• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US not fully prepared for nuclear terrorist attack

Someone define for me what it means to achieve being "fully prepared for a nuclear terrorist attack." (As in exactly, don't give me the typical and political I hate anything Obama is doing or did not do response.)

Forgot to add... the article really does not do this, but makes some hints.
 
I don't think there's such thing as being "fully prepared for a nuclear terrorist attack."

I saw a study which concluded that if a city were hit with a nuclear attack every hospital in the United States would instantly be overwhelmed. That's not something you can prepare for.
 
At the time those EITs were used, they were deemed legal.
The legalities ground / public opinion / government opinion has shifted since then.

In violation of international treaty to which the US is subject to. Treaties are supreme law of the land.

Relabeling something doesn't change the law. The US government broke the law. It was always against the law, that never shifted.

Additionally, torture violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the US constitution.
 
In violation of international treaty to which the US is subject to. Treaties are supreme law of the land.

Relabeling something doesn't change the law. The US government broke the law. It was always against the law, that never shifted.

Additionally, torture violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the US constitution.

And all of those things were considered when the administration's legal eagles reviewed it, and wrote their opinions.

Umm,
In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the Supreme Court held stated that the U.S. Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dunno, but to my reading the supremacy clause doesn't apply to international treaties and federal laws,
The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm thinking that the clause is specific to international treaties confirmed by the federal Senate supersede state laws that are in conflict.

So the IEMs, are they federal? Or are they state? I'm thinking, since it stemmed from the federal government, executive branch, that it'd be federal, and supersedes any international treaties.
 
Two of those locations involved zero fatalities!
A terrorist event wouldn't have the safeguard of containment domes.

There is still a 30 mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl 28 years after the disaster. I visited the complex a few years ago.

My dosimeter read 3.62 µSv/h (microsievert per hour). Simply put, the radiation dose received in one hour of exposure is equivalent to what a typical person would receive in one year.
 
Its a sad day when America would lower its standards and sell out its integrity. If we ever reach the point that you suggest NP, then the Terrorists have won at having destroyed America and our way of life.

If info gained from torture can save one life (as it has done) and maybe even save the life of a loved one of yours I say go for it.
 
Meaningless rhetoric, the amount of money would be mind boggling, the amount of safe bought an illusion.

Take the money from the undeserving welfare recipients or the EPA or the NEA.
 
How exactly do you fully prepare for a nuclear terrorist attack? I await your answer with baited breath.

You can't but you can do a hell of a lot more then Obama and his cronies are ding.
 
Simpleχity;1064118646 said:
A terrorist event wouldn't have the safeguard of containment domes.

There is still a 30 mile exclusion zone around Chernobyl 28 years after the disaster. I visited the complex a few years ago.

My dosimeter read 3.62 µSv/h (microsievert per hour). Simply put, the radiation dose received in one hour of exposure is equivalent to what a typical person would receive in one year.

Terrorists don't have access to an entire power plant's worth of fuel.
 
If info gained from torture can save one life (as it has done) and maybe even save the life of a loved one of yours I say go for it.

That is truly sad. I have more love and respect for my country than to sell out our values and ideals to the terrorists. We should give the men and women who have died for this great Country more respect than that.
 
You think Russia and China are prepared?

I know they don't value human life as we do, especially China besides this is about a rogue nation like North Korea or Iran.
 
I believe we should do whatever it takes to save American lives and that includes torture.

My dad warned me that I would be known, partly, by the company I keep. Do you believe that?
 
You can't but you can do a hell of a lot more then Obama and his cronies are ding.

I'm still waiting for your answer. As usual, you simply huff and puff and blame Obama for everything. Tiresome.
 
I know they don't value human life as we do, especially China besides this is about a rogue nation like North Korea or Iran.

Kim Jong Un values his own life.
 
I'm still waiting for your answer. As usual, you simply huff and puff and blame Obama for everything. Tiresome.


You ever hear of a great president by the name of Harry Truman. probably not........He had a saying which was "The Buck Stops here." At some point during your God's presidency your hero has to stop blaming President Bush and others for his **** ups and start taking some responsibility himself. Sadly I don't see that ever happening with this ego maniac.
 
My dad warned me that I would be known, partly, by the company I keep. Do you believe that?


No offense but it sounds like the father was a little more intelligent then the son.
 
Back
Top Bottom