Replies

"[I]f a US city is nuked, the US will have to nuke someone, or let it stand that the United States can lose a city without cost to the other side. Defining “the other side” would be difficult, of course – do you erase Tehran to punish the mullahs? Make a crater out of Riyahd? "

It's obvious, if a US city is nuked Mecca and Medina become dust. 48 hours to evacuate, then, Kablooey.

It's obvious, if a US city is nuked Mecca and Medina become dust. 48 hours to evacuate, then, Kablooey.

It should be obvious. I'm afraid it's not.

I wish I could believe that, but I don't.

It's obvious, if a US city is nuked Mecca and Medina become dust. 48 hours to evacuate, then, Kablooey.

I have suggested this before, and when I suggested it I was only half-way kidding. Now I'm not so sure. WHAT, exactly, would be the best military response to the killing of ... let us say ... a couple million Americans?

Imagine, for a moment, what it would mean. It would make the United States the victim of THE worst single military strike in the history of the world. Hiroshima ... Nagasaki ... the death and destruction caused there would pale in comparison to the loss of life and material which would result from the nuking of a medium-sized US city. What would we DO in response? We couldn't do nothing ... not and survive as a nation. But WHAT?

If another country is the source -- China, let us say, or N. Korea -- then the response becomes easier. In the very least , we would demand their immediate and unconditional surrender ... then Nuke all of their military installations if they don't do as we say. Meanwhile, the UN and the Euros and the Middle East would be yelling at us to not taking any provocative action. Yeah, RIGHT.

If it's a terrorist organization that's the source, then we would have to think carefully about the best way to hit them back.

Nuke along the board with Afganastan ... several low yield devices in all those areas where OBL is expected to be hiding? Perhaps.

Nuke Mecca? Having suggested that in the past, that would be the most "satisfying" action in terms of a visible signal. But, in the end, it wouldn't do any good.

Nuke their source of support??? HECK ... we'd have to Nuke 20 or 30 cities in the Middle East! I don't see that happening.

Identify ONE sponsor of State Terrorism (Syria) and use them as an example and Nuke them back into the Stone Age? How is that any more just than what happened to us if that sponsor didn't have a DIRECT connection to the attack on us?

I suppose if we could trace the source and identify WHERE the nuke matieral came from, that might be a start. If it didn't come from us, or from Russia, but ... rather ... came from Iran's production centers, then Iran would be an excellent target. But what if it came from our supposed ally, Pakistan?

In short, responding to a terrorist's Nuke strike would be a real quandry. We would HAVE to respond, and in a way to strike terror back at the source of the attack. But WHO, WHAT, and WHERE are the principle questions. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

That isn't obvious at all, and it won't happen.