And Blue, I don’t quite see your point. Do you consider nuking Mecca a good idea if a nuclear terrorist attacked happened in the USA ?
Gonzo, you’re making a helluva lot more of the idea of nuking Mecca than was ever suggested by Tancredo. In fact, it was the interviewer who brought that idea up, not Tancredo.
No, I don’t think nuking Mecca is a particularly good idea. It’s just one of many potential targets that the powers that be would likely consider in response to a first strike. I tend to believe that my government would look more towards where the device came from and punish that country directly, as opposed to a knee-jerk attack on all Muslims by hittin’ Mecca or any other religious site. Then again, I also think that nuance would be completely lost on Muhammed Six Pack. Whether Mecca or Damascus or Tehran, I think the Muslim extremists have Muhammed Six Pack so cowed as to be completely incapable of blaming their own for anything, or at least blaming their own and then actually doing something about it.
DrGONZO - 19 July 2005 01:06 PM
Maybe we shouldn’t talk about it because it’s just complete idiocy, innit ?
Moreover there is also a real paradox the reasoning I have read here. If the new way to end terrorism you invented is to nuke mecca. Then you should go public about it. Cuz deterrence is little use if you keep it secret. Innit ? But then you castigate the people who made it a debate and disminish it as being a local broadcast etc ... there is some kind of logic gap here.
You’re right that there’s little deterrence value if it’s not at least discussed in a “what-if” type of conversation in public, which just happens to be exactly the type of conversation that some of you have gotten your hemorrhoids in an uproar over in this thread.
Besides that though, I don’t think anyone here has suggested that “the new way to end terrorism” is to nuke anyone or any specific place on a map. There’s nothing new about making it known throughout the world that any nuclear attack on us or our allies will be responded to in kind. Germany, England, France and the US would all still be cleaning up the messes the Soviets left us with if we hadn’t made that perfectly clear to them for 40 years. One hypothetical answer to one hypothetical question on one insignificant radio station in Florida seems to pale in comparison to the constant drum-beat by both sides during the Cold War, which btw, worked in the longrun to avoid mutually assured destruction, just as it was intended by both sides to do.
I don’t see where you or anyone else has been castigated in this thread. Some of us have tried to take the time to fill you in on what we might view as a proper response to a nuclear first strike. I believe it is you who has engaged in castigation for the offense of some of us having even considered responding in kind at all to such an attack.
As far as “diminishing” it as being a local broadcast, well, maybe you should consider that that’s the truth, and what you’re doing is blowing a totally insignificant utterance out of any logical proportion. It was a local broadcast. It couldn’t have been heard by any significant portion of our population, nor be taken seriously by an even smaller number. Maybe if national pride and loyalty weren’t such a politically incorrect premise these days, you could try to understand that there are legitimate points of view which don’t precisely match yours. But I know that’s a monumental pipe-dream.
Cuddle with them? Seriously, it depends on what is done in the ME to warrant their use. if Iran gave a nuke to a terrorist group and they set it off in the US, or Israel, or Europe, I would turn Iran into glass.
So that’s Iran for you ? If Al Qaeda carries out a nuclear attack in the USA. You (if you had any decision power regarding the question) propose nuking Iran . Is that all ? Or are there other nations too ?
For example, if it happened that nuclear material or knowledge came from Pakistan. Would you advocate nuking Pakistan ?
Don’t try to misquote me Gonzo by implying I said to nuke Iran indiscriminately. Read what I wrote. If Iran gave Al Qaeda the nuke, hell yes I propose a response in kind. If Pakistan gave them the nuke, same thing.
What if they procured a loose Russian nuke, or rogue scientists assisted them with materials and expertise to fashion their own?
Then I’d bitchslap Russia economically until they get a grip on their nuclear problem, or make sure the rogue scientists met a painful end. I would request the US be able to find those responsible in whatever country they were hiding in, and if not given permission, then respond similarly to how we dealt with the Taliban, depending on the country.
Seems counter productive if it were policy to nuke mecca in response to suicide bombs.
It’s the only (Islamic) option after your holiest of holy places has been annihilated and your deepest held beliefs force you to retaliate by any means necessary.
I don’t think many people seriously support the idea of nuking Mecca. Most of the American right has been condemning Tancredo’s hypothetical.
Personally, I think that nukes should be used in response to a nuke. And we would nuke the nation found to be behind/supprting the perpetrators. We shouldn’t target a city or religious site, but we should target a military installation or reactor without regard to the collateral casualties which would be inflicted. As Iran tends to bury its high priority targets in civilian areas, any military action against Iran will kill a lot of innocent civilians. Unfortunately, we cannot let deliberate use of human shields act as a deterrent.
What I’m curious to know is how many moderate Muslims feel this way?
There in lies the gaffe. When I worked in France I had a Muslim boss. We spoke about all this, and he is a moderate. I asked him if he mentioned that at the Mosque, and he said no. You see, they sit back and let these animals go nuts. If they succeed, they win, if they don’t succeed, they say “it wasn’t me, so don’t hate me”. IMO, this is why the Muslim community does nothing.
If Iran gave Al Qaeda the nuke, hell yes I propose a response in kind. If Pakistan gave them the nuke, same thing.
So the Pakistani government , which has been a strong ally of yours in the region, and has captured scores of Al Qaeda and turn them over to you. Would be reduced to ashes. In the following mayhem, terrorists will probably get hold of more nuclear devices and weapons. What do you plan to do after ? Leave the country to get over by itself ? Send an occupation force ?
What if Musharaf’s govt is toppled and replaced by a an anti-western one? Lot of Taliban linkage to ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency. That’s my nightmare scenario.
Then I’d bitchslap Russia economically until they get a grip on their nuclear problem, or make sure the rogue scientists met a painful end.
What if it’s too late to solve it ? Or if they lack the money ? Economic bitchslap wouldn’t help them ?
Isn’t the US already directly involved in trying to secure the loose nukes in the former Soviet-bloc states? The Russians don’t have the resources to deal with the problem.
So the Pakistani government , which has been a strong ally of yours in the region, and has captured scores of Al Qaeda and turn them over to you. Would be reduced to ashes.
If it was proved that they gave the terrorists the nuke they used on our soil? You betcha.
In the following mayhem, terrorists will probably get hold of more nuclear devices and weapons. What do you plan to do after ? Leave the country to get over by itself ? Send an occupation force ?
hypotheticals. you might as well ask me for detailed invasion schematics, don’t be anal.
What if they blow up a shipment of US nuclear material in a port ? Or a train of chemicals ?
What if Goldfinger takes over a nuke and blows up fort knox?
Let’s turn the Tables, Gonzo. Al Qaeda lets off a nuke at the base of Paris’ greatest landmark. There is evidence pointing to the Iranian government providing that nuke to Al Qaeda. What do you do? (do your best imitation of an ostrich is an acceptable answer, and expected ;-P).
Gonzo, you’re making valid points and asking valid questions about which I’m going to surmise two things:
1) Nobody here has all the answers, nor have they claimed to.
2) Even to the extent that anyone has tried, or might try in subsequent posts to answer your questions, those answers will never satisfy you. You will continue to do your best to display what you percieve to be your moral superiority as you obviously believe that even speaking about the way, way, WAY distant possibility that nukes will ever be used by the US to be “complete idiocy.”
Maybe we shouldn’t talk about it because it’s just complete idiocy, innit ?
I’m not suprised that you know so little about Tom Tancredo. I couldn’t name a French legislator if my life depended on it, much less evaluate their record or significance to French life. Tancredo though is not a local politician, he’s a Congressional Representative from a district in Colorado. He has what I believe to be an unfair reputation among most liberals as a right-wing extremist, but it has little to nothing to do with him falling for the bait of an interviewer asking him the questions at issue in this thread. No, his unacceptable offense among liberals, and also among many Republican elected politicians, is that he supports the US controlling its own borders. He was an outspoken supporter of the Minuteman Project, a group of 700 or so volunteer citizens who posted themselves along a 23 mile stretch of the southern border in Arizona for a month in an effort to curb illegal immigration, which was quite successful I might add. While Bush and some other Republicans referred to them as “vigilantees,” and just about every liberal I can think of referred to them in even stronger offensive terms, Tancredo supported them in both word and deed by appearing on many news shows, submitting many op-ed pieces in many papers and standing against his own party’s president. To make a long story short, he is anything but a local politician. He’s a national figure in every sense of the word, and respected by many as the Paul Revere of our times warning the nation about the invasion of illegals taking place right under our noses while our leaders do nothing but offer platitudes and amnesty programs which can only encourage more of the same.
I realize that’s far afield of staying on topic, but I think it’s important for you to understand why anyone would want to interview the guy in the first place. I think the fact that he is so widely known in America is because he is brutally honest. He doesn’t mince words about what he supports or opposes, so it’s no surprise to any American who pays just a little attention to politics that something he would say in a radio interview would be publicized and used to make him look like a bloodthirsty extremist, when the plain truth is that there’s so much nothingness in that interview as to render it completely insignificant to any military leader or the President or Congress in the untenable position of having to decide how to respond to a terrorist nuclear attack.
“Idiocy” to think and/or talk about it? No. Insgnificant in the bigger scheme of things? Yes.
So you would nuke Islamabad if a device which came from Pakistan was to be used ? Would you nuke Moscow if an old soviet era device was used ? Can you be more precise ? What if you can’t determine the provenance of the device ?
Just to point out, it can be reasonably determined where fissible materials used in nuclear devices came from. From there, it’s some checking and extrapolating to see who ended up with it, and thus, who supplied it. It might take some help from the nation in question, and if it was some rogue element, or an accident they should be more than happy to help bring those responsible to justice. If the government that let the nuke go tries to play games, then we still have racks of our own nukes we could introduce them to.
Not ‘a’ attack. What would our societies do if we were truly besieged? Cities being nuked left and right.
Of course we would switch to total war.
Ah that’s another nuance. As far as I understood Blues post he was talking about the response to the very first nuclear terrorist attack. What do you think about the first one ? Being that cities being nuked left and right is still extremely unlikely.
Yes, which seemed too idiotic to make conversation (this is my answer). So, very early on I tried to change it to a question of at what level (if ever) would we resort to it.
You can read in the future ? That’s interesting because there is that lottery on friday with a 98million € dotation, any prediction about that ?
Yep, you’re gonna lose.
Or is it just a way to sidestep the questions ?
I haven’t sidestepped anything with you Gonzo. I’ve tried to answer anything you’ve asked me with respect and seriousness. It’s just like I said though, nothing will satisfy you and your superiority complex which drives you to challenge anything anyone says, including an admission that we don’t have all the answers. But since that doesn’t fit too well within your jaded view of Americans being arrogant know-it-alls, you stay on the attack instead of appreciating that no one’s trying to make you wrong or themselves right, we’re just discussing what all of us hopes we’ll never have to face. In short, you’re being a jerk.
Ah, but that’s yet another configuration, isn’t it ? In that case Pakistan would get away with it. Innit ? Moreover how do you determine if they “play games” ?
I don’tknow the specifics of your hypothetical scenario, but if Pakistan took a direct hand in putting the nuke in the terrorists hands, then they get their proverbial teeth kicked in. If they go out of their way to assist us in getting the terrorists responsible, they get our support, and forgiveness. Anything in between would be dealt with accordingly, probably trending towards “harshly”, considering a nuke was detonated on US soil.
Given Pakistan’s laws and attitudes towards working with foreign militaries, it could turn out poorly for them.
If they go out of their way to assist us in getting the terrorists responsible, they get our support, and forgiveness.
Like capturing and handing out senior al qaeda officials ?
That’s whats happening right now, but I thought you were talking about a scenario that we got nuked by a bomb that came from Pakistan. You really haven’t stated the details of this attack very well. It goes like this: if the bomb came from Pakistan, then I’m guessing we will ask for answers. If those don’t come quickly, with someone’s head on a platter, then there is going to be trouble. Whether the response will require nukes or not, I couldn’t tell you. I can tell you that a nuke detonated on American soil will require some response. I’d guess that whoever supplied it would be in the crosshairs, whether it’s Pakistan, Iran, or France. If a nation assisted terrorists in doing it, they would feel the wrath of the US.
Let’s turn the Tables, Gonzo. Al Qaeda lets off a nuke at the base of Paris’ greatest landmark. There is evidence pointing to the Iranian government providing that nuke to Al Qaeda. What do you do? (do your best imitation of an ostrich is an acceptable answer, and expected ;-P).
Apologize to them for not being more sensitive to their plight. Then thank them for reminding you of your place. Blame it on the PM and make a change.
If somehow some Islamic nutbars we’re able to set off some type of nuke device in an American city, then if up to me the Mideast itself would be targeted and would pay dearly.
