Don't ask a DemocRAT that question. They'd say something like, "Gee. You ask that as if that would be a bad thing."
Posted on 04/29/2006 5:02:09 PM PDT by wagglebee
It's from a guy selling a book.
I agree, but it is still probably an accurate depiction of what a nuclear attack would be like.
>>No place to run (Scary description of what a nuclear attack on the United States would be like)<<
I grew up in a time when our greatest enemy had the ability to kill everyone in the United States and the only thing stopping them was fear of revenge, which depended on them being rational. I lived about 5 miles from a location believed to be a first strike target.
The current situation bad and scary but nothing like the badness or scariness I grew up with.
Tyr the movie "Welcome to Ground Zero", narrated by William Shatner (he doesn't sing in it).
Didn't a recent Senate study basically conclude that FEMA was totally worthless and should be scrapped? Thought I heard something...
The consequences of a nuclear device, even a small one, near a major urban area would be astounding. Horrifying and wonderful (wonderful does not always mean something good).
It would take years to recover, and there would be global political and military shifts after it.
And yes, you WOULD see the borders sealed.
Don't ask a DemocRAT that question. They'd say something like, "Gee. You ask that as if that would be a bad thing."
BUMP
Bookmark
The biggest difference I see between the current situation and the Cold War is the fact that ultimately the Soviets did fear retaliation, the Soviet leadership didn't want a huge segment of their population to be killed and the Soviets were willing to communicate with us. The jihadists place no value on life, they could care less how many Muslims would be killed (themselves included) and they are not inclined to negotiate on anything.
If a Senate investigation deems FEMA worthless then I'll put my money down on FEMA. If FEMA were to investigation the Senate they'd probably recommend the President declare it a disaster zone.
>>The biggest difference I see between the current situation and the Cold War is the fact that ultimately the Soviets did fear retaliation, the Soviet leadership didn't want a huge segment of their population to be killed and the Soviets were willing to communicate with us. The jihadists place no value on life, they could care less how many Muslims would be killed (themselves included) and they are not inclined to negotiate on anything.<<
Good points. I never thought I would wish we were fighting communists but at they were atheists and expected no reward in the afterlife...
It would suck, no question.
But to do this much damage would need 4-5 20mT airbursts, and that's NOT gonna happen.
But they do...North Korea, Iran, Pakistan...
Bottom lines: We can not do, and will not do, what the author recommends before a nuclear attack. It probably will take a nuking of the US to convince everyone here that this is a war for survival, and as such, must be waged as an all-out war.That would mean issuing ultimatums to terrorist harboring/sponsoring states to either give up their known extremists and allow US troops the right of hot pursuit of terrorists within their borders, or face decisive military action against them upon any refusal. It also would mean jailing fifth columnists of the Left for the duration of the conflict,including the seditionist leftist Demonrats remaining.Sorry to say, preventing a nuclear attack is not in the cards with our porous borders.
At times like this, I really appreciate freerepublic. Yep, this scenario cuts close to the bone; it scared me while I read it, thinking all the time, "What WOULD I do in case Anchorage got hit with a nuclear weapon?"; and then someone posts that he's also a guy telling to sell a book.
Yes, there's part of me that's been innoculated by Art Bell to accept any warning of apocolyptic doom as inspired BS. (Other booster shots have been provided by the Club of Rome, Hal Lindsey, and Earth First!)
Then there's the Billy Mitchell part of me, thinking that this guy is seeing over the horizon at a reality that many of us don't want to imagine or can't imagine.
I worry that some Americans would just capitulate, like Vichy France. I run into a lot of people who blame the United States for all the world's problems - including, sadly, a lot of the high school students I teach - and I don't know if they'll really fight. The "blamers" aren't fighting now against a visible threat; what would they do in a cataclysmic crisis?
bump
An accurate description of what would happen in NYC and long island.
If they had nukes, they would use them right away.
the top targets around the world are as follows for a nuclear armed Al Qaeda
NYC
London
DC
LA
Saudi oil fields.
Except for a period of a few days surrounding the death of a Soviet leader and the Cuban Missile Crisis and Khrushchev's ouster we always knew who was in charge, we knew where they were and we knew how to contact them and there was a huge benefit to that. We don't have that with the jihadists.
Looking back at the history of the Cold War it seems fairly clear that, beginning with Korea and continuing until the collapse of the USSR, both Washington and Moscow "understood" without even really knowing it that a direct confrontation needed to be avoided at any cost. We were both prepared to wage "proxy" wars, but we never wanted direct engagement.
Heard this apocalyptic stuff for fifty years. The part about rational Soviets versus endtimes Muslimaniacs is scary, but intentions have to be backed up by capabilities. The Soviets had the latter, the Islamofascists don't. At least for now.
But let this Cold War oldtimer recommend at least one WWIII thriller, "Alas, Babylon", c. 1958 by Pat Frank.
scariest nuclear movie ever, a BBC flick from the 80's called Threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.