[aparneioninny]

Originally posted by Lancer
Iranian/Syrian terrorists, Saudi terrorists, whoever. If they use nukes should we now announce that the parent country will reap the retaliation? Might that draw a line in the sand, stop them from using them? Ummm... no, I don't think so. The thing is, these guys believe they are already at war with Western Civilization in general and the US in particular. They seek to fan the flames of what they see as the good fight between Islam and the good muslims on one side and the evil westerners on the other. They will use every weapon at their disposal, and by threatening retaliation against a whole country - or against all of Islam - I believe the US would only make matters a whole hell of a lot worse.

Don't forget, there are over 1 billion muslims out there, and if even 1% of them had anything to do with Al Qaeda or any other terror organization, that would put about 10 million terrorists out there right now, plotting attacks or helping prepare for them. Does the world today look like there are 10 million terrorists out there? I don't think so. To me it looks more like a handful here, a dozen there, a few hundred scurrying about in the dark somewhere in between, maybe a few thousand supporters hiding in the shadows.... and that's about it, I think. Well, if the US threatened to nuke Mecca, it wouldn't be anymore, because... well, I could make a big long list of points here, but to cut things short, I basically believe that this would be like telling over 1 billion muslims that "We hate your religion, we hate you - and even if you don't attack us, we might nuke you anyway!"

Hardly a good way to keep the peace, I say.

[tobaccoman]

Originally posted by Lancer



I don't consider nuclear retaliation such an irrational concept. Sorry if it freaked you out.

If New York or some other major city got blown away I would be very surprised if a terrorist state or two didn't get nuked really hard. Sad, but according to my understanding that's the way these things work. Also the government would have little choice, the people would be ripping mad and out for blood...justice perhaps, payback for some... And no doubt that future historian would label this retaliation as one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the 21st century…

You would support the death of millions innocent civilians and possibly genocide over an entire nation!?

The thing with international terrorists is that they don’t have a country, which is precisely why your silly war on terror isn’t a classical war.

It’s unethical to punish millions of civilians for the actions of their government, imagine how unethical it would be to kill them because of the actions of a few hundred people they do not know, do not support and aren’t even forced to pay freaking taxes too.

I hate to say this but it seems that you Americans just haven’t been living on planet Earth since 9/11…

[JasminBerkova]

Wow, Lancer. You're nucking futs. Or trolling beautifully.

[adultcomicssitedessaa]

[CVEGK7mV]

Killing pups

[saumemeva]

retaliation is idiotic. we would just have to humbly accept we got nuked and find the people who did it and eliminate them. in kind ratliation would not make things right, it wouldnt sooth the outrage, and more importantly we would alienate everyone in the world period. we wouldnt have 1 billion people mad at us, we'd have 5 billion plus. no one in the world save a few loony countries would view nuclear genocide as an acceptable reaction to terrorist action. you can proceed to have the united states become an island of a nation and be excluded from the world economic growth. also, there are many people here that would be outraged at a use of a nuke.

[Golotop]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


When a Sovjet sub stranded in the Swedish archipelago back in 1981, some researchers from the Swedish Military Research Institute rode on the coast guard ship that docked alongside the sub. They said in a recent TV documentary that their instruments went bananas from the nukes in the sub.

So it's possible to detect them. But I don't know what happens if you encapsule them in lead containers. you then use X Rays and question a vessel that is effectively blocking them and creating a huge dead space for the x ray scan.

[Dokescoonse]

I doubt that Hamas or Hezbollah would use a nuke on Israel. Their Palestinian brothers and sisters live in the same cities Only AQ might potentially be crazy enough to use a nuke. They're aware that right now retaliating againsthem would be very difficult since we don't know where they are.

[Payodcapy542fro]

Originally posted by Aeson
You freak me out Lancer. I can't believe anyone would think nuclear genocide is a valid option. You obviously never discussed the topic with Americans, then.

[Innockcroff]

If the terrorists nuke Paris the French would reply with harsh language?

[galaktiusman]

Would you rather they nuke the US if they thought they had found some ties between us and the terrorists?

[drycleden]

Originally posted by Lancer
If the terrorists nuke Paris the French would reply with harsh language? Obviously, considering that the US is a terrorist country, we'd nuke the US.

[Dwencejed]

Originally posted by Diadem
French would surrender, of course.

The problem is that they wouldn't know who to surrender to. That's the nature of terrorism. I am not sure how France would solve this problem. They'd either surrender to everybody, or commit mass suicide, I suspect.

[euylvaygdq]

Originally posted by Diadem
French would surrender, of course. Actually, the "surrendering French" thing is getting quite old.
Plus, in my opinion, it is both inaccurate and unfair in the first place.

True, the German panzers did overrun the French army and the French government collapsed like a house of cards, but like Zkribbler said, the French as a people never did surrender. As a matter of fact, the French resistance was one of the largest, best organized and most successful in all of occupied Europe. They harassed the hell out of the Germans whenever they found a good opportunity to do so and they provided invaluable assistance to the Allies both before and after D-Day. Without them, the war would have been both longer and bloodier for the Allies.

Where is the surrender in that?

As for the fact that they lost all their colonial wars... well, NEWSFLASH: So did everybody else!

Plus, if you look around in the world today with open eyes, you'll see that France is still a major power in Europe and a relatively big player on the world stage. No, the French are not eager to commit to military action unless they believe it's absolutely necessary, but when they do, their forces are right there on the front line and often among the first to go in.

I ask again: Where is the surrender in that?

[gettoblaster]

No. Of course not. For one thing, terrorists never want to kill civilians. For another, terrorists have a fixed base and are easily counterattacked and deterred by threats against it.

Does the Pope **** in the woods?

[Ceriopal]

Originally posted by TCO


Pathetic. German. Cluelessness.

Terrorists need terror. Costing a bunch of money does jack ****. Of course the Germans with their dhimmified love of the terrorists would think that the killers would rather not kill. Stupid. A real terrorist goes for the balls! Nobody said that they would do it (i.e. attacking the satellite system, instead of the cities)

What I said was rather that they should do it if they´re smart,
as they can create a lot more damage to the western economy as well as chaos than by just nuking a city


btw.
the article about the nuclear explosions in orbgit was written by an american author, Daniel Dupont
and was also published 2 years before in Scientific american:

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/ar...explosions.htm