Should the US state a nuclear policy in regards to a nuclear terrorist attack?

Well, after seeing all these threads on terrorists using nukes, and reading many times that terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons for use against the US, I think it is about time we have a stated "return" policy.

For me this would include nuking every major middle east city and every "holy" sight.

Since these terrorists seem to respect only their own religioen, perhaps we should put THAT under threat.

It is my opinion that if we made it clear that Mecca would recieve a visit from mr. Minuteman II missle they may rethink their nuclear strategy.

I understand this may sound rash and thoughtless, but it becomes clearer to me by the day that these radical islamic terrorists need to fear our retaliation. Since it seems that they place value only in the advancement of their perverse beliefs, we should threaten them directly.

Thoughts?

I think it would be VERY WISE to do so , yes.

That way if they know that they have supported the bad guys, and want to pull a Libya, then they could. Otherwise there would be no "I didnt know you were serious".


I would even lay out the "order of attack" Something like waht the Isreali's do. For every one Isreali citizen that dies, 100 Palestinians die.

Even though they no longer use that policy, it was effective. You can obviously see what going to the table has brought the Israeli's cant you.

I think that AQ want all out Holy War, no holds barred. I think they would be happy if Nuclear war spread in response to a WMD Terror attack on the US or anywhere else for that matter. That in effect would hasten their audience with God and the destruction of Civilisation as we know it.

They want to take us back to the dark ages. It is their manifesto.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by jimmyhellfire]

Gosh. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) all over again, only with pesky "terrorists" not nation states.

There is nothing new in rock and roll.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Gosh. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) all over again, only with pesky "terrorists" not nation states.

There is nothing new in rock and roll.

There is a difference. In this nuclear war, the US would hold the ultimate advantage - if it chose to. That is the point of this thread.

The US has the power to totally obliterate the ME if needed. Terrorists can not do that to the US.

Like Ed said - and I completely agree - if we PUBLICALLY state that our response would be full nuclea war on the whole ME, then the terrorists would have something to think about.

Every holy sight they claim to fight for would be put in jepordy by their actions. Would that perhaps make them reconsider using a nuke? Maybe, maybe not. But if it does, then that is a battle we have won. If not, well, then the ME will get blown to bits and the majority of our enemies will be destroyed (along with millions of innocents unfortunatly).

Either way, it is a showdown that we will get the better of when all is said and done.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Either way, it is a showdown that we will get the better of when all is said and done.

You are growing into your user name so well, M.A.D. acronym included!

For the edification of members who have the concentration spans to watch, Dr Strangelove and Failsafe are interesting renditions of where the cold war theory of nuclear supremacy goes wrong. One of them is funny to boot.

Next: Reagan-styled Star Wars, anyone?

I have to agree. State to the terrorists the repercussions. If they attack with a nuclear 'suitcase' launch an ICBM in their direction. They started the nuclear attack, we finish it with nuclear obliteration.

Should the US state a nuclear policy in regards to a nuclear terrorist attack?

We already have one. We will attack in kind. In other words if we get nuked someone else does. Now under King George we MIGHT strike first.

Say we know they have the stuff to make a dirty bomb or even a nuke in a city but we dont know where. Push a button and *poof* thew city and the bomb and the terrorists along with a hell of a lot of innocents.

I dont think its a good idea to strike first, unless 110% sure, but the president might think different. The bad thing now is that before Iraq most of the world would have believed us and I dont think they would now.

Heads need to roll for this BS in Iraq THEN maybe we, and the rest of the world, might be able to believe again

Dr Strangelove was great - havent seen the other.

Regardless, the quote you took from me is true:

Some terrorists get 1 city - or even 2 or 3. Fine - we destroy every city in the ME. Who has won that from their perspective?

They seek to make the world muslim.... Well, since just about every major muslim city has been destroyed, the % of the world that is muslim has gone down. Add to that the fact that the majority of their leaders have also been killed. That is an overall victory for the US - although admitedly at a very high cost.

Obviously, it would be MUCH better to simply avoid nukes on both sides and win a war of ideas, but once it has gone nuclear, I think it is clear that the time has come to take off the handcuffs we place on ourselves. At that point, it's kill or be killed, and honestly, better them then us.

What if the nuclear attack in question is made by a non-muslim seeking the destruction of "every major middle east city and every 'holy' sight"?

Who do we threaten?

If we are attacked with nuclear bombs by Al-Qaeda suicide bombers and it is proven that it was an Al-Qaeda attack... Who do we threaten with retaliation?

Al-Qaeda is a group.. by all accounts now a group without a nation... If we are to respond in kind .. where do we bomb?

What would the President say? "If we are attacked with nuclear bombs by Islamic terrorists we will retaliate in kind, by using nuclear bombs in the middle east"

What bomb mecca?

Wipe out all of the middle east?

Our enemy is without a nation or army for a reason... There is not much more we can do than to expand the existing war on terrorism.. IF we are attacked with nuclear bombs.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by Amuk
Should the US state a nuclear policy in regards to a nuclear terrorist attack?

We already have one. We will attack in kind. In other words if we get nuked someone else does. Now under King George we MIGHT strike first.

Can you show me a link to our stated policy? (not that I don't believe you, but I only know of our policy towards other nations, not to terrorists.)

I think you guys are re-fighting the cold war. "If the Russians bomb one of our cities, we'll take out one of theirs". Which in turn follows on from the city bombing campaigns of WWII. Its just not that kind of situation.

I have to think that if a bomb is used, Europe will wake up and realize its under threat as well. Then the way would be open for a genuine Western coalition to sweep right through the middle east and get rid of the despots, the mullahs, the madrassas, the imams, the hot-heads and all the other medieval barbarians.

Nukes aren't the answer, especially if its territory you want to occupy afterwards. Who wants to live and work in a radioactive environment? What you want is to do a genuine, full-bore mobilization, such as was done in WWII and sweep the table. If Europe joined, it wouldn't be that hard, except for the economic disruption.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, after seeing all these threads on terrorists using nukes, and reading many times that terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons for use against the US, I think it is about time we have a stated "return" policy.

For me this would include nuking every major middle east city and every "holy" sight.

Since these terrorists seem to respect only their own religioen, perhaps we should put THAT under threat.

You want to kill people who didn't even have anything to do with the attack?

That sounds like a very American thing to do.

Are you a Christian by the way?
It sounds like it, judging from your wish to nuke all of the countries in the Middle East and commit a near genocide.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Can you show me a link to our stated policy? (not that I don't believe you, but I only know of our policy towards other nations, not to terrorists.)

I dont have a link but I know that was the policy when I was in the Army.

Gazz

Did them not having a country stop us from attacking TWO countries after 9-11? One with a vague conection at best

Originally posted by AceOfBase

You want to kill people who didn't even have anything to do with the attack?

That sounds like a very American thing to do.

Are you a Christian by the way?
It sounds like it, judging from your wish to nuke all of the countries in the Middle East and commit a near genocide.

OK Ace so what would you ahve us do? Beg and plead to not strike us with one? Maybe negociate with them? Just what is your great plan?

Sounds to me like guy who takes an innocent hostage, holds a knife to his throat and tells the other guy with the gun "Don't shoot, or I'll slit his throat!"

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Who do we threaten?

If we are attacked with nuclear bombs by Al-Qaeda suicide bombers and it is proven that it was an Al-Qaeda attack... Who do we threaten with retaliation?

Al-Qaeda is a group.. by all accounts now a group without a nation... If we are to respond in kind .. where do we bomb?

What would the President say? "If we are attacked with nuclear bombs by Islamic terrorists we will retaliate in kind, by using nuclear bombs in the middle east"

What bomb mecca?

Wipe out all of the middle east?

Our enemy is without a nation or army for a reason... There is not much more we can do than to expand the existing war on terrorism.. IF we are attacked with nuclear bombs.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]

Yes - I believe we attack Mecca. And every other holy place in the ME. Thats what they respect - they don't care about lives or nations - they care about their perverted little muslim world. So that is what we threaten them with. We care about our people and economy; that is what they attack. They care about their religion; that is what we should attack.

We should also think about attacking whichever country the weapon came from.

BTW - I see your point (that you can't hold countries accountable for terrorists) but at the same time, I do not believe a third party should prohibit the US from protecting ourselves.

Dare I say, if we nuke Mecca, or somewhere else as asinine, we'd be creating more terrorists than we could possibly kill.

Originally posted by Amuk
Did them not having a country stop us from attacking TWO countries after 9-11? One with a vague conection at best

Yes....... That is the point.. what else is there?

If it is Al-Qaeda we've already for the most part delt with Afghanistan and Iraq...

What other nations can we threaten, and what if anything could they do to stop such an attack to save their own land from our retaliation??

I just do not see a viable way we could retaliate in kind anywhere if Al-Qaeda attacks us with nukes... Without turning the whole world against us.

We would need hard evidence for any kind of 'nuclear' retaliation.

I really hate to say this but again there is not much more we can do other than to expand the current war on terrorism .. maybe to Iran and Syria.. and to push Pakistan harder.. or to just take over Pakistan to search for OBL and those of Al-Qaeda that may remain there.

We are not going to retaliate and kill millions of people without some clear evidence that that nation was involved in the attacks.

It just will not happen.. The most we could do is use some tactical nukes on known terrorist sites.. Thats it!

Welcome to Al-Qaeda's ultimate game plan!

[edit on 14-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]