[Brilliant]

A better question than "What should Americans do?" is this: "What should the US do?" Take it even one step further: "Shouldn't we tell the world now what we are going to do if that happens?"

[jammer]

Take it even one step further: "Shouldn't we tell the world now what we are going to do if that happens?"

The implied answer to your question is why I think there probably will not be a domestic nuke "incident" until early 2005. They KNOW what will happen now. If they wait, a Clintonite may be in office and he will unleash an anti-terrorist war on . . . anyone whose family may have owned slaves.

That calculation may have gone into the 911 thing. After 8 years of Clinton, they thought there would be a lot of bluster and no action. Which is what would have happened had they worked it one year earlier.

[Jim Noble]

>>"Shouldn't we tell the world now what we are going to do if that happens?"<<

yes, I think this is exactly correct.

Remember the scene in "Godfather" when Don Corleone tells his colleagues, "I am a superstitious man...and if anything happens to my son Michael, even if he is hit by lightning, I will blame someone in this room"?

I don't know how much influence Assad, Hussein, Abdullah, Qadaffi, and Musharref have over OBL-but I suspect it is more than we know, or can know.

I would announce that, in the event of a nuclear or subnuclear detonation within the United States, the US will retaliate with our strategic forces immediately and without further investigation against "all states which sponsor or tolerate terrorism".

But then, I am a superstitious man.