What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Bill White · 2004-05-17 08:01:49

Related, the rest of the world more actively conspires to contain our power than they did 4 years ago.
Chirac, Putin and Schroeder are rapidly becoming good buddies because of American policy.
Result of cons ideology of "Good against Evil" and "who is'nt with US is against US", if not scared by such a simplism, they would be disputing at each other, as usual...
In the space realm, Soyuz at Kouru is a mind blowing development.
Froggies took opportunity to cheap bargain half of Soyuz launchers production from a ruined russian space industry, acting diplomaticly like partners and not like bosses

A good diplomat can tell someone "to go to hell" and afterwards he will be thanked for his kind suggestion.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 08:35:05

True or not, the worse news is that there are others willing to stand aside and let Islam and the US fight. China, for example.
That is why we need friends. Frankly, I prefer the paper pushing liberal bureaucrats in Brussels and Paris to the masters of Beijing.

Overall I agree, with one caveat. Winning allies entails compromises, and too much compromise is indistinguishable from failure.

Here is a "what if" - - what if Bush-41 had allowed the annexation of Kuwait to stand? Where is Wahabi-ism today?

Essentially unchanged in character and influence. Wahabism had already reached its critical mass by this point, had we let the invasion of Kuwait stand they'd have played it as a victory over the Great Satan and found another offense to rally around.

We empowered bin Laden (to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets) and we empowered Saddam for our early power politics purposes and now we must kill the monsters we ourselves created.

Such is the danger of fighting wars by proxy. Nothing comes without a price.

Just admit we were wrong, we had a bad idea, walk away from all this international meddling and reclaim our soveriegnty. Its as simple as that.
Think about it this way, how did all this UN business get started? Because some powerful people said so. How can it be stopped? When enough of the people say so -- and they are starting to say so.

Mundaka's on to something here, despite my own raging imperialism I find myself agreeing that this is certainly an acceptable, though not the preferred option. Just bolt the doors on the UN building and send everyone home.

And if anyone ever got up the nerve to do it I'd bet dollars to dinars that the UN ceases to have any meaning within a decade, aside from being a big socialists' club for bashing the US.

Real life example of my point is Hong Kong - - we express our tepid political protests as Beijing assimiliates Hong Kong more deeply into the communist regime. Being mired in Iraq and looking to China for help with North Korea, we are powerless to exercise any genuine diplomatic pressure on Beijing, and they know it perfectly well.

Now what can we do about it? Military pressure is excessive at this point. Trade pressure offers potential, but in one breath the American consumer would be hailing the new manufacturing jobs while bitching about the rising costs, not to mention the issues involved with government forcing business decisions onto privately owned companies.

So we're back to asking nicely while we point missiles their way.

Oh. Objections withdrawn.

That other nations would be conspiring against us like that is pretty straightforward Balance-Of-Power stuff, which has nothing to do with US policy. That sort of BS was already underway before Bush's administration, it's just that under the Clinton administration, it was a quiet period in history, a gap between the Cold War and whatever this little part of history will be called. That alliances would shift and shift unfavorably to the US after it won the Cold War is elementary stuff.

Trebuchet is absolutely correct in this assessment. We shouldn't be surprised, or even terribly concerned about shifting alliances. We simply need to make sure we have allies. Contrary to what the press would have us believe, we do.

Further, if our present "War on Terror" becomes a war on Islam, which isn't all that unlikely (and may be necessary) than many of our wayward allies will come to understand that it isn't just the American way of life that's at stake. It's the West in general.

And China is a potential looming, festering threat on the horizon.

When faced with a serious threat, we'll suddenly have more allies than we know what to do with.

Rambling again, back to work. :sleep:

clark · 2004-05-17 09:25:52

How does one guage "supremacy" and how would we know when we no longer have it?

I sit in the dark corner of my mind and wonder out loud things I probably shouldn't. Little what if's to pass some time, to see how close, or far, we might one day be.

So I was thinking, what would we all make of a day sometime after November: A day sometime after a dirty bomb was detonated in the US, followed by a threat that if the sitting President were re-elected, another US city would disappear. The attack and the threat come a week before the election. What might the voters do? What might our leaders do?

Would Bush resign? Would people change their votes- to give in, or to defy the threat? Would the sitting President invalidate the election, suspend Habius Corpeus, and retain control of the Presidency until such time as the nation is made secure? Might people revolt?

This little nightmare is one way we might lose supremacy (we won't be the same America anymore, no matter how you look at it).

Then there is the very real prospect that we happen to have a majority of our war fighting capability all sitting in the same spot. Now, what do we do if some foriegn terroists, or even some Iraqi resistors set off a rad-bomb near some of our major miltary installments in Iraq? It's not like we can legitimately respond with nuclear weapons in kind. We lose a couple of divisions, and we won't be talking about the draft anymore, it will be a reality. The American people have resolve, but what kind of resolve will we have if we're looking at 30,000 dead, as opposed to just a few hundred? Would we still call it "supremacy" after days like this?

Of course, I ask myself, if we get the leaders we deserve, what does it say about the American people that we have a silver-spooned-reformed-coke-head-recovering-alcoholic-draft-dodging-ex-frat-boy who made it big on family deals with foreign nationals. Oh wait, never mind.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 10:33:25

Interesting scenario clark. I must now ask, what would you suggest? We can't be absolutely certain that troops abroad will not be attacked with nuclear/chemical/biologic weapons on a large scale.

Side note: check this out, first link I ran across about it. http://www.iht.com/articles/520256.html … 20256.html

I think a sarin-stuffed artillery shell counts as a "weapon of mass destruction."

Anyway, back to clark's point. Terrorists hit a city, threaten another if the sitting President is re-elected.

If not revolt, I'd quietly prepare for... civil disturbances if he resigned or lost the election, unless the President-Elect immediately pledges decisive action against them and wholeheartedly supports such action by the sitting President.

What if he wins and the terrorists carry out their threat? Who would you blame for it? Too many would blame the President!

Whether they kill us or frighten us into submission, the result is the same. All that we have, all that our forefathers fought for will be lost.

If they want to destroy us, they'd better be made to bleed for it.

Bill White · 2004-05-17 10:54:52

That other nations would be conspiring against us like that is pretty straightforward Balance-Of-Power stuff, which has nothing to do with US policy. That sort of BS was already underway before Bush's administration, it's just that under the Clinton administration, it was a quiet period in history, a gap between the Cold War and whatever this little part of history will be called. That alliances would shift and shift unfavorably to the US after it won the Cold War is elementary stuff.
Trebuchet is absolutely correct in this assessment. We shouldn't be surprised, or even terribly concerned about shifting alliances. We simply need to make sure we have allies. Contrary to what the press would have us believe, we do.

One year ago, the Administration was giving speeches about how it was time to "move beyond" obsolete ideas and quaint notions like "balance of power" - - America was a new more-moral power that need not consider such things.

Therein lies the seeds of our current crisis, at least IMHO.

clark · 2004-05-17 10:57:12

I must now ask, what would you suggest?

I simply don't know. It's not a pretty situation, and any choice made is a loss.

President resigning, or even losing to a legitimate election would look like a victory for the terroists (in this scenerio). President not resigning, and another city exploding might create a backlash of some type. President invalidating the election and what not, well, that would be ugly. A lot of people are still sore about the 2000 election, which many consider to have been "illegitimate". Now, however you feel, an indefinite hold on our election process after the 2000 fiasco will be seen by a lot of people as "suspicious".

We've talked about what the effect of a WMD attack on America might be, but generally, it seemed most agreed that America would be locked down.

Now, as for the other scenerio- what do we do if we start losing divisions of troops? What happens to America itself? How comfortable will people continue to be with this war if we start up a draft? "Now we can draft little Johnny to abuse some foreigners, he dosen't have to decide for himself anymore!" Joke aside, it dosen't look pretty.

I might mention, what do you think an attack back home of some large scale would od to troop morale abroad? Hard to fight well when you're worried about back home. (Little side note, Reservist, weekend warrior types, are now looking at two year tours...and 4,000 troops stationed in South Korea are going to Iraq now)

How do we do a hand-over if stuff like this happens prior to June 30th?

If they want to destroy us, they'd better be made to bleed for it.

I think we will destroy ourselves. It seems we're being forced to.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 11:28:46

Now, as for the other scenerio- what do we do if we start losing divisions of troops? What happens to America itself? How comfortable will people continue to be with this war if we start up a draft? "Now we can draft little Johnny to abuse some foreigners, he dosen't have to decide for himself anymore!" Joke aside, it dosen't look pretty.

We'll have two tendencies fighting each other. There will be an angry, almost prideful sense that we can't turn and run now, and also a "this is horrible, we need to get the f**k out" instinct going the other way.

Given the American need for instant gratification, the current political climate emphasising security and the gap in capabilites between us and our enemies, I suspect that the nuclear option would suddenly become a subject for honest debate if we were hit hard and often.

I'm quite serious. I know that the vast majority of the population considers it unthinkable, but it's based on two factors. One is a Cold War residue, the certainty that we'd be leveled in response. No longer the case, particularly if other nuclear powers could be persuaded to stand by or (much less likely) participate.

The other is a basic moral determination that it's wrong to simply incinerate cities. Doesn't mean we won't do it. Again.

Take a nation with a need for instant results, a short attention span and nukes; then scare the bejesus out of them and piss 'em off at the same time... Someone's probably gonna glow. Particularly when the average American has the choice between sending "little Johnny" off to fight or just turning those foreigners into charcoal without having to leave the comfort of their living room.

Don't think your neighbors would pick the nukes? Would you? The average American is perfectly capable of setting fire to millions of people as long as it's convenient and they don't have to look at it happen.

Wrestling with monsters...

clark · 2004-05-17 11:39:56

Given the American need for instant gratification, the current political climate emphasising security and the gap in capabilites between us and our enemies, I suspect that the nuclear option would suddenly become a subject for honest debate if we were hit hard and often.

I agree with the assessment.

Now look where we are at this point...

Contemplating the use of nuclear weapons to obliterate what? More than likely, an Islamic city of some type. What could we hope to achieve with that response? Domestic satisfaction via calculated retribution to what will largely be inncoent people. Remember, the enemy has no state, no cities to protect.

We may be justified, but we will be wrong if we go that path. We will lose because we will turn the world against us, or at the very least, lower the threshold of acceptable behavior from other nation states. "Sometimes, it's okay to nuke a city."

It also dismantles any pretense behind the current non-proliferation treaties- there will be no reason to not develop these weapons becuase America (or someone else) might eventually use theirs on them. Things just got worse.

Don't think your neighbors would pick the nukes? Would you? The average American is perfectly capable of setting fire to millions of people as long as it's convenient and they don't have to look at it happen.

I wouldn't. But I agree, millions of others would. The end result of this is forcing moderate muslims to band with the radical element because things have gotten so bad that the only hope for survival is to oppose US actions. That's what we are fighting- and things like the prisoner abuse, unilaterlism, Isreali appeasement, and... sorry... Bush, does not win us friends among the moderate muslim group.

Bill White · 2004-05-17 11:42:49

Cobra, there are no worthwhile targets for us to strike back at with nuclear weapons.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 12:25:53

Cobra, there are no worthwhile targets for us to strike back at with nuclear weapons.

In a sense that's my point.

I live in the Detroit area, we have the largest arab community outside the MidEast. After 9/11, a significant number of people were in a rage, not just at al Quaeda but arabs in general. There were some... incidents. Not many lashed out, but the sentiment was widespread.

If the situation reaches the point where the public wants a nuclear response it won't be about hitting a "target" or a city. It will be a fed-up, rage filled desire to wipe them clean, not al Quaeda, not terrorists, but arabs. Muslims.

Will the government get caught up in this? Maybe. If so, we aren't talking about a single nuclear strike. We're talking push-button carpet bombing with hundreds of miniature suns rising all over the desert. Kill enough Americans at home or abroad, frighten and enrage the populace while frustrating the government... I'm not just imagining the "hot glass" solution.

Terror and senseless murder would be answered in kind, but on a scale the likes of which have never been seen. We're not so calm and civilized when we truly feel threatened.

I wouldn't. But I agree, millions of others would. The end result of this is forcing moderate muslims to band with the radical element because things have gotten so bad that the only hope for survival is to oppose US actions. That's what we are fighting- and things like the prisoner abuse, unilaterlism, Isreali appeasement, and... sorry... Bush, does not win us friends among the moderate muslim group.

That's part of what could snowball it. If we reach the point where our government is ready to launch a strike, it will begin as a "moderate" response. But before long there will be voices saying "look, if we do this, they'll all turn against us." To which others will reply "fry the whole lot of 'em."

It's a whole lot easier to do than tailoring our position to please the moderate Muslims when the less reserved variety are hitting our cities with poison gas and wiping out divisions with old Soviet nukes.

Make sure that pale horse is ready.

clark · 2004-05-17 12:41:21

Terror and senseless murder would be answered in kind, but on a scale the likes of which have never been seen. We're not so calm and civilized when we truly feel threatened.

Then we justify any response in kind from there.

The beheading of innocent Americans is justified (at least to some) by the moral depravity of those who abused the prisoners. We feel justified (at least some do) in abusing the prisoners becuase it allows us to prevent the deaths of others.

Now, who do you think is more likely to engage in the indiscriminate destruction of Islamic cities if we are attacked by Islamic terroists at home, or abroad, using WMD's- Bush, or Kerry?

I think Bush would do it. And I think he would think it was the "right" thing to do. Chabili looks like he played us- or more precisely, he played Bush and his team (by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear... so maybe they knew anyway and used him, but whatever). The terroists, at least IMO, are playing us now. They want us to attack and behave as we are becuase it drives more individuals to them. It causes the moderates within their groups to realize that they have no choice but to join, or face American responses that are blind and ineffectual to the real cause.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 13:23:57

Now, who do you think is more likely to engage in the indiscriminate destruction of Islamic cities if we are attacked by Islamic terroists at home, or abroad, using WMD's- Bush, or Kerry?

Maybe Bush would do it under the right conditions. Kerry is, essentially, an unknown. Were he to say what he'd do wouldn't carry much weight, and the closest he's ever been to wielding executive power in wartime was on a riverboat in 'Nam. It doesn't tell us much. He could do nothing, or he could crack and have a nuclear-tipped version of Howard Dean's freakout.

Now the real question is what would be preferred. If we were losing divisions, if our cities were being wiped out... we'd either cower and hope they stop, or utterly destroy them. That hot sheet of glass that keeps coming up.

I'll be brutally honest, if given the choice between throwing ourselves at the mercy of murderers who want us dead or committing the greatest war-crime in history... Well, sometimes posterity forgives monsters. Who needs to look in mirrors anyway...

It is highly unlikely that it will come to that, I don't think our enemies have the capability to push us that far; but if they did, and if our surivival was at stake, I'd prefer the heavy response to a less effective, milder answer.

Sometimes we need a monster. Just make sure we can kill it when it's served its purpose.

DonPanic · 2004-05-17 13:26:59

LO

Wrestling with monsters...

Got deepest doubts about who's a monster

clark · 2004-05-17 13:37:49

Maybe Bush would do it under the right conditions. Kerry is, essentially, an unknown. Were he to say what he'd do wouldn't carry much weight, and the closest he's ever been to wielding executive power in wartime was on a riverboat in 'Nam. It doesn't tell us much.

Well, we do know that Bush maybe showed up for the Reserve during Nam. We know Kerry was there for his stint. But that is neither here nor there. Bush is a self proclaimed Christian fundamentalist who declares his decisions as guided by the will of God and who is also unable to objectively determine if any of his choices are in error.

Kerry just makes exscuses about who owns which SUV.

It is highly unlikely that it will come to that, I don't think our enemies have the capability to push us that far; but if they did, and if our surivival was at stake, I'd prefer the heavy response to a less effective, milder answer.

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-dirtybomb9 … ory]Threat of 'Dirty Bomb' Growing, Officials Say

Registration is required- this is from the LA Times, and the information has been repeated in mnay other publications, over the last few years.

VIENNA — Concerns are growing that Al Qaeda or a related group could detonate a "dirty bomb" that would spew radioactive fallout across an American or European city, according to intelligence analysts, diplomats and independent nuclear experts.
Although safeguards protecting nuclear weapons and their components have improved, experts said the radioactive materials that wrap around conventional explosives to create a contaminating bomb remained available worldwide — and were often stored in non-secure locations.
Detonating a dirty bomb would not cause the death and devastation wrought by a nuclear weapon, but officials and counter-terrorism experts predicted that it would result in some fatalities, radiation sickness, mass panic and enormous economic damage.
Intelligence agencies have reported no reliable, specific threats involving dirty bombs or nuclear weapons, but senior U.S. and European officials and outside experts said several factors had heightened fears in recent weeks.
They said concerns were focused on three Al Qaeda operatives who led experiments involving dirty bombs and chemical weapons and on widely held suspicions that a special wing of the terrorist network was planning a spectacular attack.

The threat of attack is great enough that a senior European intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it is "not a matter of if there is a nuclear-related attack by Al Qaeda, but when it occurs."
The warning echoed remarks made last June by Eliza Manningham-Buller, director of Britain's domestic intelligence service, MI5. She said renegade scientists have aided Al Qaeda's efforts to develop chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, sometimes referred to as CBRN.
"Sadly, given the widespread proliferation of the technical knowledge to construct these weapons, it will only be a matter of time before a crude version of a CBRN attack is launched at a major Western city and only a matter of time before that crude version becomes something more sophisticated," she told a London think tank.

Experts inside and outside government said sophisticated extremists have the ability to plan and execute the detonation of a dirty bomb. They had no answer for why a dirty bomb has not been unleashed.
"I'm very surprised that a radiological device hasn't gone off," said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. "There is a bigger puzzle — why no Al Qaeda attacks since Sept. 11 in the U.S.?"

Now, if the question is "why not yet?", then it no longer and "if". The two answers are either that they can't do this (which the people who get paid to find out say is not a real issue), or they are waiting.

Thus the scenerio's I outlined. Thus the sickening feeling in my stomach at your assessment Cobra. I think you're right, and I am afraid because of it.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 13:41:09

Quote (Cobra Commander @ May 17 2004, 13:28)
Wrestling with monsters...
Got deepest doubts about who's a monster

I know Don. I don't say it lightly and I hope it never comes to that. But if we can't conceive of it... we'll lose to enemies who can if they ever get the means.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 13:48:39

Thus the scenerio's I outlined. Thus the sickening feeling in my stomach at your assessment Cobra. I think you're right, and I am afraid because of it.

I know what you mean. Further, if they really are waiting to try and force the election (as they did in Spain) I seriously doubt that they believe a "dirty bomb" will be sufficient. If it happens I'll be surprised if it's just a few hundred pounds of radioactive sludge blasted across a city.

Heads up and stay alert. I don't know what else to say. ???

Rxke · 2004-05-17 14:10:34

Cobra...

I'm sure the scenario you describe has been studied already by the Pentagon (I'm NOT saying they actually consider it...)
and i think they'd come to the conclusion it would escalate into a MAD scenario... Some countries with nukes are at least partially Muslim, others don't like the USA too much...

I think they're thinking very hard how to avoid this.

Clark: i think there are already dirty bombs around.
In Europe, because of the fall of the Communist regimes, a lot of nuclear stuff got lost. A lot.

In America: bribe/rob some poor South-American hospital-dentist etc off their radiation sources, not too difficult, hey some of the stuff ended up in scrapyards, some years ago. Smuggle the stuff to Florida, drug barons know how. (Just don't tell 'em what's in the suitcases...)

You don't need plutonium, anything 'reasonably' radioactive does the trick: imagine a bomb that contaminates New York, or any major city... It will seriously disrupt economy, not only US, it will be a tiny blast, heard around the world...

It's too damn easy. The question is rightly so: why didn't they do it ALREADY?

Trebuchet · 2004-05-17 14:17:03

Judging by Kerry's riverboat experiences, I'd say there's a pretty good chance the nukes fly fast and loose if everything goes to hell.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, some serious analysis:

One, people have not changed in their fighting character since World War II. This flies in the face of prevailing opinion, but it's true. You had peaceniks and the like clamoring against war for various reasons: in the case of extreme-leftist types, that changed when the Soviet Union came under attack, and in the case of others, Nazi Germany was, well, full of NAZIS, who quickly eroded away the sensibilities of anybody with peaceful inclinations. Also, bomber crews at first balked at the idea of hitting cities. They didn't want to do it. By the end of the war, they were levelling cities, but that was because of a continuous desensitizing war.

Two, there are targets to strike against if there is a nuclear terrorist event. Iran has nuclear facilities, which it keeps jerking arouind with the UN about. Pakistan's ISI has been complicit in leaking nuclear secrets. And it's no big secret that Sauid Arabia funds terrorism and Islamism globally. Terrorism cannot exist without money and ideological/religious support, so Saudi Arabia is actually the most deserving target.

Now number one is interesting, because if you quietly ask around, you'll start to see that the desensitization to war is already well underway. There is a very high percentage of Americans who have already convinced themselves that someday this will go nuclear. If you don't believe me quietly ask around, the results will surprise you. These people are effectively the hair-trigger of the American nuclear arsenal now. Fry a city, and they will instantly become a constituency for massive retaliation. And there will be others, too, who join in the chorus - how many depends on where/how many people were killed in the attack. Standing US doctrine, as well as simple deterrence, means that once this occurs, there WILL be a nuclear response, and the American citizenry WILL support this for the reasons outlined above. The only question is where and how bad.

The second item there tells us where that nuclear response will almost certainly go. Iran's supposed nuclear facility is a no brainer, because it's an obvious military target without a huge number of civilians around. Pakistan will probably get nailed, too. And Saudi Arabia will get hit. In addition, the military forces of all three nations will probably be nuked, because whether or not you can consider a legitimate target of war because they support terrorism, they'll definitely consider themselves at war with the US if they are hit with a nuclear bomb.

Were I President, I'd certainly have made up a hitlist of things to be nuked if there were a WMD strike on this country. I find it inconceiveable, in fact, to think that Bush has not done so, because he had the military draw up nuclear strike plans on every nation who has or could have nuclear weapons, no matter how preposterous the proposed war would be, a few years back. What I don't understand is why he hasn't specifically told whatever nations are on the list "If an American city is mysteriously destroyed, we're holding YOU accountable" and used this to back them off supporting terrorism.

As far as the rest of the world... well, let us say that mentioning that the alternative is blockading Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion will suddenly find a whole lot of people in favor of dropping nukes, as opposed to crippling the world's economy.

clark · 2004-05-17 14:35:13

It's too damn easy. The question is rightly so: why didn't they do it ALREADY?

the article I linked to suggested that there are two branches within Alqueda- one does the soft targets like Bali, the other does the big spectacles like 9/11 and WMD stuff. The latter group are able to go in about 3-4 year intervals.

Now, I doubt that it is that easy to make these things, but it is possible. That would mean that any group that has them would have a small stockpile of them... at most. So the hardest part would be getting the device to where you need it to be, at a time that is to your advantage. So take the time piece out of it, and just get it to where you can get it, and wait for a moment of opportunity.

What kind of opportunity might they wait for? Something that would sow "terror" in the enemy to maximum effect. Something that would unnerve us at point where we could not turn back. Wait for the opponent to over commit, and then apply maximum pressue to the weakest point.

What's the weakest point in the system? Well, IMO, our leaders don't negotiate with terroists, but that's only because the terroists assume to negotiate with them. Make it the American people, and who knows what will happen. It seems any decision that might be made, ends up being a bad one. Some call that check mate.

Blowing up nuclear facilities of other nation states only makes it harder for the US to achieve their policy, and makes it easier for the terroists to achieve theirs. The terroists are trying to foment war among all these players. They want the Muslim state of the 17th century.

So here is another little blow back for nuclear response: Nuclear strike on muslim states might cause a popular uprising in Iraq. We do not have enough troops there to supress a popular uprising (note the worry of the Shiite population lately). So we strike back after a terroist WMD of some sort, and watch as our fighting military is eaten in the sands of the Middle East. No one will come to our aid- we just nuked part of the world dudes.

So much for supremacy.

Rxke · 2004-05-17 14:43:31

Add Bangladesh to the list: 100000-men stron private army, operated onder... wait for it... Taleban' wings...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … 6597]yahoo

DonPanic · 2004-05-17 14:46:49

LO
Fun pause among strategic nuke plans

clark · 2004-05-17 14:55:11

"Is she reading the same thing I am?!"- Bush quote removed prior to publication of the event.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-17 15:03:52

So here is another little blow back for nuclear response: Nuclear strike on muslim states might cause a popular uprising in Iraq. We do not have enough troops there to supress a popular uprising (note the worry of the Shiite population lately). So we strike back after a terroist WMD of some sort, and watch as our fighting military is eaten in the sands of the Middle East. No one will come to our aid- we just nuked part of the world dudes.

Agreed. We'd have to withdraw those troops. Now, if they were really on the ball they'd wait until we did and then do... nothing. "Look, infidel has fled in shame."

But they wouldn't. Whether by design or just some nutbag going off on his own, there'd be another attack. Even if not on the sort of scale as those that forced the issue, it could be used to justify a response. "See, they'll never be satisfied until we're all dead. You can't make peace with these fanatics."

Then the nuclear response comes, with none of our assets in the region. 6000 degrees and sunny.

Speaking purely from an analytical rather than advocating sense, what's the next move? We'd have to hit Pakistan right off. India would almost have to know about it in advance, even if only by a few hours. If it comes at the right time they'll be chomping at the bit to hit 'em anyway.

North Korea, might as well hit it while the missiles are flying anyway...

Again, I'm not saying we should, just throwing out possible scenarios.

Britain won't attack us. France... I think some appeasement is in the cards. Eastern Europe, far enough away not to really care enough to risk themselves and too small to thrust themselves into it. Russia, on the other hand...

Maybe a MAD scenario, or maybe they let it go seeing they have absolutely nothing to gain. Some profitable dealings with them now would help (perhaps buying space hardware ) as would having some sort of missile defense, just in case.

China, another potential problem. Estimates of their missiles capable of reaching the US are small (just for the sake of argument) and if a defense system using only technology currently available were in place we could reasonably expect to disable at least a third of the total. If they wanted to nuke us, which seems unlikely. They may make a move on Taiwan in the chaos, but so be it.

It's not outside the realm of possibility that it could be done without a nuclear response. But it would mean a total strike aimed at wiping out not just a city or a country, but an entire region with all its inhabitants. And if pushed far enough into the abyss, we'll do it, I have no doubts.

So then it behooves us to take take whatever steps are necessary to root out and eliminate terrorists by conventional means before it reaches this point.

What I don't understand is why he hasn't specifically told whatever nations are on the list "If an American city is mysteriously destroyed, we're holding YOU accountable" and used this to back them off supporting terrorism.

For all we know this may well have been communicated to certain dictators who will remain nameless. There is a great deal going on behind the scenes that we never hear about in mainstream sources, for good reason.

clark · 2004-05-17 15:17:36

Agreed. We'd have to withdraw those troops. Now, if they were really on the ball they'd wait until we did and then do... nothing. "Look, infidel has fled in shame."

Yet our current leaders call for maintaining our troops there, precisely because withdrawing them now would be seen as a defeat. None of that changes with a rad-bomb set off in the US, which we seem to agree (though I wish it were otherwise) might result in a nuclear response from the US (in some form).

The order to respond would have to be given far before we could evacuate Iraq or Afghanistan.

Blowing up Pakistan? That might be a tad bit unwise. They are after all an ally in our war in terror. "Yes, we were attacked by terroists, so we attacked one of our allies in the war on terror. Next question."

Saudi Arabia? Yeah, blowing up the holy land will win us friends and influence people in the Muslim world. "Oh, yes, we love USA because you blew up Mecca!" The ones with money throughout the world might not like the largest oil reserve being turned into radioactive petrol either.

Europe won't attack us, neither would Russia or China (aside from just taking Tawian and giving us the finger). They might just band together against us though. North Korea won't bother with a US attack- they'll just incinerate Australia, South Korea, Japan, and our Pacific fleet. We attack Korea with nukes and then China and Russia will get pissed.

Either that, or N. Korea will lob a type Dong missle of sufficient capability into LEO, and detonate. Say good bye to American space technology.

So then it behooves us to take take whatever steps are necessary to root out and eliminate terrorists by conventional means before it reaches this point.

A danger may exsist so extreme, that we must act now, in whatever manner neccessary, to prevent this danger from ever materilizing.

That's what i am pointing out, and what we are talking around. We're talking about being forced to make some very dangerous, and very bad (IMO) decisions in the future. We are not acting, we are reacting. And i think those "reacting" are making poor choices based on poor assumptions for some rather murky goals.

DonPanic · 2004-05-17 15:20:03

LO

Britain won't attack us. France...

We're too weak, we can wipe USA out of the maps only ONCE while you can kill all of us hundreds of times
We got to have some ammunitions left for some other threat, to protect our vitrified deads
By the way, to strike terrorists nests, we have a stockpile of small Neutrons bombs that wipe out any life in a range of 3 square miles whithout any material damage, U interested ? ???
We have Corsican cheeses too, but they aren't allowed by Geneva convention on Armaments, as inhumane weapons

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-05-17 08:01:49

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#152 2004-05-17 08:35:05

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#153 2004-05-17 09:25:52

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#154 2004-05-17 10:33:25

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#155 2004-05-17 10:54:52

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#156 2004-05-17 10:57:12

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#157 2004-05-17 11:28:46

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#158 2004-05-17 11:39:56

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#159 2004-05-17 11:42:49

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#160 2004-05-17 12:25:53

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#161 2004-05-17 12:41:21

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#162 2004-05-17 13:23:57

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#163 2004-05-17 13:26:59

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#164 2004-05-17 13:37:49

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#165 2004-05-17 13:41:09

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#166 2004-05-17 13:48:39

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#167 2004-05-17 14:10:34

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#168 2004-05-17 14:17:03

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#169 2004-05-17 14:35:13

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#170 2004-05-17 14:43:31

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#171 2004-05-17 14:46:49

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#172 2004-05-17 14:55:11

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#173 2004-05-17 15:03:52

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#174 2004-05-17 15:17:36

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#175 2004-05-17 15:20:03

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer