Iron Eagle.
First off, my post was not directed at you or anything you said in this forum or anywhere else. I do not know you from adam, but I am more than happy to learn of your Reagan Republicanism. So am I a Reagan Republican.
Your seclect disecting of my words is rather curious. While i did indeed say that "should such an attack occur we will know where the plutonium for the device originated. That's who we will hold responsible."
However, Sir, nowhere, and I mean NO WHERE, DID I STATE IN WORDS EVEN CLOSELY APPROXIMATING YOURS THAT we are going to just nuke the Russian Federation because of evidence of the "origination" of the device.
Perhaps you missed my post to SCR1 wherein he asked the following question:
"Would an appropriate response be the use of a weapon of about the same size on a city from which country the bomb material came from?"
My reply was:
"The appropriate response is determined by the Commander in Chief under the advisement of the National Security Council, among others, and in accordance with longstanding US policy regarding an attack upon the United States utilizing any Weapon of Mass Destruction."
Perhaps this explains why you are an un-elected also-ran because you are remiss in completely researching a given subject matter. If this is the case the voters did themselves a service in ensuring you remained benignly at home. You waana throw mud bud, be prepared to have it tossed back at you two-fold with a rock inside.
If anyone here needs to "get serious" and learn how to read and comprehend the meanings of words it is yourself. Yes, (hint, hint) words mean things and I understand the meaning and intent of yours.
Al-Qaeda is a decentralized non-state entity. We deal with them as we see fit in the interest of our national security. If they manage to nuke a US city or detonate a radiological device we all will have to wait and see what this nations political leadership decides to do about it, and what the public demands the President to do.
If I were you I would stiffen my Reagan Republicanism and deal with the global war were are engaged in with the same steely determination he dealt in with respect to the Soviet Union, and try to keep the friendly fire incidents to a minimum.
Have a nice evening.
How about a word from Russia? Here is an editorial from The Moscow Times dated 3 February, 2004.
Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004. Page 10
Strategic War Games Off Target
Editorial
Later this month, Russia's strategic nuclear forces will hold their largest exercises since the early 1980s.
The official explanation, according to a report in Kommersant, is that the war games are designed to help Russia prepare to counter terrorist threats.
But no sensible person could believe that the launching of cruise missiles over the Atlantic and satellites into space combined with the test-firing of ballistic missiles would make the military better able to interdict a group of terrorists, even if they had managed to get hold of a nuclear weapon.
When the military last held war games of a similar scale, in 1982, both the Kremlin and the White House knew perfectly well what they were for -- to simulate a global nuclear war. The planned exercises will also simulate a U.S.-Russian nuclear war, and the Russian side should not pretend otherwise.
The strategic exercises are clearly intended to send a message to Washington, but also to the voters at home as President Vladimir Putin comes up for re-election.
It would be a little alarming if the Kremlin was planning to simulate a nuclear war just to show that Russia is still a power to be reckoned with. What is more alarming is that Russian commanders, though they would not admit it in public, continue to believe that a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia is possible and thus that they should plan for it. Sadly, the situation is the same with U.S. commanders.
Otherwise, how to explain why each country has 2,500 nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert? Even a fraction of these would be enough to deter and, if necessary, destroy any third nuclear power. And the high state of alert greatly increases the risk of a false alarm triggering a nuclear exchange.
The reported holes in Russia's early warning system, and the fact that a joint center for exchanging data from early warning systems, which leaders of the two countries agreed to establish at a summit in 2000, has yet to materialize, increases the risk of a doomsday even more.
The sheer number of launch-ready nuclear weapons on both sides makes it easier for terrorists to try to seize one or hack into the command and control network to launch one.
True, Russian and U.S. leaders have done a lot to reduce their nuclear arsenals, increase security and improve communications between their strategic commands. They need to do even more. If they are serious about fighting terrorism, political leaders on the banks of the Potomac and the Moskva should prod their generals to game joint interdictions of nuclear terrorist attacks rather than U.S.-Russian nuclear wars.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/02/03/005.html