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

[Lancer]

Airburst can be achieved by carrying a bomb up in a high rise. Not as hard as it sounds, just ship it in a freight elevator to an upstairs office, like it's a copying machine. Someone can be in the box and push the button when the elevator stops.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Lancer


The question was "What would we (US) do...not 'is it justice'. No it's not justice, since you ask. There are loads of innocent people in these countries. That wouldn't save them in my opinion. They, and the terrorists that live among them, that are recruited down the street at one of their churches, would get nuked. That was the question, what would happen...and it's a matter of opinion certainly. How to react though? Your 'massive invasion' is pure BS. You going to go in with the first wave? Would you have invaded Japan instead of nuking? Would you have sacrificed a million american boys and many millions of Japanese men, women and children who would have assualted into our machine guns or fell victim to our tactical and strategic airstrikes? Sure, inocents died in those Japanese cities, but every american drafted was an inocent in that way. All those Japanese kids given sharpened sticks and told to repel the invasion were innocent...

I just love the bleeding heart solutions.

War is a dirty business, and if the enemy nukes 20 US cities, then we'll get really dirty, really fast. That's my take.

Your Japanese analogy is piss poor at best.

First of all WW2 was a war between states, and between populations who supported those states. Many if not most japanese civilians would have attacked US troops with bamboo sticks if necessary had Japan been invaded. Likewise both Japan and the US recognized bombing of civilian targets as legitimate war objectives, the atom bomb was no different and in fact killed less people than some other bombing raids like Dresden or Tokyo.

What would the US do? Probably nuke the middle east, especially if Bush or some other extremist Republican is president. I don't disagree with that assesment. I simply pointed out that such a thing is just as big if not bigger atrocity as the nuking of US cities because, as I stated, the war against terror is NOT a war between states insofar as a state does not exist which openly harbors and supports those terrorists (as was the case of the Taliban).

Seriously, what would nuking accomplish if not just personal revenge and satisfaction? What if the terrorists were Iraqis, would you nuke the country you just pledged to reconstruct? If they were Saudis or Pakistanis would you nuke your closest allies in the region? Would you nuke Syria and Iran and why if they had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks? Lastly what if they were Egyptians which were also openly against their governments (as most terrorists are) and guilty of attacks in their own country, would you still nuke Egypt despite the terrorists being both country's enemies?

It's utter stupidity plain and simple. It would be the most hideous case of mass extermination and genocide in world history that would make even the Nazis look like the good guys. Is that what you'd want your country's legacy in world history to be like? The mass murder of 400 million people as revenge for the acts of 40?

[Master Zen]

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.

Because you're NOT retaliating against those who perpetrated the acts, you're retaliating against anyone unfortuante to be of the same religion and live in the same region as them.

And also because terrorists are by definition a criminal extremist organization. By following their lead your country and your government would suddenly share the same title. One thing is the irresponsability of a couple dozen extremists who represent nobody other than their own interests. It's much worse the irresponsibility of a government numbering in the hundreds let alone the millions who they represent.

[Jon Shafer]

MZ: Ironic to end up side-by-side only a day later, eh? Found me a map yet?

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

USA. What would I do? Well, I can tell you that I wouldn't attack Muslim civilians, because that wouldn't help the situation of the USA any. Thinking that will somehow stop or slow the creation of new terrorists is backward from reality.

[Lancer]

"Seriously, what would nuking accomplish if not just personal revenge and satisfaction? "

Revenge and satisfaction would be a part, but not the object of retaliation. I'm not sure that people here understand what the nuking of 20 American cities would involve. Consider how long it would take to bury the dead. Consider the TV images, once they got the power back up, of smoking irradiated cities where once grandma Gertrude lived. Imagine the death toll among friends, family. All of a sudden, a dozen or more Poly posters would vanish. Our money would become useless and the survivors would find themselves destitute. Food would run shjort until transportation could be reestablished. and there would be the dead, always more dead. The survivors in the suburbs would be drafted into burial details and would work day and night burying the dead in mass graves in an attempt to halt the spread of disease. People who were once family, nieghbors, reduced to rotting corpses.

The retaliation would be in kind, to insure that it never happened again. It would be massive, to insure that it never happened again, and it would be the end of the moslem world, to insure that it never happened again. To civilized human beings, revenge wouldn't be the object. Though it would be to some, certainly. I would hate the retaliation as much as the attack on my country, but I would see the need for it.

[Q Classic]

Think of Rome sewing salt into the soil of Carthage.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...

But I'm having a hard time imagining threads of salt being sewn into a cloth of Carthaginian soil.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
DC
New York
Chicago
Miami
Los Angeles
Houston
Dallas
Seattle
Atlanta
Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Detroit
Las Vegas (den of sin and all, of course they'd have to hit it)
Denver
St. Louis
Jacksonville
Phoenix
Nashville
Baltimore

All gone.....

I can't imagine.

Cities that I would miss:
Chicago
Seattle
Atlanta

[Q Classic]

As far as if this actually happened, while I wouldn't support it, I'm quite sure the nations supporting such an event would become smoking ruins in no time flat. It is, unfortunately, often the only way to deal with such an event--give such a crippling retaliation that no reprisal strike is possible.

That's not the America that I'd want to be a part of, however, if the country itself because xenophobic and a police state.

[Dis]

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

Originally posted by Vesayen
This author has been going on every talk radio show I can find for the last week.... every time I turn on the radio, there he is.

With varying degrees of evidence, he claims there are 20 nuclear weapons(low yield ones... but low yield is relative, its a nuke) in the U.S. in terrorists hands and they are planning to detonate them simultaneously.

So what does the U.S. do after this happens? Nuke Mecca and Medina?

this belongs in my overthrowing america thread.

I think 20 might do it. Detonate them in the center of the top 20 largest american cities. And america just might collapse.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lancer
The US would be finished as a major power for quite a while. Sure, we would nuke every terrorism supporting state back to the dark ages. That point is moot. The resulting new power structure, with China at the lead, is what would interest me. Our financial and production backbone of our country would be wrecked. All of a sudden we would be at the national level of the UK, but still with a super military. That should remain super for maybe 20 years assuming no great tech advances make it obsolete, and we don't get involved in a war in which we couldn't replace essencial vehicles or parts.

The free world would lose it's strong leader. A consortium of fearful euro powers I wouldn't expect much from, except for the UK of course. They never fail to rise to a challenge.

What would China do? In ten years I bet they have Tiawan. Japan would have to quickly get off its ass and look to its own defense or become Finlandized by China.

I saw we nuke china, Japan, Russia, and all of Europe too (don't forget Australia) to bring them back to our level. That way we don't fall behind in world dominance.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ninot
how would the Muslim world be remembered if it was mostly eradicated?

It would be remembered as a dead civilization. Not the first, not the last. However, its fall would impress history for a very very long time.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Trip

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.

not if we nuke every city outside the U.S. Including European cities and asian cities, and african cities. Australia too just to be sure. They have a lot of immigration there.

[Spiffor]

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

I don't know. However, I am under the impression that the terrorists are cearly separated from countries in the French minds (which is why most Frenchmen would tell you that an open military action against terrorism is completely absurd:: it is the field of police, secret services and spec-ops).

So, much fewer of us are likely to consider whole countries as our enemies in such a scenario.

IMO, the most likely outcome is the shift to extreme police society, where most Arabic people would suffer under atrocious stigma and constant police harassment. The fight against terror would also become the sole aim of French diplomacy, in which France would involve all its foreign policy resources.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Why on Earth would they only hit population centers? Patroklos did a fairly good job with his list, but you're both off.

I think it would be far more damaging to America if they hit all the major points in the West. Paris, Berlin, London, Tokyo, and/or at least one of the bases in central Asia or Europe that the US has. And then they would start working on American targets.

It would be far more devestating than just American population centers...

--
Now as for what happens after? We are screwed. We probably try to take them down with us.

The scenario in the OP was 20 nukes in America. So it was on that basis I created my list (and no, I didn't take half an hour to really research it). But why would they hit population centers and not military bases? Well first of all, they are terrorists, not generals intent on invasion. Their intent is to disrupt and destroy our society. If we lost a lot of our military it isn't going to destroy our society, if we lost a lot of our people, companies, leaders, buildings, and cities, yes that would do a helluva lot of damage to our society.

Plus its a lot easier for someone to covertly set off a nuke in a major city than in a military base. Plus military bases, as far as I know, are fairly spread out, and wouldn't make for as dense a target that a small scale nuclear bomb would have as large of an effect on.

[OzzyKP]

A lot of people are saying what they wouldn't do, but not what they would do if, tens of millions of your people were suddenly massacred by terrorists. Oh no those awful Americans for retaliating. Umm, who was it that just nuked 20 of our cities?

Should we just round up those 40 people responsible for it (assuming they are still alive). Put them in jail, and slap ourselves on the back for a job well done?

Sure tens of millions died, but at least we caught the criminals behind it.

Yea right.

Nuking the mideast would be excessive and dumb, agreed, but there would certainly be large scale invasions, and rounding up of all Muslims. I imagine even Europe would join in.