We would not buy gas, we would take it. Ever hear of the phrase “spoils of war?”
In any event, I strongly suspect that the Saudis would turn 90 percent of their civilian population over to us before they’d get into a fight with us. Remember, we’re protecting them from Saddam, who could probably roll over them easily. What WE could do to them … well, see my comment re: glassy spots.
As a deterrant, if it were made clear that any nuclear attack on the US by Muslims would be answered by the incineration of Mecca, they might think twice before acting, and all the Muslim religious leaders might try to control the radicals before the insanity of the few gets them all killed.
I don’t think you want to nuke these 2 cities in any but the most dire circumstances (even in a nuclear conflict).
Damn, it is nice to read a thread that isn’t dominated by the anti-war group!
No way.
A) See above comment “You thought we were pissed about the WTC?”
B) They sacrifice their own lives “for” Allah. Mecca would be pretty much the ultimate sacrifice, even bigger than one’s own self and would be…
C) …carte blanche for every remaining pissed off radical to unleash every bit of firepower and insane fury at the US that they can muster. We might be able to defend against some of it, but we sure won’t stop it all.
D) And royally fuck up relations with the millions of moderate, non-insane Muslims in the world, and they’d probably be willing to kick our asses for that, too, and for good cause.
If they’re NUKING us, things have already gone about as bad as they can go. Sure, they might nuke us MORE, but to my mind, nuking a U.S. city is asking a question – can you nuke a U.S. city and get away with it? By get away, I dont’ mean personally survive, which clearly doesn’t matter to some terrorists, but advance the goals of yourself and your people.
I think the only safe answer to that question is “No.” If this means some very nasty responses, well, that’s what it’ll have to mean. What would you have us do, hold an irate press conference?
HELLO?
I am anti-war, you maroons! 
But I know how to read the tea leaves. And if an Islamic group detonates a nuclear weapon in a US city it’s dollars to donuts the American government decides that they’ve had enough of that and establishes hegemony over the middle east. If that means the destruction of the holy cities then there are going to be hawks (both established and recent converts) who are going to be thinking ‘Hey, they already nuked us…how much more angry can they get?’
Whose going to have their testicles rot off while they drill for it?
How much mileage will my Ponitac get if it has to have a lead lined gas tank?
If you are going to nuke Mecca/Medina (I thought it was the same place) you’ll have to kill all the Muslims. Much easier to kill some of them to take the oil and leave Mecca alone if you are intent on this sort of thing. Maybe Disney could run it. Fewer people trampled throwing stones at the devil. (The Mickey Mouse guy could get in a padded Devil suit and the Faithfull could throw pebbles at him…)
Memo to self: Try for Devil suit franchise.
PS:
I do favor Mutually Assured Destruction; a nuclear attack should be returned in kind, just not on the holiest city in Islam.
We might have to do that sort of thing to explain it to some countries.
I could imagine a response along the lines of the US unleashing attacks against targets in any nation that seem reasonably related to developing WMD. Including certain classes of nuclear facilities, the types of installations recently trotted out before the UN, etc. Simply saying, “We will not allow you to do this.”
Accompanied by dividing up spheres of hegemony between the few existing nuke powers. If we got hardcore agreements with Russia, China, and maybe England and France, and Israel, I wonder how much we would need to worry about Pak, India, N. Kor., S.Afr., etc. Wonder how small we could try to keep the club? Meanwhile, use pre-emptive force to keep out anyone else who tries to join.
And an attitude that we would strike FIRST, not after negotiations. Try to create an attitude where other countries saw a need to appear as tho they were doing whatever they could to discourage terrorism, or anti-American action. When terrorists are identified, target their families, friends, pets, etc.
Certainly not saying I desire such a future, but I can imagine it.
Part of the difficulty was that Europe thought when push came to shove, we would trade Europe to the Ruskies for safety of the USA.
A problem with a Republic; who knows what wusses will be running th joint in four years?
The Israelis haven’t had much luck targeting homes of Terrorists, once with a relative (unknown to be) inside. If they subscribe to the fundamentalist belief that martyrdom is a Good Thing, I don’t thing we can do anything about it except kill them before they kill themselves. Regarding pets…the red cat I say running in front of the tank on CNN gets a break.
You guys tore me up pretty badly a few months ago when I asked "how would you fight a war against Islam (as we’ve been accused of doing). I didn’t endorse the idea, or even want to do it, only was curious as to how it would be done, even if it was doomed to fail.
Nevertheless, it would seem to me that if a couple of nukes went off in the US, and the responsible parties are waves of fanatical Islamic fundamentalists bent on suicide attacks, and they are scattered thoughout the middle east, it might be time to come right out and say, yes Osama, we are at war with Islam and will use all of the weapons at our disposal to fight it. And we will show the same disregard for the innocent that you have done.
I know, I know, you can’t fight an idea, but think of what Osama would do with our weapons, nuclear, bio, and chemical, then make your plans.
Islam isn’t attacking us. Guys who are fundamentalists are. They bear no more relation to Islam than Jerry Falwell does to the Pope.
Who said anything about nuking the oil fields? Unless they’re all in the cities, I’d say this is not a problem.
I don’t know how much precision you have with those weapons, even tactical ones or where oil fields are in relation to cities. Don’t do it on a windy day.
Nuclear war, or even conventional war, is the last thing I would ever want. But it may be what Osama bin Laden and his loonies want. And the very interesting question that’s up for grabs right now is, how can we keep him from getting it?
BTW, I’m anti-war in the case of Saddam. I think he’s to canny to actually use WMDs against anyone (though he’d definitely use them as bargaining chips, which is what I think he’d want them for). I don’t know that about bin Laden.
For those of you wondering about the Subs, the Trident class is the largest we have, and are not usually outfitted with tactical nukes. However, because some of them are increasingly old, the feds decided to outfit them with tactical nukes, instead of patriot type missiles. So instead of decommissioning and letting them waste away, we are bolstering our arsenal by outfitting them to be the most formidable weapon on the planet.
Ohio, Los Angeles, and Seawolf class subs are all outfitted with tactical nukes. I happen to have family on some of these ships and I’ll tell you one thing, A submarine captain is most likely at any particular time, one of the most powerful single humans on the planet.
Our guys are assured to be patroling US waters, as well as off the coast of North Korea, and in the gulf. Don’t forget, they can stay submerged for one full year, never coming up, and compeltely self sufficient. It’s not called a deadly silence for nothing, and I think if it came down to it, North Korea would be informed that if there is a launch detected there are over 400 tactical nukes pointed directly at them and can be deployed at the drop of a hat.
If nothing else the US is wrought with contingency plans and anything North Korea or any other nation state could inflict upon us would be returned upon 100 fold and most likely a lot of it would come from our guys under water. I do not think Nuclear holocaust is anything that woudl actually happen, losing our government as we know it is not the worse case scenerio because it is simply not possible, even if a nuke hit Washington, we have contingency plans for that . Worse case scenerio would most likely look like mass casualties in the Mid-east and North Korea, and only result in 20 more Osama Bin Laden’s sprouting up, and the world getting another peek at just how powerful the US truly is…
Phlosphr, I’m curious as to where you get your submarine information. First of all, we have 18 Trident/Ohio class submarines (Ohio is the official name; some call them Tridents because of the Trident missiles they carry), and I haven’t heard about any of them being terribly old or obsolete. We use navy ships (yes, I know, a sub is technically a “boat”) for decades, and we don’t even have any other SSBNs on the drawing board to the best of my knowledge. The ones we have are sufficient. I’m not quite sure why we’d be fitting tactical nukes to submarines designed to carry strategic ones.
Also, the Los Angeles class and Seawolf class are both attack submarines. They have limited verticle launching capability, but again I doubt they’re actually carrying tactical nukes or nuclear-tipped torpedoes. Frankly speaking, there’s no reason for them. I can’t really think of a situation where we’d need a “tactical” nuke in a hurry in a place where only a submarine could fire it. Tactical nukes, by their very name, are tactical… what’s the point to firing a tiny nuke to take out a small target, but have no other forces in the region to follow up? Conversely, if you do have other forces in the region and are determined to use tactical nukes, let them use it and don’t expose the position of your sub.
In short, where do you get your information that even our attack subs are carrying nuclear weapons?
I do agree that a submarine commander is probably one of the most powerful men on earth, at least in the Ohio subs. 72 warheads (I believe) at their control.
-Psi Cop
Is that literally accurate? The warheads are “at their control”?