If terrorists aquired nukes would they use them?

[_BuRjaCi_]

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…

[Lancer]

Like I said, retaliation. Why not cry against system that creates terrorists that kill innocents instead of the democracy forced to do so to protect their own? Not only our own, but yours, europeans. When europe was at stake in the cold war they depended on our willingness to nuke innocent Russians. Nothing has changed except the enemy. You are likely not a Soviet citizen because of American willingness to retaliate on your behaf. We had to fill that mission because of your endless european home grown wars had left you powerless to stop invasion.

Nice to preach fuzzy feel good peace, but very dangerous.

[Elok]

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

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Lancer
Like I said, retaliation.

You may call it retaliation if it's aimed at someone who actually did something bad to you first. Otherwise it's just plain murder - as most "retaliations" these days seem to be. This is actually a pretty big part of what distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys in any conflict.

Why not cry against system that creates terrorists that kill innocents instead of the democracy forced to do so to protect their own?

No one's forcing you. If you fire the nukes, it will be because you chose to do so. You can't pin it on anyone else. Your enemies are responsible for what they do, but your response is yours to choose.

Nice to preach fuzzy feel good peace, but very dangerous.

Not necessarily more dangerous than threatening half the world with random nuclear extermination at your whim.

Originally posted by Elok
Wow, Lancer. You're nucking futs. Or trolling beautifully.

Hmmm... I think he's starting to sound like some freaky Russian general who supposedly once remarked - when asked what should be done to protect children in Chechnya - that some times it would be better to kill a pup than to let him grow up to become a wolf.

Well, if that's the attitude, then I guess you'd all better start firing the nukes...

[Lancer]

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok
Wow, Lancer. You're nucking futs. Or trolling beautifully.

What's wonderful is that he claims to be Christian.

[LordShiva]

Killing pups

[Lancer]

Nuke the pups!

[MRT144]

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.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Dis


after 9/11 I remember them saying how easy it would be. They started doing random checks with radiation monitors, but I doubt it would work with a shielded container. And the checks are very random (if at all)

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.

[MRT144]

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.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MRT144
you can proceed to have the united states become an island of a nation and be excluded from the world economic growth.

yea, a bunch of countries who are addicted to exporting to us are going to isolate us.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

[Diadem]

All this talk about nuclear retalliation.

Is there noone who realizes that nuclear retalliation would not be needed.

The US has more than enough conventional weaponry to bomb the Middle East back into the stone age. And their NATO allies would surely help them in case of a nuclear attack against New York. There's simply no need to use nukes.

You can not nuke an entire country. That's simply impossible. The effects on global climate etc would be far too disastrous. So at most you could nuke a few cities. But the terrorists you're looking for won't be in those cities, and nuking isn't gonna help you find them. You have to go in with a conventional army and pull them out, if you want to punish them. Which is pretty hard if you just nuked the place.

The entire idea of using nukes in retalliation of a terrorist attack is absurd. Ignoring all moral issues, there is still no logic behind it.

[Spiffor]

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.