What kind of retaliation would you support?

Kasmos · 08-07-07, 04:04 PM

Please read before polling:

With the recent post in the "Breaking News" section, I figured I'd try to get the general idea on this subject held by those of you here in DP.

If the United States of America was attacked with a nuclear weapon, and it was determined that it was due to Islamic terrorists, What kind of retaliation would you support?

Personally I would want to go after the terrorists, which doesn't mean I would go against the entire Muslim population, ESPECIALLY Muslims in the United States who are legal citizens, and I would never, NEVER advocate the use of nuclear weapons as a retaliation. Once the decision is made to discriminate against and persecute all Muslims, you can consider that the end of our Constitution and what are country was founded on. Once the decision is made to use nuclear weaponry as a sort of retaliation, you can consider it the end of the world.

reaganburch · 08-07-07, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasmos

Please read before polling:

With the recent post in the "Breaking News" section, I figured I'd try to get the general idea on this subject held by those of you here in DP.

If the United States of America was attacked with a nuclear weapon, and it was determined that it was due to Islamic terrorists, What kind of retaliation would you support?

Personally I would want to go after the terrorists, which doesn't mean I would go against the entire Muslim population, ESPECIALLY Muslims in the United States who are legal citizens, and I would never, NEVER advocate the use of nuclear weapons as a retaliation. Once the decision is made to discriminate against and persecute all Muslims, you can consider that the end of our Constitution and what are country was founded on. Once the decision is made to use nuclear weaponry as a sort of retaliation, you can consider it the end of the world.

What does that mean, go after the terrorists? How would you know they were or weren't vaporized at the time of detonation? What if they were? What then?

Me? I don't know how I would react; however, I have a different view. Once someone, albeit Muslim or some other group, shows the world that they not only have nuclear weapons, but aren't afraid to use them to murder innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, you can consider THAT to be the end of civilization as we know it.

Kasmos · 08-07-07, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaganburch

What does that mean, go after the terrorists? How would you know they were or weren't vaporized at the time of detonation? What if they were? What then?

The same way we "found out" who was behind 9/11. By "who", I mean the "organization" and it's leaders.

Quote:

Me? I don't know how I would react; however, I have a different view. Once someone, albeit Muslim or some other group, shows the world that they not only have nuclear weapons, but aren't afraid to use them to murder innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, you can consider THAT to be the end of civilization as we know it.

I disagree. If any country, the United States included, is hit with a nuclear weapon and retaliates with a nuclear weapon, there is no turning back. It would be the apocalypse coming full circle.

reaganburch · 08-07-07, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasmos

The same way we "found out" who was behind 9/11. By "who", I mean the "organization" and it's leaders.

I disagree. If any country, the United States included, is hit with a nuclear weapon and retaliates with a nuclear weapon, there is no turning back. It would be the apocalypse coming full circle.

What then would you have done, if you were in the Presidency in let's say 1986, and you found out that the USSR had launched thousands of missles towards us?

You retaliate in kind, period. If you find out that Iran's President or Korea's supreme leader or whatever he calls himself nowadays, authorized a nuclear detonation in Los Angeles or something like that, you respond in kind... otherwise, you invite some other rogue country to do the exact same thing...

Peace through strength, proved by plenty of Presidents in the past, FDR, Teddy, Reagan, Truman, JFK....

If it's a rogue, nationless group... then, honestly, I don't know what the hell I'd do...

Kasmos · 08-07-07, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaganburch

What then would you have done, if you were in the Presidency in let's say 1986, and you found out that the USSR had launched thousands of missles towards us?

You retaliate in kind, period. If you find out that Iran's President or Korea's supreme leader or whatever he calls himself nowadays, authorized a nuclear detonation in Los Angeles or something like that, you respond in kind... otherwise, you invite some other rogue country to do the exact same thing...

Peace through strength, proved by plenty of Presidents in the past, FDR, Teddy, Reagan, Truman, JFK....

If it's a rogue, nationless group... then, honestly, I don't know what the hell I'd do...

The scenario here is terrorists, not countries. Of course you retaliate with force if it's another country, but we're talking about terrorists.

reaganburch · 08-07-07, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasmos

The scenario here is terrorists, not countries. Of course you retaliate with force if it's another country, but we're talking about terrorists.

Fair enough,

I would hope that whomever was President wouldn't just fly off the handle and nuke Mecca or whatever site...

However, if Al-Qaeda had used nukes in NYC & Washington DC on 9/11/01 and the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden, even after we found out that he was responsible and that they were complicit... then I say we should have nuked Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan up to the 16th century... these groups have to get safe haven and money from somewheres...

Thales · 08-07-07, 04:32 PM

I would retaliate with conventional weapons if at all possible. I can't see a situation where a terrorist group would need to be hit with nuclear missiles as opposed to conventional weapons.

Nukes would just produce pointless civilian casualties.

Kasmos · 08-07-07, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaganburch

Fair enough,

I would hope that whomever was President wouldn't just fly off the handle and nuke Mecca or whatever site...

However, if Al-Qaeda had used nukes in NYC & Washington DC on 9/11/01 and the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden, even after we found out that he was responsible and that they were complicit... then I say we should have nuked Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan up to the 16th century... these groups have to get safe haven and money from somewheres...

The problem however, is if we made a mistake. If we, for example, had been nuked by terrorists and nuked Iraq instead of the invasion we did, imagine how horrible of a situation we'd be in right now? Looking back, we never should have invaded Iraq. Imagine if we had nuked it?

Red_Dave · 08-07-07, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaganburch

Fair enough,

I would hope that whomever was President wouldn't just fly off the handle and nuke Mecca or whatever site...

However, if Al-Qaeda had used nukes in NYC & Washington DC on 9/11/01 and the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden, even after we found out that he was responsible and that they were complicit... then I say we should have nuked Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan up to the 16th century... these groups have to get safe haven and money from somewheres...

Though the question you have to bear in mind is how many thousands [if not millions] of new recruits for Al-Qaeda would a nuclear attack on a muslim nation create?

reaganburch · 08-07-07, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasmos

The problem however, is if we made a mistake. If we, for example, had been nuked by terrorists and nuked Iraq instead of the invasion we did, imagine how horrible of a situation we'd be in right now? Looking back, we never should have invaded Iraq. Imagine if we had nuked it?

But, 99.9% of reasonably intelligent people believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and that Afghanistan was complicit in harboring Bin Laden...

Look, I'm agreeing with you.... to a point... we shouldn't just arbitrarily nuke Tehran because a nuke went off in Chicago just to prove a point, but if I was President and I found out that Ahmadinejad was responsible for it, I wouldn't be averse to sending a cruise missile into the Presidential palace...

Wasn't there a Clancy book where President Jack Ryan did something like that?