Make G. Bush Use the bomb on those resposable for 9/11

[Ward]

So G. Bush is realy pissed and lunchs Nuclear weapons at the nations he belives were behind 9/11 .

[MrP]

At urban centres, priority military targets or what?

Because if he targets a city, then the widespread sympathy for America evaporates as soon as pictures of the radiation-scarred children survivors of the blast appear.

EDIT: Do remember, chaps, when discussing this issue that Aldroud was banned for suggesting that it would have been a good idea for George to nuke some country or other's cities in response to the 11th September disasters. Tread carefully.

[NapoleonXIV]

The US goes from International victim to International Pariah in one night. Even our staunchest allies turn completely against us. The UN orders the most extreme sanctions it can. al-Qaeda's recruitment goes through the roof and terrorism increases by several thousand % worldwide. The actual atomic blasts kill thousands of children, old men and women, and hardly any terrorists at all.

[King Thomas]

Bin Laden is killed but a thousand take his place and the USA loses all it's support.

[Dean_the_Young]

Unless, of course, it is found that 9-11 was supposed to have a nuclear/biological/chemical element (to be supplied by an identified foreign nation), and that the only reason that something worse didn't happen was because some simple mistake like a dud explosive or being late on the delivery kept it from exploding.

(Just had a semi-humurous thought of someone attepmting a hijacking with a WMD, only to realize they left the WMD and hijacking weapons in the airport bathroom when they grabbed the wrong bag.)

But even then, I don't think Bush would use the bomb unless he had to. The American retaliation policy is pretty clear: any chemical or biological attack on the US populace as a whole is supposed to be treated the same as a nuclear attack. (This policy went into effect after the US dismantled its own chemical and biological weapons programs.) Unless they actually go off in an attack directed at the civilian populace, the nuklear taboo is still strong.

[Shimbo]

Originally Posted by Ward

So G. Bush is realy pissed and lunchs Nuclear weapons at the nations he belives were behind 9/11 .

How about:

New evidence confirms that the currently believed perpetrators were framed and the person actually responsible for 9/11 is some James Bond style evil genius with a secret hideout deep underground on a deserted island? The evil genius will detect preparations for a conventional assault and escape, this will lead to further attacks. A nuclear strike on the deserted island is the only way to be sure of finishing him off.

Not of course that that will stop me...I mean him.

[Ward]

Originally Posted by MrP

At urban centres, priority military targets or what?

Because if he targets a city, then the widespread sympathy for America evaporates as soon as pictures of the radiation-scarred children survivors of the blast appear.

EDIT: Do remember, chaps, when discussing this issue that Aldroud was banned for suggesting that it would have been a good idea for George to nuke some country or other's cities in response to the 11th September disasters. Tread carefully.

then maybe Ian needs to be kicked for a week . If we are not alowed to talk about Alt. His. On this site.
How is this worst then any other Alt. His . idea ,


#1 would the military allow the weapons to be used.
# 2 how long would he stay President.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by Ward

then maybe Ian needs to be kicked for a week . If we are not alowed to talk about Alt. His. On this site.
How is this worst then any other Alt. His . idea ,


#1 would the military allow the weapons to be used.
# 2 how long would he stay President.

Ian doesn't proscribe discussion of such things. However, Aldroud said he thought it'd've been a good idea, which is tantamount to saying that a whole load of civilians should be murdered because of the actions of a small number of terrorists.

I just wanted to remind people - since there are many with strong views on Islamist (and other) terrorism - that they should take care precisely how they word things.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

The US goes from International victim to International Pariah in one night. Even our staunchest allies turn completely against us. The UN orders the most extreme sanctions it can. al-Qaeda's recruitment goes through the roof and terrorism increases by several thousand % worldwide. The actual atomic blasts kill thousands of children, old men and women, and hardly any terrorists at all.

If tactical weapons were deployed against AQ camps (not sure why exactly, but say there were), there would be a lot of dead terrorists.

If anything, striking the terror camps with SLBMs would kill more terrorists thn conventional airstrikes, since there's a lot more warning with airplanes and thus more time for the terrorists to run.

That being said, nuking Kandahar or Kabul or any other Afghan city, would be considered extreme overkill, even if it did get Mullah Omar and company before they could flee (the night Enduring Freedom began, a Predator drone spotted Omar fleeing the capital and nearly killed him). Not to mention the fallout from the nuked AQ camps would spread, and there'd be a lot of collateral damage.

However, note that many who opposed a US counterattack against Afghanistan said that many of the things you said, and for the most part, none of them came true.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by King Thomas

Bin Laden is killed but a thousand take his place and the USA loses all it's support.

That may be, but those thousand might be far less rich, charismatic, skilled, and thus be less dangerous than OBL.

Would you rather have one skilled evil mastermind or 1000 varying degrees of incompetents?

[tantric]

perhaps if saddam had been behind the attacks, and there was some proof of him having WMD's (this is ASB, but still)

[Roddoss72]

Originally Posted by Ward

So G. Bush is realy pissed and lunchs Nuclear weapons at the nations he belives were behind 9/11 .

Why would George W Bush launch a nuclear strike against the CIA and the US Military.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Roddoss72

Why would George W Bush launch a nuclear strike against the CIA and the US Military.

Oh great...a conspiracy theorist.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Oh great...a conspiracy theorist.

Or was it poor sarcasm?


But I will say that, like him or hate him, Bush isn't the retard many portray him as. Does he choose loyal allies for positions, rather than grading solely on competance? Yes, but so has every president ever. He (and his advisors) are not going to break nuclear taboo unless the US has been struck by a WMD attack, in which case he'd just as likely be criticized/have calls for his removal if he didn't respond with a nuclear strike.

Most conspiracy theorists' claims require that the government be an all-powerful entity with master media control, a bumbling bueracracy that couldn't keep its pants up without a belt, or both at once. Like those people who say that fires shouldn't have damaged the steel griders of the WT towers because the heat was below the melting point, when steel loses close to 80 percent of its strenth at those temperatures. They take some facts, but ignore others from the same page.

[Roddoss72]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Or was it poor sarcasm?


But I will say that, like him or hate him, Bush isn't the retard many portray him as. Does he choose loyal allies for positions, rather than grading solely on competance? Yes, but so has every president ever. He (and his advisors) are not going to break nuclear taboo unless the US has been struck by a WMD attack, in which case he'd just as likely be criticized/have calls for his removal if he didn't respond with a nuclear strike.

Most conspiracy theorists' claims require that the government be an all-powerful entity with master media control, a bumbling bueracracy that couldn't keep its pants up without a belt, or both at once. Like those people who say that fires shouldn't have damaged the steel griders of the WT towers because the heat was below the melting point, when steel loses close to 80 percent of its strenth at those temperatures. They take some facts, but ignore others from the same page.

Like an airliner crashing into a building and leaving a 16 foot hole and surrounding windows intact and not causing the above roof to collapse, and answer this why after news crews arrived on the scene and began filming the Pentagon crash site there was no evidence of aircraft wreckage to be seen, no engines, tailplane, wings. Nothing was visible a 100+ tonne plane does not dissapear and it certainly does not leave such little structual damage.

Regards.

[Wendell]

And to think that some Leftists were critical because Bush DIDN'T randomly nuke the cave systems of Tora Bora.

Seriousoly, if you want Bush to respond to September eleventh with nukes, then either Iran, Iraq, or North Korea has be invading somewhere that same day.

[Karlos]

Well, as the suicide hickjakers and the mastermind behind them were all saudis, he'll nuke Saudi Arabia...wait, those are friendly, and have all that oil... Maybe we can go after the London bombers, oops, those were pakistanis. Be realistic, find me a target near Iraq, Siria or Iran.

[backstab]

Originally Posted by Roddoss72

Like an airliner crashing into a building and leaving a 16 foot hole and surrounding windows intact and not causing the above roof to collapse, and answer this why after news crews arrived on the scene and began filming the Pentagon crash site there was no evidence of aircraft wreckage to be seen, no engines, tailplane, wings. Nothing was visible a 100+ tonne plane does not dissapear and it certainly does not leave such little structual damage.

Regards.

Thats because Bush is being mind controlled by Hitlers brain (Which is still in a glass jar under the bed of Elvis who is living in Mexico)
Gotta love conspiracys

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Unless, of course, it is found that 9-11 was supposed to have a nuclear/biological/chemical element (to be supplied by an identified foreign nation), and that the only reason that something worse didn't happen was because some simple mistake like a dud explosive or being late on the delivery kept it from exploding.

(Just had a semi-humurous thought of someone attepmting a hijacking with a WMD, only to realize they left the WMD and hijacking weapons in the airport bathroom when they grabbed the wrong bag.)

But even then, I don't think Bush would use the bomb unless he had to. The American retaliation policy is pretty clear: any chemical or biological attack on the US populace as a whole is supposed to be treated the same as a nuclear attack. (This policy went into effect after the US dismantled its own chemical and biological weapons programs.) Unless they actually go off in an attack directed at the civilian populace, the nuklear taboo is still strong.

I would hope that the Busgh administration would be smart enough even in this context to realise that a retaliation policy based on the MAD principle doesn't work under circumstances like these. Otherwise, any nut with a petri dish could have a shot at triggering WWIII.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

I would hope that the Busgh administration would be smart enough even in this context to realise that a retaliation policy based on the MAD principle doesn't work under circumstances like these. Otherwise, any nut with a petri dish could have a shot at triggering WWIII.

You'll notice that nobody suggested nuking whoever sent the anthrax letters?

And that Iraq (or Iran) still isn't glass, despite chlorine attacks made by the insurgents?

Bush has made a lot of retrospectively incredibly BAD choices, but neither he nor his advisors are hotheaded morons. Otherwise, I'd worry even more about the Democratic party than I do now if any rash moron with money can get into the White House over a democratic nominee. But it isn't like that, and here we are today.