planes hitting buildings did; why wouldn’t a nuke be worse ?

Fundementalist Christianity being made the official religion? Come on. That’s arguably the most important part of our constitution you’re talking about, and you really think people are going to let it be done away with? We have a president and a congress, not a King.

All the mony diverted to churches? Missionaries conquering the middle east? Come on. This country is ruled by the dollar, not by some kind of theocracy. And don’t underestimate the power of Jewish groups, either - or are the Jews going to be some kind of protected people? Man…I know it’s tempting for a creative minded person to come up with fanciful dystopian scenarios like this, and it makes for good fiction writing…but the reality of the situation will be much less far-fetched.

My post came like that because it looked like you had doubts on that relation (those pesky question marks).

But, I did mention that because the stakes and the response will be larger than the one of 9/11; if we follow a similar path, but this time with nuclear weapons, we’ll just be following the plan of the terrorists.

(I still think Osama was attempting all along to get us to attack Iraq, I think he was surprised how the intelligence pointed the finger at him first. However, Bush’s willingness to fall into the trap of attacking Iraq just gave a second wind to what was a clearly a losing effort by Al-qaeda)

Is it? Why?

I live in X territory = okay to kill.
I follow X religion = not okay to kill.

An American effort to “exterminate Islam” would lead us to world war three.

I really think that despite the religious connotations of this conflict, America is going to come at it from a political standpoint and not let religion play a part. I really don’t believe that America is controlled by some kind of Christian cabal. Like I said before, the dollar is God.

Well, that is erosion, but what what you posted early is Strip mining. Only the first 3 points (and number 6 and parts of 5) could be doable for this administration.

We’re already headed that way, and Bush and friends effectively regard “President” and “King” as the same thing.

“Faith based initiatives”.

There’s hardly much of a dividing line between the two in this country.

Religion has played a part from the beginning.

And wealth means God loves you, don’t you know ? Do God’s will, and he’ll make you rich; if you’re poor, it’s because God hates you.

Trihs I really can’t agree with this idea that the Christians are powerful enough in this country to pull off what you’re suggesting. If they are so powerful why don’t we have prayer in public schools? Why was “under God” taken out of the pledge? Why is there this enormous debate and public discourse over the Intelligent Design issue instead of the government just forcing all schools to teach ID?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of these people that believes that Christians are some kind of persecuted minority - I just think that the Constitution has more power here than you think.

Up until recently, the entire government was not under the control of the Rabid Right; now it is. The only reason America is not yet an outright Christian Corporate dictatorship is social inertia; a nuclear attack would push America past that inertia into the zone of no return.

A single nuke from the former USSR pre-breakup would certainly have resulted in WW3, would it not? I’m asking how many nukes would it take exploding in the US before you ended up with the same response?

This whole conflict is because of religion. No religion, no reason for terrorists in this instance.