Debatable.
Some would argue that Al Qaeda’s goal is political overthrow of the Saudi dynasty, and it’s tool for doing so is religion. Fundamentally different (pun intended).
Sailboat
Have you read A Handmaid’s Tale by any chance?
I’ll agree that nuclear attacks on American cities will cause civil liberties to be eroded and there would be alot of anti-Muslim feeling in the US. But the government isn’t going to ignore widespread lynchings or set up forced labor camps. And America doesn’t have the resources to single handedly conquer the Middle East (and what nations to you see helping the US commit genocide?). True the draft would need to be reinstated to do what you’re suggesting, but it would takes years for conscripts to be selected, trained, and intergrated enough.
It’s not that big a step from what we’re doing right now. Prison labor is a major part of the American economy, and I wasn’t talking about lynchings. I meant the government will be torturing and killing, just as it’s doing overseas today.
You left out the raping children part. I’m dissapointed in you.
I forgot.
Right. Because if history has taught us anything, it’s taught us that appeasing violent thugs is the surest road to peace.
How well is that working out for Europe?
And let’s say that the U.S. does what they want. Completely ending support for Israel. Complete withdrawal from the Middle East. What do you think the likely result of those actions would be? Peace and love breaking out in the region?
I can tell you what would happen. Israel would be attacked again, this time with nuclear weapons. And Israel would respond in kind. This would not only lead to the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions of people, but it would totally disrupt the world oil supply, leading to massive political instabilty all over the world and a global, deep recession. What happens in Pakistan? And how does that affect India? How does China respond to the choking off of the oil it desperately needs to maintain its economy? (China uses five times as much oil per dollar of GDP as does the US, and is therefore much more vulnerable to oil shocks).
This may be your idea of a good compromise with murderous theocratic fascists, but it isn’t mine. And I don’t think it would be the likely strategic choice for the U.S. to make.
A more likely result would be a VERY hard line from the U.S. on nuclear proliferation, coupled with much more aggressive demands to end support for terror in countries like Iran and Syria. And possibly the emergence of new hard-line deterrence policies such as a policy of military reprisal against any country that can be traced as having supported the terrorists who use a bomb.
Of course it would be a very difficult problem. That’s the ultimate dilemma we face now. But you’re fooling yourself if you think that all we have to do is be nicer and we can coexist with fanatics like Bin Laden. This ‘war’ isn’t going to end until one side is utterly defeated. Hopefully, that ‘defeat’ will come in the form of a political and social reformation in the Middle East, rather than western cities becoming smoking ruins.
Why do they want to overthrow the Saudi’s? Personal reasons or to establish a theocracy?
I think people are missing the point here. The US and the USSR didn’t need the support, nor the approval, of anyone else to kill each other if it came down to that. If they had attacked each other it would have meant the deaths of well over half a billion people. There was no guarantee’s that anyone else would have survived the fallout, either.
If the terrorists started lighthing up nukes across the US, would the response be any less than what it could have been between the US and the USSR? Do you assume that the terrorists only have a limited supply of bombs and hope they run out soon? How do you guarantee that they don’t get another supply in the future and continue on with the killing? Do you say, “Oh, well. It is only a million of our people. Let’s negotiate.”. How about two million? Say ten cities go up in flames. Is there a point where you say, “Fuck it. They may have more nukes or not, but we have hundreds.” And then Slim Pickins starts his run. The US and the USSR were willing to do it if only one bomb went off. How is this different?
Again, I’m not advocating this, but I am wondering why the policy of mutual assured destruction is the only course when both sides could wipe each other off the map, but is off the table when one side is vastly superior in weaponry than the other.
And the part about torturing kittens and poisoning the chocolate supply, too. Intellectual standards have really gone down hill around here.
Huh. Rogue submarine commander and his crew, bereaved by the loss of downtown New York, get the launch codes and use them.
Because you can’t hold the whole society responsible for the actions of a few extremists.
Well, look at France or Spain, for example. Lots of Muslims there, last I heard.
How thoroughly do you want to take out Islam? Will it include nuking France and Spain?
-Joe
I’ll have to disagree with both Argent’s appeasement scenario and Der Tris’ absurdly paranoid remake of The Handmaid’s Tale.
Firstly, as to the scenario itself. From my extensive reading on the subject (I do not pretend to be an expert on nuclear arms) there is absolutely no chance whatever of a non-governmental organization developing and building a workable nuclear weapon on its own, anytime in the next few decades. Any terrorist organization that might deploy a nuclear weapon will only be able to do so by a) being given a weapon (and the instructions on how to arm it) by a sympathetic government that already has such weapons, or b) purchase one on what, at the moment, is a non-existent market. In both cases, it is highly unlikley that our hypothetical organization could get its hands on more than one weapon, and the likely source of the weapon will be relatively easy to determine by US intelligence organizations that will undoubtedly have carte blanche to find the source, by whatever means, after such an attack had taken place.
Given the above, IMO the general, immediate reactions to use of a nuke on US territory would be:
-
Declaration of martial law in the zone where the attack occurred (primarily for disaster management purposes, as after a major flood or eathquake).
-
Intensive effort to identify the organization that carried out the attack, and the government or governments that may have facilitated it, lasting no more than several weeks; the determination of responsibility will be a best guess and not to courtroom standards of evidence.
-
Widespread, spontaneous rioting resulting in looting, property damage and death by US citizens against persons believed to be arab muslims, leading to spot application of martial law in regions other than the one attacked; large numbers of Sikhs injured and/or killed because of their distinctive appearance and becasue of the US population’s widespread ignorance of the difference between Sikhs and arab muslims; this will largely die down after 2-3 months, but continue sporadically for years
-
Large-scale arrest and incarceration of anyone even slightly suspected of having helped or facilitated the attack, resulting in the jailing of many thousands of persons, but stopping short of internment of the entire muslim population
-
Offers of aid from nearly every country in the world, including nearly all Middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran; the countries whose aid is refused by the US will give some idea who they are likely to retaliate against
-
Within 1-2 months after the attack, presentation by the US of its case for blaming the responsible parties before the UN; this will be largely symbolic in nature and not materially affect the US’ retaliatory plans
-
A large-scale, reliatory aerial attack with no specific prior warning , either by conventional or tactical nuclear means, on the presumed headquarters of the organization deemed responsible and the seat of government of the country or countries that may have assisted that organization, as long as that country was not an EU member, Russia, India, Pakistan or China. In any of those countries are involved, the most likely result would be cessation of both diplomatic and economic relations and the start of a new Cold War.
-
After 4-6 months to allow for planning and preparation, invasion of the country that supplied or facilitated the use of the nuke (if not one of the countries already mentioned), overthrow of its government an occupation for years by the US.
Really, the only major difference in this scenario over the response to 9/11 is the possibility of the US using nuclear weapons in retaliation, as a ‘tit-for-tat’ measure. Otherwise, what you saw in Afghanistan is pretty much what you get here.
Long-term response is a separate issue that I don’t have time to speculate on right now.
I’m having a lot of trouble comprehending this concept of the United States. We’d sooner nuke Mecca than do that. All the ultra-patriotic “bomb them back to the stone age” talk that arose after 9/11 would be that much more palatable.
And we do in fact have the capabilities to bomb the entire Muslim world back to the stone age.
I find Grossbottom’s theory that a rogue nuke sub commander would take out any perceived enemies to be compelling, although I’m not sure whether he would be legitimately rogue, or merely the only politically viable way of making the attack.
Sorry, but I can’t see where that statement has a whole lot of meaning, as we do not have any practical way to exert this power without eventually bringing about our own downfall. For one thing, numerous ‘muslim’ countries, or countries with large muslim populations, are nominally allies of the US. I find it difficult to see how a single terrorist nuke suddenly turns them into enemies, except perhaps amongst the most rabid of nationalists, a group that currently has no particular political power in this country. The US would indiscriminately attack Pakistan, India, Indonesia, muslim state of the former Soviet Union, especially if there is no evidence that their governments had anything to do with our hypothetical nuclear terrorist attack? I think not. Likewise, while I have little confidence that some of my fellow citizens may maintain any sense of proportion, I do not think even as stony a bunch as the current administration would consider such utter madness a logical and useful response.
Well, not to be snarky, but I don’t.
I agree with that reasoning following a single terrorist nuke. My interpretation of the OP was that the nukes keep coming (at least three were listed, but the open ended nature of the following questions suggested a likely continuation of attacks), and that we don’t really know how many are out there or who’s supplying them, except that they’re Muslim extremists. In that scenario, I think a full out nuclear attack against perceived supporters would be increasingly likely.
My description of those perceived enemies as “the Muslim world” was poor. I realize that there are majority Muslim nations that are not considered to be supporters of terrorists.
This seems to me to be the most sensible guess so far.
I don’t want to take anyone out. I work for Muslims and while I can’t say I’m a fan of their religion (or religion in general, for that matter), they are good people for the most part. Moreso than the average westerner, imho.
iamthewalrus(:3= has it correct. I’m interested in opinions on the reaction if multiple nukes showed up, or a series of them did.
Well, Osama says theocracy. I’ve seen analyses (can’t scrounge up a link, sorry) that suggest otherwise. Rich kid wants power…lies about religion to get it.
Sailboat
Well, my whole point was that those who talk about, essentially, ‘wiping out Islam’ and the like.
How thorough will the genocide be? If we’re going to an Time on Target where we pulverize all of them at once do we go for Detroit, too? A couple hundred THOUSAND of them there, IIRC.
Or maybe, just maybe, indescriminate bombing (with nukes for added boom!) just ain’t the brightest idea.
-Joe
I never said it was bright, but it might solve the issue of Islamic terrorist setting off nukes in your country permanently (as to whatever other can of worms it opens is another story). And as I’ve said many times before in this thread, why would it be any different than dropping bombs all over the former USSR? I’m sure most of those people are nice people and could care less about the politics of the situation, but just happened to be born within certain borders.
Or, he could actually believe in what he actually says he believes in. I think we sometimes think that lying is the default and there are always ulteriour motives behind what people say.
Nuclear weapons are not anonymous. A team of experts can analyze the fallout and tell you a lot about the design of the weapon and the source of the fissionable material. If the fissionable material came from North Korea, I’d expect Pyongyang to get glassed. Any country involved in the design or fabrication of the weapons would have to quickly come up with some convincing arguments to avoid nuclear retaliation. The response would be swift and terrible.