2005...after the apocalypse

Suppose there was so much anger after Bush's re-election a group of neo-liberals..yep good name for them... decided to steal some nukes and take out 5 or 6 US cities including DC....AKA..what if CBS's "Jericho" actually happened?
 
I would have to put this firmly in the ASB category... and what is a neoliberal anyway? Are these US nukes, stolen Russian nukes, or what? And what cities would be attacked- why would they attack DC, the most liberal city in America?
 
Suppose there was so much anger after Bush's re-election a group of neo-liberals..yep good name for them... decided to steal some nukes and take out 5 or 6 US cities including DC....AKA..what if CBS's "Jericho" actually happened?

"a group of neo-liberals..yep good name for them"

Personally, as a Liberal/Progressive myself, I kind of take offense at this label attached to any terrorist event, especially nuclear. With that out of the way, I would rather expect that the group consist of assorted nut cases, anti-government anarchist types and other similar types who were trying to generally shake things up and embarrass the government, not just "flip a finger" so to speak at the Bush reelection.

And where WOULD the nukes come from? Excellent question. As for possibility, I'm not sure it should automatically be labeled "ASB" as there certainly may have been a few "cases" out there somewhere who at least thought about it. What if a few had the right contacts and enough money . . .

My 2 cents worth

Bobindelaware
 
er... neo-liberals are what the world refers to when you talk about 'conservatives' who seek to implement classical liberalism, that is, the unfettered free market, the transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich tycoons who use the military to browbeat or invade other countries for their resources or for the hell of it. That is, Bush, his minions and those who control him and through him, you. Neoliberals are the World Bank, the IMF and Wall Street-types who you'll give 2000 to every year till doomsday. They are the ones who wanted and planned the invasion of Iraq (and Iran and any other country that doesn't want a shit sandwich shoved down its throat, said sandwich being bankruptcy and destitution of the middle and working class. See Mexico, Argentina, Iraq, Indonesia and for good measure all those ex-communist countries in Europe still drawing down the pitiful savings they made under the Reds). It is more likely that some conservative neoliberal or neoconservative (they're practically synonyms) blows up half the States as ungrateful devil-worshippers if Bush lost or even if they were tired of waiting for the 'rapture'.

Either way, neoliberal terrorists just doesn't cut if, unless of course you posit that it is done to punish /coerce the United States Congress and people to accept some trade or finance measure that will destroy their livelihoods, in which case it won't be found out because it will have been done by and with the support of the United States Government at high levels and blamed on 'Al Qaeda' or Iran or 'ecoterrorists'.

Now, to answer the question, if someone let loose a half-dozen nukes across the USA, the country would, shock horror, continue to exist. Large swathes of the country would be fine - it is 3000 miles across - and with world trade, there are plenty of markets. Sure, GDP drops 30-50% but still things hum along after the shock wears off. NBC containment exists. In 5 years, the country will be prosperous just like it took Russia and Germany and Japan (or for that matter France and Italy 5-10 years to recover and they were totally destroyed). Psychologically the US would have been struck a deep blow and if any foreign involvement was discovered, US forces are plentiful overseas for any needed deployment, supported by allies. Revenge would be swift and overpowering unless it was China or Russia. If so, then it's the end of the World.

If domestic terrorism is 'proven' then that cause is destroyed. Loses all rational support or legitimacy. Patriot Act will continue indefinitely in that situation.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
er... neo-liberals are what the world refers to when you talk about 'conservatives' who seek to implement classical liberalism, that is, the unfettered free market, the transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich tycoons who use the military to browbeat or invade other countries for their resources or for the hell of it. That is, Bush, his minions and those who control him and through him, you. Neoliberals are the World Bank, the IMF and Wall Street-types who you'll give 2000 to every year till doomsday. They are the ones who wanted and planned the invasion of Iraq (and Iran and any other country that doesn't want a shit sandwich shoved down its throat, said sandwich being bankruptcy and destitution of the middle and working class. See Mexico, Argentina, Iraq, Indonesia and for good measure all those ex-communist countries in Europe still drawing down the pitiful savings they made under the Reds). It is more likely that some conservative neoliberal or neoconservative (they're practically synonyms) blows up half the States as ungrateful devil-worshippers if Bush lost or even if they were tired of waiting for the 'rapture'.

WTF? That is not the definition of either neoliberal or classical liberalism.

I suggest that you learn the true definitions of political terms before posting again. Also, AH.com is not the place for conspiratorial rants.
 
WTF? That is not the definition of either neoliberal or classical liberalism.

I suggest that you learn the true definitions of political terms before posting again. Also, AH.com is not the place for conspiratorial rants.


Well, at least in Latin America, "liberal" means someone who supports free market and is against the intervention of the state in the managment of the economy. "Neo-liberal" is used to name pro free-market (social) conservatives who came to power in the 80s or early 90s, like Margarer Tacther, Reagan, Alberto Fujimori or Carlos Menem. They are called "neo"-liberals because they came to power after a period of about 50 years of guvernamental intervention in economic affairs (1930s-1970s), with the idea of reducing the size of the government as it used to be the case before the 1930s/40s, that is, before the ideas of classical liberalism were discredited as a result of the Great Depression.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Why would Bush and his neo- liberal lapdogs nuke some cities after they won?? Doesn't make sense! Not even Bush would throw a party with nukes to celebrate a victory (I hope).
 
May i remind one and all that the most deadly "domestic" terrorist attacks in recent US history (I.e. Oklahoma Bombing , The Olympic park bombing ,etc) have been commited by phychoticly derreanged right wing Nut jobs , and not by anyone "liberal" under any definition of that term. How anyone in the centre of politics can be an extremist is beyond me.
 

burmafrd

Banned
The only reason the lefties in the 60's did not kill more was because they were totally incompetent. Overall more liberal terrorism (though much of it is cloaked as environmental or animal related) happens all the time.
 
Okay...but what if "Jericho" actually happened? Our country ceases to exist?

At the end of "Jericho" civil war is about to break out. The possibilities of something of Jericho's magnitude are very frightening......:eek:
 
Top