You Want to Escalate, We'll Escalate, and You'll Lose...Big!

31 July 05 | HMV

[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.

[deathb4dishoner]

Take out the entire military complex of Iran Syria to start with. Deport,deport, deport and intern intern intern within the US.

Repeat as neccessary - Without military power chaos will ensue they will kill each other in mass.Vaccum of power.

[AzSteven]

A prophylactic nuke on Paris would have a wonderfully therapeutic effect.

No! For the love of God, don't nuke the French prophylactic supply; we want to keep their numbers down!

[TheDon]

What amazing bunch of nonsense on several levels.

First, it demonstrates ignorance of nuclear weapons which have a limited shelf life and degrade. You don't just hold on to one for several weeks or months for the right time to use it. They require maintanence to keep them operational.

Second, what is AlQ doing taking over planes and crashing them into buildings when they have nukes?

Third, since 9-11 the best AlQ can do is sending their useful idiots to die in suicide bomb attacks. They demonstrate little ability to do much more. 9-11 was the pinnacle of the Transnational Islamic terrorists. Unless another Rat gets in office.

Fourth, this is a war against nations which sponsor terrorists, not so much the terrorists themselves. As an earlier poster stated, the ONLY reason the US would respond in kind to a nuke attack is if it could be conclusively be pinned on another nation. That would more likely be the nut case in North Korea than an Middle East regimes. Rather than using nukes, a more realistic scenario would be that the US would invade and overthrow such a nation.

Hopefully, I've helped you out a bit. Please don't post such nonsense in the future.

[nathanbedford]

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.

I think you're on to something with this approach. I have long maintained that are only indispensable ally in this war against Islamic terrorism, is Islam itself. If this war against terrorism is ultimately to be won, it must be won by rational Muslims who root out the terrorists among them motivated by an urgent and felt need of self-preservation. Consider the situation with which President Musharraf of Pakistan is currently confronted. After several attacks on his life, he certainly has a more immediate need to win the war against terrorism than even we do.

The political leaders of the Muslim world, although they might be religious, are first secularist, that is, they are men of this world who want to retain their power in this world. Hence the Osama bin Ladens, who really do not live in this world, are the mortal enemies of the Musharraf's and the Mubarak's of the real world. One must kill the other.

Our policy therefore must resemble Britain's policy in the Napoleonic wars and support our enemies' natural enemies.

[Doohickey]

We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean.

Uh, not since about 1990 when replaced with Trident. How do you know they go to the IO? And why should they since they can hit their targets from in port?

[Phsstpok]

The problem is that we are not the same country we were, say, 50-60 years ago. Immigration has changed, and continues to change, our demographics

US demographics will be WAY DOWN the list of factors regarding the response to a nuclear detonation within the US.

We'll nuke anybody, anywhere, even remotely connected with such an event.

Proof or logic be damned.

The instant a nuke goes off within the United States all previous arguments and assumptions on such a conflict are moot and, in fact, counter intuitive.

We will lash out at anyone who looks at us wrong.

And rightly so.

[Right Winged American]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nowhere in the arab countries, (with the possible exception of Tehran) rates the use of even a 10kt pony bomb. Their citys have no industries, no real transportation networks. Arabs produce nothing, make nothing, manufacture nothing; they are totally parasitic.

Were it not for the oil, no one would even notice them.

On the other hand, the liberal application of MOABs, FAEs, and assorted cluster bomb units would do them a world of good.

[sheik yerbouty]

If the jihadists continue, they will meet the fate of Carthage..

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

Suitcase nukes are an urban myth.

Sorry to rain on your "whistling past the graveyard" parade, but they are indeed physical, real, historical, and have been verified by multiple sources from the USSR and the US.

In fact, I know without a shadow of a doubt of the existence of at least one model concurrent to 1968. I heard about the details far before this ever hit the paper (1979).

Furthermore, there are multiple data points from prior to 1968 of Soviet suitcase devices including test data (multiple ignitions masked as a lager det event) as well as publically available KGB files indicating the implacement of such a series of devices.

[TAquinas]

I gather you won't be the one who decides what to do or how to do it.

I gather also that that decision will be in the hands of the then president with the consesnus of the people. There we go back to the people. The problem is that the then president won't have the consensus of the people because the vast majority of the people will be against nuking the native lands and people, they or they parents and grandparents came from.

Naturally you see no problem with more of your people invading our country. But this issue will eventually be solved in the streets of America.

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

Furthermore, they are easy to engineer. Ask any physicist. Hell, in my highschool physics lab, we designed crude devices that each would have taken up no more than 4 cubic feet.

Of course, they were crude and took a **!tload more fissile materiel than a real physicist would throw in, but they were based on a simple design that was in the World Book Encyclopedia.

[MarkL]

We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean.

I thought that the Poseiden subs were retired some time ago, replaced with the Ohio class subs...

Mark

[atomic_dog]

Suitcase nukes are an urban myth.

Right!

At 100 pounds maybe "suitcase" isn't the right word. Try Google for SADM W54

[nathanbedford]

We'll nuke anybody, anywhere, even remotely connected with such an event.

No we won't. If one of the "mules" carrying such a bomb were to be a British Muslim, born in Britain, but an alien in the culture, would we nuke England? Of course not.

We would be angry, yes, of course but also confused, and ignorant of the facts for weeks at least. Meanwhile, a second attack could be threatened unless Jimmy Carter is named to negotiate. He will not be murdered as you suggest, indeed, half the nation, the blue states, and most of the rest of the world will regard him as our only hope of avoiding the vaporization of a second city.

If you think the mothers are going to sacrifice their children to demonstrate their opposition to appeasement, you simply do not understand half the population of this world.

The appeasers will gain the upper hand and you can kiss our democracy goodbye. Or, we educate people now as Tom Tancredo was trying to do in his fumbling way, and establish a policy NOW while there is at least a government in place and a way to establish a national consensus.

[Firefox1]

I think you're being simple minded. If a nuke went off in this county, it would be irresponsible not to retaliate against at least 4 or or main targets (possibly more). Mecca, Medina, Tehran, and Demascus would be on my short list. You see, we'll never be able to trace the bomber. All the Muslims would just be pointing fingers and acting stupid if we weree nuked. Because of this, we would have no choice but to asume that they are all guilty. In a way we would be correct. One of the main problems we face is that these governments turn a blind eye to the murderers in their midst. This ould make them quite guilty, indeed..

[seadevil]

So they win in the end?

LOL...Hardly...because if a WMD does go off, it won't take long to develop enough intel to and make it public.

[Malichi]

Good post. Let me know when the call to arms is made.

TAW

[Collier]

I think I agree that we won't nuke them, even if we are suitcased nuked.

When we nuked Japan in WWII, we were the only ones that had that power. Not anymore.

If we nuke, who exactly?, other countries my retaliate.

I'd like to think we would, but I just don't know.

I thought we were going to nuke 'em on 9/12/01. That's how made I was.

[Collier]

"made" should be "mad"

[jbstrick]

The 'weapons' were built as a demonstration platform. The russians could not keep the electronics shielded enough to last for more thank a vrey short period of time. Completely negating the sole purpose of the weapon. No one could carry the device without getting radiated.

If the primary objective of the project is unattanable the I see no reason to say they ever existed outside of the lab. I personally believe they are a product of a well crafted DISINFO campaign.