Al-Queda: We Now Have One Nuke, and We are Going to Blow Up the Midwest!

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
This only happens in Tom Clancy novels. (But so did smashing jumbo jets into buildings)

Yep, if before 2001 anyone had told the western world that a terrorist group plans to smash commercial Planes into the WTC and the Pentagon, most people would have just alughed at him and not wasted a thought into thinking it could really happen.

As for the atomic bomb:
Although it is absolute sure that it would lead the west into another war into Terror, it would probably benefit Al Quaeda.
It would show those people who are opposed to the US/ the western world again, how vulnerable the US really is and therefore probably leading more people into supporting Al Quaeda or starting their own terror groups.
It would also lead to a greater mistrust against people which have the islamic Religion, in western states, but especially within the US, probably even leading to Persecution and detention of these people within the US just as it happened throughout WW2 with people of japanese origin or even to american citizens hunting down muslims and burning mosques (just like it was the case with KuKluxKlan and the Blacks within the 50s, 60s, but on a larger scale).
Maybe it could lead to the Dschihad of the muslims against the western states, many radical islamists hope for

[Drake Tungsten]

Can't I help you troll?

I'm not trolling.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I can think of no greater way to galvanize pretty much the entire world against them than to detonate a nuke in America's breadbasket.

After Iraq I suspect a large part of the world would be thinking you got what you deserved.

Hell, it would make the support the US got after 9/11 look like a pimple on the ass of a mosquito.

Again I doubt it, the US basically shat upon and squandered the enormous outpouring of international support and sympathy after 9/11 so if it happens again you're basically not going to get the same sympathy.

[Patroklos]

Although it is absolute sure that it would lead the west into another war into Terror, it would probably benefit Al Quaeda.
It would show those people who are opposed to the US/ the western world again, how vulnerable the US really is and therefore probably leading more people into supporting Al Quaeda or starting their own terror groups.

Since most of these weaknesses we know about, and coose not to secure because it would destroy our way of life, all this would do is give us an excuse to turn into the imperial dictatorship most of you actually think we are now and lay down a world of hurt on the world. THEN you will discover how kid glove we treat you guys now.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Patroklos
... all this would do is give us an excuse to turn into the imperial dictatorship most of you actually think we are now and lay down a world of hurt on the world. THEN you will discover how kid glove we treat you guys now.

And some ask why a lot of Europeans want the NATO disbanded and to found a new defensive alliance without the United States. I think all NATO supporters should be linked to this post.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, because that had so much to do wiith NATO why? I would suspect all you Europeans would become security Nazis if you were nuked as well.

Though because of NATO, you would be bound to help us

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, because that had so much to do wiith NATO why? I would suspect all you Europeans would become security Nazis if you were nuked as well.

Europe has been attacked by a major terrorist attack March 11th. I just don't see any Patiot acts or other limitations of civil rights, Departments of Homeland security, countrywide announced levels of terrorist threats or other hysterical or paranoid reactions hereabouts. Not even in Spain. But then, they're terrorist appeasers, so what gives?

Though because of NATO, you would be bound to help us

We already are helping you in Afghanistan. Just like France is. But since it is people with your mindset ("obey or we can get REALLY NASTY") ruling your country now, it's getting increasingly harder for people like me to support this.

[Az]

Yeah, because that had so much to do wiith NATO why? I would suspect all you Europeans would become security Nazis if you were nuked as well.

Why be just a security Nazi, when you can just be a Nazi?

(no, europeans are not nazis, just a little joke. )

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Can't I help you troll?

I'm not trolling.

Then why do you sound so bitter? Please don't, as it means no-one bothers to read your good points, 'cos it just sounds like mindlessness. I'm serious - you have posted good things to think about before, so just keep doing that.

When I think of what would make a good terrorist target, I think of something highly symbolic. A big well-known city like LA, NY, SF, Vegas etc would be ideal, and doubtless result in many casualties, but there are targets in the centre of the country that aren't cities that would be excellent choices as well for maximum coverage, which is after all the whole point of terrorism - to affect the hearts and minds of the target nation/cultures by striking at something they will see and feel about. Hoover Dam and Mt Rushmore would be perfect targets, IMO, as one would do an enormous amount of economic and environmental damage, and the other is apart from the Statue of Liberty perhaps the greatest patriotic monument the US has. Having the faces of those Presidents obliterated would piss of EVERY American, I shouldn't wonder.

As I don't know American landmarks too well, I imagine you guys could come up with some really good ones too that I wouldn't think of.

[Nacht]

First, because the midwest is thinly populated and a nuke here would do next to no damage.

After Iraq I suspect a large part of the world would be thinking you got what you deserved.

some people here are really underestimating the effect of a nuclear attack on the US

next to no damage

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Then why do you sound so bitter? Please don't, as it means no-one bothers to read your good points, 'cos it just sounds like mindlessness. I'm serious - you have posted good things to think about before, so just keep doing that.

When I think of what would make a good terrorist target, I think of something highly symbolic. A big well-known city like LA, NY, SF, Vegas etc would be ideal, and doubtless result in many casualties, but there are targets in the centre of the country that aren't cities that would be excellent choices as well for maximum coverage, which is after all the whole point of terrorism - to affect the hearts and minds of the target nation/cultures by striking at something they will see and feel about. Hoover Dam and Mt Rushmore would be perfect targets, IMO, as one would do an enormous amount of economic and environmental damage, and the other is apart from the Statue of Liberty perhaps the greatest patriotic monument the US has. Having the faces of those Presidents obliterated would piss of EVERY American, I shouldn't wonder.

As I don't know American landmarks too well, I imagine you guys could come up with some really good ones too that I wouldn't think of.

Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland are three big cities in Ohio too.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Seeker
it's a bluff. If they had one they'd brag AFTER they use it. It's just a way to keep TSA scra,bling around harassing tourists.

Unlike 9/11, a Nuclear Bomb would be much harder to stop. You can't ground all the planes, and in this case we don't know the target. I am not saying it isn't a bluff, but it could be true. Afterall, if they say they are going to do something, wait a few days or a month, and then do it, then that plays into their hands very, very well. It would make people feel far less secure and powerless than a bomb that went off completely by surprise.

-Drachasor

[GePap]

A big coastal city would be the obvious target for a nuke- NYC and Washington would be the two top priority targets- LA and Chicago come next. It is extremely unlikely a city in the Midwest would be hit, if only becuase the attackers would have to travel throught the US a significant distance, and that increases the possibility of detection.

As for Europe and terrorist, the French anti-terrorism laws make the US rules even with the Patriot act tame.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would they blow up something in the 'center' of the US? Oh, btw, Chicago isn't really in the center, it's too far North for that .

I just don't see why they'd blow up Omaha or Kansas City when if they can sneak a nuke in there, they can sneak it into Los Angeles or Washington or Boston, etc.

[GePap]

NUkewise, hitting anything but the key coastal cities make little sense- if they want to be different, hit Houston instead of NYC or DC, thought NYC and DC make far more worthwhile targets.

Now, with regular explosives, hitting some place in the midwest makes sense psychologically, showing that no place in the US is safe.