So what do we(U.S.) do if 20 nukes go off simultaneously in the U.S.?

[Lancer]

If you're a smoking hunk of glass, it's damned hard to plan the next bombing.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I think there is a second question that isnt asked in the op and that would be what would be what could the folks do that was bombed? Prolly not a lot, the nation as a whole is a different story. Now i must ask this, If you were going to be bombed would you like fair warning or not? I think for me the answer is no Id rather it just happen that way i dont have to panic over my last mintues and stuf.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Lancer
If you're a smoking hunk of glass, it's damned hard to plan the next bombing.

You make it sound like half the people in the Middle East and by nuking it all the terrorists will go away. By such an action it would only increase the (currently tiny) number of active terrorists twenty-fold.

[Lancer]

Not responding to the nuking of 20 cities with millions of dead would increase the amount of terrorists 20 fold.

There is no pretty answer. Destroying their population base would make it safe for you to raise your kids and not live in fear, so that's what would be demanded by the majority.

[Spiffor]

I fear that Lancer is right. Most Americans would support genocide if several American cities were nuked by terrorists. And genocide would happen.

The US would be remembered in the world history as the most murderous empire that ever spanned the planet, but it wouldn't matter.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I fear that Lancer is right. Most Americans would support genocide if several American cities were nuked by terrorists. And genocide would happen.

The US would be remembered in the world history as the most murderous empire that ever spanned the planet, but it wouldn't matter.

how would the Muslim world be remembered if it was mostly eradicated?

[Shogun Gunner]

What do you do when you are opponent "fights dirty".

1. Take the high road (and survive -- hopefully)
2. Take him down with you

Neither are attractive options.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The US would be remembered in the world history as the most murderous empire that ever spanned the planet, but it wouldn't matter.

What about the terrorists responsible for using nukes first, killing millions of people? Funny how if terrorists murder millions of people and we retaliate, we're the bad guys who are remembered as murderous and evil not the terrorists.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Lancer
Not responding to the nuking of 20 cities with millions of dead would increase the amount of terrorists 20 fold.

What, would Americans start bombing themselves?

There is no pretty answer. Destroying their population base would make it safe for you to raise your kids and not live in fear, so that's what would be demanded by the majority.

Giving ordinary Muslims a reason to hate America isn't what I would call making it safe to raise one's children. Start nuking an entire region and instead of a few thousand people trying to cause your country harm you'll end up with hundreds of millions.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Ninot


my question is: if a city gets decimated by a good sized nuke (assuming the terrorists can get quality stuff and not a dirty bomb), how does the rest of the nation find out? I assume most media outlets would be based out of a downtown area, and it would take a while for everyone to realise what just happened, but maybe I'm wrong.

Big mushroom cloud? That's what I usually associate with nukes... But are those airbursts?

Which would be more devastating, groundburst, as in a truck or something, or airburst, in a helicopter/high building?

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun


Big mushroom cloud? That's what I usually associate with nukes... But are those airbursts?

Which would be more devastating, groundburst, as in a truck or something, or airburst, in a helicopter/high building?

sure, the people around the city see the cloud, but how do they get the information out? i was on the assumption that lines of communication might be lost due to radiation or simple lines being gone.

my question was pretty much answered already tho.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I fear that Lancer is right. Most Americans would support genocide if several American cities were nuked by terrorists. And genocide would happen.

The US would be remembered in the world history as the most murderous empire that ever spanned the planet, but it wouldn't matter.

American cities being nuked by terrorists is what then?

What would you suggest be done by France, Spif, if 20 French cities were nuked?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Trip

What, would Americans start bombing themselves?


Giving ordinary Muslims a reason to hate America isn't what I would call making it safe to raise one's children. Start nuking an entire region and instead of a few thousand people trying to cause your country harm you'll end up with hundreds of millions.

Trip, where you from? What would you do to reply to the nuking of 20 of your nations cities?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by The diplomat


What about the terrorists responsible for using nukes first, killing millions of people? Funny how if terrorists murder millions of people and we retaliate, we're the bad guys who are remembered as murderous and evil not the terrorists.

Yes, the same people who thought 9/11 was our fault.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Which would be more devastating, groundburst, as in a truck or something, or airburst, in a helicopter/high building?

Airbust are more devastating because the explosion will affect a greater area.