Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

You Want to Escalate, We'll Escalate, and You'll Lose...Big!
31 July 05 | HMV

Posted on 07/31/2005 7:28:58 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid

We hear the chilling news about the possibility of suitcase nukes inside our borders, we hear that 10, maybe even 20 of our cities may be at risk.

The risk we face is nothing compared to what the Islamic World faces if terrorists choose to escalate the war on terror.

We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean. No terrorist could ever find them, much less destroy them. A single sub can unleash 50 missiles with pinpoint accuracy, each with a warhead bigger than the sum of even 20 suitcase nukes.

If the terrorists want to ensure that there would be no retaliation, they would have to destroy not only our major cities, but also our bombers, our land-based missile systems, our complete command and control network, and our nuclear submarines.

They cannot do this, and escalation brings with it such huge risks of anihilation of the Islamic world that it would seem incomprehensible that they would try to raise the stakes. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: asinine; hvmsownmoralvoid; infantileranting; irrationalvanity; jihadinamerica; keyboardgeneral; moronicposter; policyposeur; strangepost; suitcasenukes; wankredo; wishingforcalamity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

1 posted on 07/31/2005 7:28:58 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

What do the Islamofascists have to lose? Nothing, and that's the problem. The Islamic world is a pile of crap from 1400 years of mismanagement, meanwhile the west has been prospering. Destroying the world might even be a goal for some of these terrorist scum, the superiority of the west cannot coexist with Allah's teachings.


2 posted on 07/31/2005 7:32:29 PM PDT by CaliGangsta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
If the terrorists want to ensure that there would be no retaliation, they would have to destroy not only our major cities, but also our bombers, our land-based missile systems, our complete command and control network, and our nuclear submarines.

Or, our will and ability to retaliate. Don't we have to ask permission of France and CAIR first, and Harry Reid et al.?

3 posted on 07/31/2005 7:34:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

Demi-rat + President = Bye Bye 20 U.S. Cities.


4 posted on 07/31/2005 7:34:28 PM PDT by splint (...another proud member of the sand to glass club!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaliGangsta
What do the Islamofascists have to lose?

Mecca.

5 posted on 07/31/2005 7:34:35 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean

umm, i dont think so. Maybe Trident but not Poseiden.

6 posted on 07/31/2005 7:36:26 PM PDT by corkoman (Overhyped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

I was going to ask the author of this piece, "what target are you going to nuke?"

So we vaporize a rock... so what.


7 posted on 07/31/2005 7:36:27 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
You want to escalate, we'll escalate, and you'll lose


8 posted on 07/31/2005 7:36:40 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

For starters. Then Medina, Qom.


9 posted on 07/31/2005 7:36:43 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocity of 11 Sept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
Ummm...don't wanna rain on your parade or anything, guy, but Poseidon was retired a long time ago. And, we never had a SSBN capable of throwing "50 missiles". Current SSBN's (Trident) carry 24 SLBM's; some MIRVed with 6 heads, others with 8 and a few carry only one. We also have the SSN fleet with SLCM capability that can carry nuke heads if deployed in that manner.

As to your general thesis, no American president will ever authorize nuclear release authority unless a terrorist WMD can be publically and specifically traced to an actual foreign government who provided the direct logistical support.

10 posted on 07/31/2005 7:37:36 PM PDT by seadevil (...because you're a blithering idiot, that's why. Next question?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

"Say hello to my little friend!"


11 posted on 07/31/2005 7:37:59 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan (Member - NRA, SAF, MGO, SAFR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

Suitcase nukes are an urban myth.


12 posted on 07/31/2005 7:39:54 PM PDT by jbstrick (insert clever tagline here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

I've got bad news for you: The destruction of Mecca is a prophesy to the end times. At the rate Islamofascists are going, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy, because at the rate they're going, we're going to destroy it sooner or later. My question is, will its destruction make them stronger or weaker?


13 posted on 07/31/2005 7:40:01 PM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
Ok, a suitcase nuke has just vaporized lower Manhatten, whom do you propose to retaliate against?


14 posted on 07/31/2005 7:40:10 PM PDT by nathanbedford (Lose your borders, lose your citizenship; lose your citizenship, lose your Bill of Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

The temple has to be rebuilt on the Dome of the Rock first, though, right?


15 posted on 07/31/2005 7:42:15 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB
So we vaporize a rock... so what.

Good question. Ask a Muslim. Note the response. Nufsed.

16 posted on 07/31/2005 7:42:18 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick
Suitcase nukes are an urban myth.

Actually, not. Whether any are still functional is a question, but it would take major support to keep any of them ready to go. Whether the bad guys actually possess any is unknown. Anything is possible.

17 posted on 07/31/2005 7:42:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (Substance is essentially the relationship of accidents to itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Everybody.


18 posted on 07/31/2005 7:42:55 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaliGangsta

Good point. People who have nothing to lose are dangerous because they just don't give a damn.

If you're living in and on an anthill, you don't even know the benefits or reason for a law abiding society or culture.

Everyone has to make some sacrifice for an orderly and safe society. We all benefit from a certain amount of sacrifice so you can walk down the street safely.


19 posted on 07/31/2005 7:43:15 PM PDT by garyhope (The Islamofascists want Western civilization dead. Simple as that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

Prophecy by whom?..Chapter and verse please.


20 posted on 07/31/2005 7:43:38 PM PDT by splint (...another proud member of the sand to glass club!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
The only problem with this line of thinking is that it takes a man at the top with high courage and possibly low moral principles to "pull the trigger" if the US is attacked with a nuclear weapon. GWB has the courage but too stong a sense of morality.

The fact that the victims of retaliation would only be loosely related to the perpetrators makes retaliation very difficult, and morally shaky. It would, however, be satisfying, and I am personally in favor of prompt retaliation for any strike inside the US.

OTOH, internment of muslims, expulsion of all non-citizens, and a finding from the attorney general that islam is more a political entity than a religion, and therefore not subject to constitutional protection, might be a better form of retaliation for non-nuclear attacks.

21 posted on 07/31/2005 7:43:56 PM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer
That means "nobody." ´Get real.


22 posted on 07/31/2005 7:44:29 PM PDT by nathanbedford (Lose your borders, lose your citizenship; lose your citizenship, lose your Bill of Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
I've got bad news for you: The destruction of Mecca is a prophesy to the end times.

Bah. People said the same thing when Israel rose for the third time.

My question is, will its destruction make them stronger or weaker?

You may as well ask whether their attacking us with nukes is going to make us stronger or weaker. That's the real question.

23 posted on 07/31/2005 7:45:21 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

Congressman Curt Weldon was told by a War Secretary in Russia that they did have over 100 suitcase nukes that had gone missing. It is not an urban myth.


24 posted on 07/31/2005 7:45:44 PM PDT by UnsinkableMollyBrown (Whew! I just had to get that off my shoulders!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

"Ok, a suitcase nuke has just vaporized lower Manhatten, whom do you propose to retaliate against?"

Start with France.


25 posted on 07/31/2005 7:45:44 PM PDT by Pittsburg Phil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Good question. Ask a Muslim. Note the response. Nufsed.

Do people seriously think if Mecca was destroyed Muslims would shrug and become Presbyterians or something?

26 posted on 07/31/2005 7:46:15 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

The Mecca-retaliation thing doesn't sound so bad...but then they'd (terrorists) probably go after the Crystal Cathedral, or any number of shrines.


27 posted on 07/31/2005 7:46:29 PM PDT by madison10 (American by God's Amazing Grace- w/ kudos to Luke Stricklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave

If the enemy is counting on that, they may have misread him when he stood on the pile of rubble in NYC the day after.


28 posted on 07/31/2005 7:46:42 PM PDT by RightWhale (Substance is essentially the relationship of accidents to itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

ya know, something about the this thread made me think that the Chinese and the terrorists have something in common....


29 posted on 07/31/2005 7:46:52 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (In Honor of Terri Schiavo. *check my FReeppage for the link* Let it load and have the sound on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Mutually Assured Destruction wouldn't have turned any Soviet comrade into a capitalist either. And lo...it worked just fine.


30 posted on 07/31/2005 7:48:57 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

I'm sorry. If they did this, America would probably not retaliate in any significant way. They will declare Islam a "religion of peace" and say that terrorists are not countries and spare the Muslim side anything beyond a few "surgical strikes".

It might be nice to think we would nuke Mecca or Teheran in retaliation but America and their leaders won't have the will to do it.


31 posted on 07/31/2005 7:48:57 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (Visit Club Gitmo - The World's Only Air-Conditioned Gulag.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid

The logical argument against this is that we won't know who to retalliate against.

What is left out is that after even one US city is hit by a nuke logic will not be part of the equation.

The entire islamic world will be toast.

Every mosque.

Every Muslim.

Everywhere.

There will be a bloodbath not seen since the days of the Mongol hordes.

The holocaust, horrific and mechanistic as it was, will be seen as rational compared to the complete elimination of all vestiges of Islam and Arab culture.

The side effects will be horrific and very long lasting.


32 posted on 07/31/2005 7:49:58 PM PDT by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
The Mecca-retaliation thing doesn't sound so bad...but then they'd (terrorists) probably go after the Crystal Cathedral, or any number of shrines.

Sort of like what they did with 5th century Buddhist statues, the Church of the Nativity and the Tomb of Joseph, right?

Sorry to wake you up to reality, but they've ALREADY STARTED.

33 posted on 07/31/2005 7:50:53 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pittsburg Phil
Do we have to wait and retaliate against France? A prophylactic nuke on Paris would have a wonderfully therapeutic effect.


34 posted on 07/31/2005 7:51:42 PM PDT by nathanbedford (Lose your borders, lose your citizenship; lose your citizenship, lose your Bill of Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

I wasn't exactly sleeping...I was thinking of places on U.S. soil.


35 posted on 07/31/2005 7:53:21 PM PDT by madison10 (American by God's Amazing Grace- w/ kudos to Luke Stricklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: madison10
I wasn't exactly sleeping...I was thinking of places on U.S. soil.

And lo...they've already attacked us...on U.S. soil.

The fears you bear have already been realized. Time to stop living in fear. It's much too late for that.

36 posted on 07/31/2005 7:54:46 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave

I believe that the Constitution allows letters of amrque that are authorized by Congress. How much is a cruise missle anyway? MOABs? C130 time?


37 posted on 07/31/2005 7:57:03 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Don't Tread on Me; Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
thank god for our boomer's
38 posted on 07/31/2005 7:58:31 PM PDT by ezoeni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillary'sMoralVoid
No one in the US will release the nuclear genie. The political consequences and the environmental consequences would be viewed as too great.

In short, the US does not have the political will.

What I would propose is to tell every Islamic government precisely what the consequences to them would be if a nuclear device was ever exploded in the US. Part of in would be that their holy sites would be totally destroyed, that they would be replaced with persons of our choosing, and that the would cease to exist as an independent political unit.

All Islamic controlled countries must know that we are deadly serious.

39 posted on 07/31/2005 8:00:12 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seadevil

Seadevil, You are correct about Trident, that is the current SLBM, with the MIRVed weapons they can attack at least 50 independent targets, perhaps more than 100.

I think that we'll eventually develop a target list (if not already), just like we had with the Soviets. If war is waged in the name of Islam, we will retaliate against Islam, through a prioritized list of targets.


40 posted on 07/31/2005 8:00:16 PM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid (hey cannot co)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave
Islam is more a political entity than a religion, and therefore not subject to constitutional protection, might be a better form of retaliation for non-nuclear attacks.

Remember the white supremicists who posed as a church in northern Idaho a decade or so ago? Haven't heard much from them lately, have we? Do you know why? Pretty close to the reason you cited. The FBI and the law took them on as a subversive anti-government gang and broke them financially, imprisoned their leadership and harassed and investigated the membership to the point they disbanded. They were never the threat Islamofacism is now. What you propose should be exactly what the government does.

Why do we give Islamofacism the pass we wouldn't give our own home-grown racists? Especially after 9-11?

41 posted on 07/31/2005 8:01:41 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (crime would drop like a sprung trapdoor if we brought back good old-fashioned hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
No, a scenario of appeasement is much more likely. Terrorism is called asymetrical warfare precisely because it cannot be combated sucessfully by ordinary tactics. Worse, by definition it cannot be deterred because the enemy is suicidal.

Will will not know whom to strike and anyway we will shrink from armageddon. The appeasers will point out the mindlessness of murdering a billion Muslims for the acts of an unknown few. They will rightly say that even that will not stop the next American city from going up.

The appeasers will win. Think Jimmy Carter.


42 posted on 07/31/2005 8:01:46 PM PDT by nathanbedford (Lose your borders, lose your citizenship; lose your citizenship, lose your Bill of Rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Ok, a suitcase nuke has just vaporized lower Manhatten, whom do you propose to retaliate against?

The Taliban ... no, no wait ... Al Queda .... Doh, no .... Iraq? Yeah IRAQ!!!!!

Whew, I knew I'd get it right sooner or later.

43 posted on 07/31/2005 8:03:14 PM PDT by Stu Cohen (Press '1' for English)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: splint

I don't know. I think it's in the Koran, but I don't have the citation in front of me.


45 posted on 07/31/2005 8:07:21 PM PDT by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave
The fact that the victims of retaliation would only be loosely related to the perpetrators makes retaliation very difficult, and morally shaky. It would, however, be satisfying, and I am personally in favor of prompt retaliation for any strike inside the US.

I don't know. For the entire Cold War our stated policy was that we would destroy pretty much every man woman and child in the Soviet Union, and their satellites for a strike on the US or one of our allies. Even though the people responsible, the Communist Parties of those nations never were more then 5 to 10% of their populations.

Seems pretty analogous to the situation we face today with the Muslims and their terrorists. I would suggest we start with retaliation against Mecca and Medina as central to their ideology ( note IDEOLOGY not RELIGION), then add the capitals and largest cities and nuclear weapons of any Islamic state that posseses nukes.
46 posted on 07/31/2005 8:08:46 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: splint
Demi-rat + President = Bye Bye 20 U.S. Cities = Dead of 90% of democratic electorate...

Keep in mind the democrat party gets most of it's votes from major urban areas.

47 posted on 07/31/2005 8:09:03 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Or, our will and ability to retaliate. Don't we have to ask permission of France and CAIR first, and Harry Reid et al.?

You forgot to add Teddy Kennedy, John F'n Kerry, Dan Rather, Katy Couric, Jennings, et al. (and behind the scenes of course, that "warmonger" Hillary Clinton, who really heads the 'war room")

48 posted on 07/31/2005 8:09:22 PM PDT by ladyinred (Here come the judges!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

Medina could just as easily go away, too.


49 posted on 07/31/2005 8:10:50 PM PDT by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: seadevil

So they win in the end?

That's scary.


50 posted on 07/31/2005 8:11:48 PM PDT by TAquinas (Demographics has consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-209 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson