I am so sick of this stupid idea. As if the terrorists being right once means they win. Let’s imagine a worst case scenario; terrorists sneak a nuclear bomb into New York or DC (or both) and explode it.
Have the terrorist won? Is America now doomed?
The answer to both is of course not.
Sure it would suck if the terrorists when the terrorist are right once (and we already seen them be right more than once), but in no way no they only need to be right once. They need to be right over and over again.
Hell, if any side can be hurt by the other side being right once, it is the terrorists. One well placed attack by the United States can damage al Qaeda in a way al Qaeda could never hurt the US with a single attack.
We have lots of cities, lots of military bases, lots of people, and lots of other things. It will take more than the terrorists being right once to bring that down.
May I ask what set this rant off? Who’s claiming the terrorists only have to be right once? In what context? “Right” meaning they succeed in carrying out another attack in the United States?
Not being snarky, I’m genuinely confused about the precise target you’re aiming for.
In some contexts she will say the terrorists only have to be right once to suceed in an attack. But usually it is this naked statement that the terrorists only need to be right once.
She’s not saying America will collapse, she’s just stating the obvious - that for America to get the outcome it wants (no terrorist attacks), they have to stop every attempt. For terrorists to get what they want (damage and dead Americans), they only have to succeed on one attempt. Rice’s statement is almost surely a paraphrase of a famous remark made by the IRA to the British government after a failed bombing attempt in 1984: “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always.”
So they have to kill Americans to get what they want, yes? If you weren’t clear about what Rice meant when you started this thread, I think you should be at this point. This still doesn’t seem Pit-worthy.
No the don’t have to kill Americas to get what they want. That is the method they are using now, but I am sure al Qaeda would stop all attacks if every American agreed to become a Muslim and live under al Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam.
9/11 caused the shut down of air traffic in the United States, seriously damaged the economy, killed 3,000 people and is still having effects on the nation 5 years after the event. A nuclear bomb in DC or NYC would obviously have far worse consequences. End of the United States would be a stretch but I’d have to say it would be a victory for the terrorists.
And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. But that’s my problem. They do have to kill Americans to get what they want because that shit isn’t going to happen, so why are you even bringing it up? If America was a Muslim nation and had troops in the Middle East, AQ would indeed still have a problem with it.
I’m sitting outside when :smack:, it hits me that I’m using different wording than the OP .
I’m talking total victory here, not as in a single battle. Hitting DC or NYC with a nuke would be about as total a victory as a terrorist organization could hope to achieve against the US outside of some form of biological warfare incident. So they win, we lose.
Taking out one city won’t destroy a country. Even a good attack on multiple cities won’t. Countries much smaller than us have had most of their urban centers destroyed, but continue to survive with strong spirits. There is only so much damage a terrorist can do. That’s why they are called “terrorists”- because their trade is fear. The people that can destroy countries are called “militaries”. Sure, 9/11 was spectacular. But it was a handful of buildings. Hurricane Katrina was more damaging by the numbers. Hell, we already know what happens when one of our cities gets destroyed. It sucks, but life and America go on.
Theres not much to actually do with this knowledge. It’s still just as prudent to try to stop terrorism. But perspective never hurt anyone.
I personally think that at some point, the terrorists will detonate a nuclear device in the US and/or Israel. It will have great economic impact but will not destroy either country. I’m much more worried about Bush destroying our freedoms than terrorists doing the same.
What the terrorists want is irrelavant, they ain’t getting it. They at best can kill a few of us here and there. It is their only realistic goal, so yes they only need to be ‘lucky’ once, but for every time they are ‘lucky’ they loose a country or 2.
Are we just counting bodies? Cause I’d have to think that a nuclear attack on one of our major cities – heck anywhere in the US for that matter – would cause nearly as many casualities among terrorists and terrorist sympathizers as it would amongst Americans. The details of the mechanism of this is left up to the imagination of the reader.
However, in doing so America would doubtless create more terrorist sympathizers, but the question is – how many?
But that’s my problem. They do have to kill Americans to get what they want because that shit isn’t going to happen, so why are you even bringing it up? If America was a Muslim nation and had troops in the Middle East, AQ would indeed still have a problem with it.