E-Mail: Attack on U.S. '90 Percent Ready'

Fox News ^ | 03/11/2004 | AP

[Peter J. Huss]

Thanks for the cool gif.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

why not just force them to be sodomized by hogs?

wrong, so very wrong.

[HitmanLV]

You are right, but we are talking about different things.

I should have been more clear and that's my mistake, I'm sorry. By 'low yield' I meant the more likely, smaller nuclear weapons that these jokers could get their hands on, colloquially called 'suitcase nukes, whose yeild is mostly likely less than 1 kt, maybe as low as 0.1 kt (and nowhere near 1mt).

What you are describing is a major bomb of 1 mt or more. You are right, but best anyone can tell, there is no suitcase nuke or anything comperable in the 1 megaton yeild capability.

Check the following link for some info on a 1 mt surface blast (which is what you are describing)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/1mtblast.html

Check the following for some insight into the so-called 'suitcase nukes,' which at best are nowhere close to as potent to yeild a 1mt blast (with .1 kt to 1.0 kt being more likely).

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

To be sure, there is a dubious background to these low yeild nukes, but I don't think the badguys have what it takes to craft a 1mt nuke and get it inside a major us city. Smaller 'suitcase' nukes is a different story. Then again, unless they have been maintained, they are better suited to 70kg paperweights.

[CygnusXI]

Well, a more effective response to a domestic detonation of a nuke than our own nuclear retalliation would be to expell %100 percent of muslims here in the US and tightly (can we borrow your wall Israel?) seal our borders.

After a domestic nuclear detonation, be it one at 1kt or 10 at 1mt, our response domestically will do more to either ensure our defeat or champion our victory.

Again I fall back on the Medieval analogies.

When clans of old were warring, say for example the Boar vs. the Horse, you would not find "Boar communities" within the walls of the Horse kingdom.
Their walls would be up and any people with affiliations to the opposing clan would be persona non grata (if not straight out killed).

Now granted those wars of old were (mostly) land/nobiity based. This war however, like it or not politicos(dems, and reps), IS about religion. The agressor dictates the terms. Since Islam and those who would kill without discretion have time and again stated in so many words that their actions are just as much based in Islam as in any policies the "west" has, it by default has become a holy war.

Muslims present in America are akin to Boars in the streets among the Horse kingdom.

People decry what happened to the Japanese during WWII, but we ended up winning that one didn't we. Also, comparing radical Islam to Japanese imperialism is a huge mistake with it's own consequenses. If the Japanese were not interned during WWII we may have had some sabotage or lost some agents/assets to spys and sleepers.
If we do not shore up our internal terrorist potential we could glow with nuclear after-effects, and loose thousands to epidemics never before seen.


Have we forgotton history?
Sometimes I wonder about the leaders...

[HitmanLV]

I agree. I was just saying I don't see us lashing out against innocent folks (conventional or nuclear) in the way thats been suggested as something that the US would do.

[Stew Padasso]

I wonder what "90 percent" means...

Sounds like vaporware.

[CygnusXI]

We're on the same page man. My statment was more for ALL than direct to you.

I can't deny that IF we ever were nuked I would lust to see a similar response but I understand the near impausability of it.

[RightWhale]

Sure, against some military targets more boom is more effective. Against terrorism it would be next to ineffective and probably work against you in the long run. We also don't have enough nukes in the world, and didn't even before the SALT reductions, to turn an entire country to glass unless the country was particularly small. A city would be wrecked, but destruction of more than a handful of cities would be impossible. Use of nukes would only give birth to yet another generation of people with a cause.

[Peter J. Huss]

Use of nukes would only give birth to yet another generation of people with a cause.

Like post war Japan? They were fanatical before the surrender.

[BraveMan]

City of Tiny Lights . . .

[RightWhale]

It was new, then. The shock was great the first time, but there can't be a first time again. The second time would annoy a lot of people who weren't inside the direct effect radius. It's something like an artist trying Surrealism now in his product to shock people. Won't work.

[AFreeBird]

"What are you prepared to do?"

[Peter J. Huss]

Your right. We can't nuke. The Japanese surrendered because they wanted the bombings to stop. They valued their homeland. The terrorists don't give a rats.

So, basically, we will be stuck with the fact that these kinds of attacks will be a way of life.

The end game will be a re-distribution of societies industry and population across the country side. Who will want to live in urban areas after the first bomb goes off? The more desireable rural locations will go up in value and our cities rot.

[RightWhale]

As a practical matter, that appears to be the case.

It is a war, though, but a new kind of war. This one won't be won until the children of the terrorists view their parents as tilting at windmills. Or something like that. A generation could see the end of it, but the active phase could go on like the IRA, on and on at a low level until the children just don't see the point anymore.

[Sacajaweau]

What does 90% mean. Using 9-11 as a guide, when was 90% of the plan completed?

[Peter J. Huss]

I believe '90%' is merely a figure of speech, in this case.

It could really mean anything, at this point.

[Romad Wife]

Hear Hear, we need to come out like wolves going in for the kill and waste them. Line up the B-1s wingtip to wingtip and end this job we begun!

[Quix]

I think that's a great idea.

At least fitting in a list of ways.

[mil-vet]

Roger that! With all due apologies to the American Indian, I fear that a "game" of "cowboys and muslims" will begin and it'll be all over; American muslims, none of whom have demonstrated against terrorism, all of whom have been silent on (and therefore supportive of) the issue, will get their just reward.

To paraphrse, "If you're not against terrorism, you're for it!" If one is silent on an issue such as this, one is (by definition) acquiescing, and acquiescence is tacit, de facto support. Supporters of terrorism must be eradicated for terrorism to be eradicated.

Seems like the truth of the situation is too simple to escape the terrible reality of what will, inevitably, have to be done to preserve life outside islam! An additional fact is that islam is begging for this very action - they say they are fighting for their very survival, that they are under attack. How stupid is THIS! If they are being killed, it is because they are performing stupid muslim death tricks as directed by their koran which tells them to kill infidels (anyone with whom they disagree, including each other).

Since, according to their koran, I'm a so-called infidel, I sadly find myself in the position of having to be a cowboy in this upcoming "game".....

[eno_]

The U.S. could, if it wanted to, destroy every major Moslem city on Earth in under 45 minutes, and have more than enough nukes left over for a credible deterrent against anyone (for that matter, everyone) else. Enough pre-SALT warheads are in storage to restock quickly.

That said, such an attack would be pointless. The thing we must do, and are failing to do in Iraq, is to enshrine religious freedom in Islamic nations' constitutions. Until Moslems are free to leave their religion, and the West makes a forthright case why Islam is a retrograde cult, Islam is more of an "Iron Curtain" than was the Soviet empire.