Discussion-America's Response to a Nuke Strike

I think if America were ever the victim of a nuclear strike of any sort then you would most likely see the current administration declaring a state of emergency. The absolute power of America would be handed over to good old George Jr.

He could then simply declare a draft and not bother with the hassle of going through the legal channels.

He could also re-industrialise parts of America like Pittsburgh and Detroit, they already have huge abandoned areas of industrial infrastructure, and high unemployment. Now my information on Pittsburgh and Detroit come from several documentaries I have seen, for all I know Pittsburgh and Detroit could be wonderful places where chocolate rivers flow and children play with gumdrop smiles. But we have similar cities here in the UK that have had alot of history and glory years but now are faded into the greyness of unemployment statistics, the factories and warehouses are still there but there's no-one home.

I was only discussing this with a couple of friends the other day and one of them said that we had been watching too much star wars revenge of the sith..that's as maybe. Till I pointed out that a similar event had ocurred not so long ago, not in a different galaxy, and not so far far away..Germany 1930-1945.

Maybe a Nuclear attack against the US has already been planned, maybe the nukes are already in place, or maybe they've always been in place, just waiting, all part of the plan.

In my opinion I dont believe Bush would hesitate to open the briefcase, and these events could be the precursor to a war of unimaginable horror. I also wonder who gains and profits most from America waging an all out war on this scale?

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Loon]

I have one word................Nostradamus.

He did acuarately pick the third antichrist coming from the Middle East and his power would come from the middle east's oil supplies and large islamic population. (1983 "The Man Who Saw Tommorrow")

I don't want this to turn into a Nostradamus conversation.

I still think we invade Iran, Syria or both.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by centurion1211
But according to most media accounts and quite a few posters here on ATS, most muslims in the world already dislike or even hate the U.S.

Hardly. You'll probably find most Muslims have no desire to get involved with any violence towards the US, and the majority simply want to live their lives - just like you and I.

So, you're saying all the media accounts and ATS posts we're being bombarded with that say most or all muslims in the world hate America are lies?

centurion1211, it seems clear from your posts that you want all Muslims to hate all Americans.

Why?

Maybe because that would clear you of any accusation of being [self censor] for hating all of them?

Fact is that most Muslims don't hate Americans, although some hate the American administration.

Why?

Because it seems to be full of people like you.




[Edit out harsh language implying that another member might be racially biased. Take a deep breath. Now what would Skippy do?]

[edit on 25/7/05 by gekko]

Originally posted by Lartsa Cleargleam

Originally posted by xmotex
We'd attack Iran.

Even if they had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Laughs.

I think we're going to do that first.

Anyway, I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of you guys actually want this kind of scenario to happen.

I hope that if it did, it would make twenty million pissed off people so pissed off that they realize the only way to keep themselves from having to feel that much pain again would be to disarm the world, instead of blowing it up. Which really isn't as difficult as it's made out to be.

I'm all for self-defense, but if some freak killed my kids I wouldn't kill his kids in retaliation. Lead by example. Value life to improve life. All that good stuff.

Oh. Not my reaction, but America's? Probably the opposite.

Great post !

IMHO The US would not nuke Saudi Arabia, nor pakistan, nor Iraq or Iran ...why? because it would disrupt the oil production and guess waht not only the US would be dealing with the chaos of a nuke aftermath, but also a fuel shortage of biblical proportions, if it came to that the US would invade Venezuela, Canada and Mexico to survive its fuel needs, trigering a bonafide wwIII in wich not only the Muslim world would like to get "even with the US, but also Latin America and Africa to Boot and in that window of opportunity the chinesse would seize the opportunity,,in the end it would be the end of the party for most of us....

I chills me that my friends up north are so trigger happy, dont you remember YOU were the ones that started it all and that the US is the country that posess the most WMD? Now along come other guys with the same kind of dung and you cry like winnies, lets kill them before they kill us ! ....

Also I think that if REAL terrorists had the weapond they would have used them already those weapons have a shelf life you know...

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, you're saying all the media accounts and ATS posts we're being bombarded with that say most or all muslims in the world hate America are lies?

Lies. Misinformation. Assumptions. Ignorance. Fear-driven folly.

Pick one

Do you seriously believe all or most Muslims hate the US?

That's actually tragic, if the answer is "yes".


Edited to add:

Which media accounts? Fox? I've been reading Reuters, BBC various other worldwide sources for years now; oddly, I haven't come away with the impression that all Muslims hate the US - if anything, it's stressed time and time again that most Muslims decry the acts of terrorism, and are eager to get the message across that they absolutely do not hate the US or the West.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Yeah, when I said we'd invade Iran or Syria or both, I meant conventionally. A nuke strike in Iran would most definitely disrupt oil production, a good point someone brought up.

I fear that immediatly after an attack on the US mainland the initial knee-jerk reaction would be to nuke who ever did it. However, after the hot-heads cooled they would need to determine who was responsible and then link it to a gov't that supported it. Attacking a country just because the attackers came from there is assinine unless it was state sponsered and proven.

If that link could be proven, at least in George W's own mind, then I think he would. But could he be "made to believe" something other than the "facts".

Well.... let's look at all the WMD in Iraq that prompted him to attack. Mmmmmmm, wait a minute, there were none found were there?

Could Bush be cohersed into launching nukes against a state that "may" have been responsible for a WMD attack on US soil? Yep.

Would he attack if he had the oppertunity or justifacation, even if on;ly in his own mind? Yep.

Remember, nukes don't effect the oil buried beneath. Only the surface infastrucutre that can be re-built.... but don't tell George W that.

Face it, the guy is an unstable, gun lovin', trigger happy leader and that's dangerous. Sure he's a tough Texan and all, but all his posturing is probably going to ignite the next big one.

Watch 'Sum of all fears' if your are into this issue its pretty good in how it relates to todays world. It definitely compliments this thread.

Its more likely Isreal would get hit first than America first but even one nuclear bomb would not effect America that much, within a year it will heal. Apart from the fall out though.

There will be fire from the sky around Isreal where they will become attacked and the enemies destroyed by fire according to Bible prophecy so I would rather look in that direction if some thing was to happen.

As I noted in my last post entitled "Countering Nukes"
which was on page one of this thread, the US planning was
done in 2001 to develop a nuclear weapon that could be
used to drive deep into the earth to take out nuclear
sites that are determined to be giving Nuclear weapons
to terrorists. The expanded Bush doctrine at this time
(December of 2001) included the following concerning
nuclear weapons.
========================================
The US will not tolerate existence of nuclear weapons
unless those weapons are under verifiable control of a
government in which the US has confidence.
========================================
It was for this reason that the US determined to develop
a new bunker buster type of nuke to take out any underground
nuclear site that was thought to be supplying nukes or nuclear
material to terrorists.

An update on this situation just happened on July 1, 2005.

I was on the east coast on a short vacation and on June 30
I was in New York City visiting a niece and then we
drove back to Greenwich Conn. and it was late. We
tuned in cspan2 very late, it was after midnight
and Senate was still in session, unusual for this
hour of the day. They were debating funding of a new
nuclear bunker buster. This is apparently the program
I referred to in my last post concerning a new
nuclear weapon that could drive deep into the earth
and then produce its nuclear yield. The first senator
was a democrat and he opposed funding and making the
weapon. The next one was also a democrat, John Kerry,
and he opposed it also. His logic went something like
it was a waste of money, and America would be increasing
the arms race to make the weapon. He said we would
be better off not to make the weapon because this
would set a good example for the world, and that
therefore other nations would not build the nukes
having had this good example set.

With this logic I guess he must be saying that Iran
won't build any nukes if we don't build these bunker
busters. This makes no sense to me since Iran started
their weapons program long before we decided to build
this new weapon. Also take note of the fact that Iran's
nuclear facility is deep underground, and this could
be a specific reason the Bush team wants this bunker
buster.

I looked up this bill on www.senate.gov and got the story.
Voting on it was Jul 1, early in the morning as I mentioned
before. Actually Feinstein introduced the legislation in
question, which was Senate Amdt. 1085 to HR 2419. This
amendment was for the purpose of withholding funding for the
nuclear bunker buster. If you don't remember, this
nuclear bunker buster came about when we were undergoing
fears of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons. At that
time Bush determined that action would be taken
against any nuclear facility that could not guarantee
to the US that their weapons were under complete control
and thereby not being given to any terrorist organizations.
The purpose of Senate Amdt. 1085 was to prohibit funds
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (thats what the
weapon ended up being called).

Most democrats voted to withhold funds to make the weapon.
The only democrats voting to provide the funds for the
weapon were the following:

Bayh - IN
Nelson - FL
Nelson - NE

I wonder if the two Nelsons are related. Isn't it
interesting that only 3 democrats indorse the idea to
destroy nuclear sites that are thought to be in process
of providing nuclear weapons to terrorists like Al Qaeda.
Does this mean that the democrats think its okay for them
to use nukes but not us?

Anyway the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is going to
be built, it appears.

Here is the link concerning the amendment if you are
interested.

www.senate.gov...

I think at first, to go nuke for nuke, we would nuke an empty mountain side in Afghanistan, just to apease the masses. In the end, we would invade whateve country we found to be associated with the attack on us.

i once rember that an american genral said, (Just after 9/11) "If there were to be an Nucular strike on the country, i belive that the nation would desend into a state of anarchy and Chaos"(Or something similar to that). I do belive people in america would Freak out should someone drop the bomb. There would be riots and looting in the areas bombs went off near. Anti-govrenment protests would turn into riots, and people would flood the govrenment with requests.

Of course even better than a bomb would be a series of simuteanusly detonated EMP Bombs. These would cause the one essintal elment in america , electricty, to stop completly. Imagine the NYC blackout in 1976. Riots and looting everywhere, people lighting stuff up, prisons being released because the locks on the would deactivate, everything would go to hell in a handbasket

I belive that the bomb would be made in Iran/syria/North Korea, or stolen from ruissa. IT would then make its way to southeast asia, (Where, no offense, many people can be bribed) it wouykd then be taken by ship to south america, then to mexico, taken using a series of tunnels in to texas than detonated in either...

Target Priority List (In my opinion)

1: LAs Vegas, it symoblyises everything that the terrortis are envyious of in our country, no i didn't say hate, or are religiously predisposed to hate. Those little pricks (Just being the terrorists, not gurilla insurgents in Iraq that have an actual reson to hate america) envy everything we have and they dont.

2: SoCal, lots of people, famous place in america, and given all of the gun and cokaine already in there, it wouldn't be too hard to get a bomb in.

3: Dallas-Ft. Worth, not to far away from ebtry point, and bushes home state

4: Some oil feilds or major refinery in califonia. Face it, americans love oil, and the best way to hurt some one is to take away the thing they love.

5: Other

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Supraliminal]

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Supraliminal]

Speculating that a nuke weapon would be detonated on US soil is unfathomable because it would alter world history forever. I see these so called "warnings" as alarms to tighten our borders and re-design our security mechanisms so this horrific scenario can only occur in fiction novels. We have done a lot since 9/11 but obviously, lots more needs to be done (and they are moving in the right direction to adjust to this new threat).

I agree, I don't think MAD would work with the terrorist model. MAD is when both sides don't want to wipe each other off the face of the earth, with the terrorists, they ARE willing to die for their cause.

If they really wanted to cripple the US, the targets would probably be:

New York
LA
Chicago
Detriot
Houston
Miami
north jersey
DC

If that happened there would definately be chaos everywhere, and an invasion would probably be pretty successful.

All in all though, that's not going to happen, but I suppose you never know.

I think it's time we stop under-appreciating Anerica's security aparatus post 9/11 ladies and gentlemen! We have apprehended numerous terrorists both here and abroad and continue to cripple their infrastructure in every conceivable manner. There is so much clandestine activity going on behind the scenes we are not privy too.

How many major attacks have occured on US soil since 9/11 (almost 4 years to the day)? Answer: 0! Therefore, be proud of your government for this achievement.

You did not state wether it was from an established country or from terrorists. Reading your post, I believe it to be the later.

The problem with nuking religious sites is you not only piss off the terrorists, but the other billion or so Muslims too.

As for would we use it as an excuse to invade someone-been there done that.

Originally posted by MajorCee
The use of nuclear weapons is a very current subject
which is a behind the scenes subject of great importance.
Nuclear weapons was the key number one issue as to why
the US went into Iraq.

SNIP

I can give you some more recent information on the US
plans to counter any nuclear threat from foreign
governments but that will have to do for today.

Man that was good, it explains a lot....now to read the Tulipwalking reaction....



I knew it, they are so predictable.......now a few questions I had make sense, and now the information comes together...

The part you didnt address was Saudi Arabia......that is where the funds are...are we quiet because we are 'watching' with consent just where it is going? Same for the drug money in Afghanistan....


hmmm

Interesting, very interesting, you get my first Way Above for August!

You have voted MajorCee for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by centurion1211
As long as the islamofascists (the nazis of our time) keep using their religion as a reason for what they do, I believe it is fair to include islam's key sites on a retaliatory target list.

Personally, if we were attacked with nuclear weapons by these people, I would advocate hitting mecca with so many weapons that muslims wouldn't ever be able to tell exactly where it used to be (was it this crater or that one way over there?). Isn't islamic justice based on the concept of an eye for an eye? Well, we've never attacked their cities with nuclear weapons, now have we?

Kind of like what Rome did to Carthage at the end of the 3rd Punic war. They pulled down the city, plowed it under so nothing was left visible and put salt all over the land so that nothing would even grow there again.


[edit on 7/25/2005 by centurion1211]

IMO Bush uses his religion to do what he does, just as much.

And I also personally think that in 50 or 100 years when people look back at now, Bush will be remembered along the lines of Hitler himself.

Hitler payed thugs to loot the city and promote violence and started a campaign stating that if he was granted extra powers he could get rid of the problem.

The US government and CIA financed the Taliban and Bin Laden himself received CIA training. Then bush starts promising that if he granted extra powers we can stop this 'terroris threat'. Sound familiar?

Originally posted by ekul08

The US government and CIA financed the Taliban and Bin Laden himself received CIA training. Then bush starts promising that if he granted extra powers we can stop this 'terroris threat'. Sound familiar?

Everytime I hear this I want to puke....


OF COURSE WE DID, but you are probably to young to remember why we did it.