I always thought there was an implied MADD strategy saying that if nukes were used as terror weapons (or if any similar weapons of mass destruction were used in the US), that we would respond with nukes against the presumed country where the terrorist acts originated, and also possibly against Mecca (that being the one thing the terrorists would hesitate to see destroyed).
If so, and if that threat was effective, this policy has just removed it and whatever deterrent it offered.
I always thought there was an implied MADD strategy saying that if nukes were used as terror weapons (or if any similar weapons of mass destruction were used in the US), that we would respond with nukes against the presumed country where the terrorist acts originated, and also possibly against Mecca (that being the one thing the terrorists would hesitate to see destroyed).
I've never heard that such a thing was U.S. policy.
Perhaps it's the policy of some FReepers who post here, but I don't think it's ever been U.S. policy ... :-)
“I always thought there was an implied MADD strategy saying that if nukes were used as terror weapons (or if any similar weapons of mass destruction were used in the US), that we would respond with nukes against the presumed country where the terrorist acts originated, and also possibly against Mecca (that being the one thing the terrorists would hesitate to see destroyed).
If so, and if that threat was effective, this policy has just removed it and whatever deterrent it offered.”
It worked. Thats why the Emperor did away with it. Also, he WANTS us to be attacked.