The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 22, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Counter-Terrorism Operations Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: nukes
tank    3/29/2004 12:47:55 AM
I was wacthing pbs,and they were saying the bush administration is talking about using strategic nukes on terrorists. any thoughts,personally i think its a good idea if they use them right.It would definatly scare the s*** out of them,they may think twice about attacking again..
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

northernguy    RE:nukes..tank ..   3/31/2004 6:13:42 PM
tank writes that PBS is broadcasting that the Bush administration is actively considering using nukes against terrorists. I presume he means discussion of using nukes in areas like the mountain caves in Afghanistan. True it would be cheaper than sending troops in to flush them out. In fact, you could use nukes everywhere things were inconvenient. I have no doubt that someone talked about it. I'm equally sure responsible individuals in the administration said "Are you nuts?". PBS will broadcast any doom/gloom scare story that reflects poorly on the administration. Northernguy
 
Quote    Reply

tank    RE:nukes..tank ..   3/31/2004 6:18:51 PM
I know,i was just throwing it out to see what type of reaction i would get on this site.According to pbs they are still considering it though.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:nukes   3/31/2004 6:30:07 PM
IIRC there was an article soon after the advent of 911 that said that immediately after twin towers the US would have launched a nuke at the known location of any country that was confirmed as harbouring OBL
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:nukes..gf0012-aust    3/31/2004 9:38:49 PM
That's what you have people like Condoleeza-Rice for. Someone to say "Wait a minute! Its cold shower time everybody. Let's analyze this.". Then while everbody stops and thinks about showers and Condoleeza-Rice the moment passes and then everybody starts thinking a little more clearly about practical responses. Northernguy
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious    The Irony of the Liberal Media   4/2/2004 11:40:32 AM
The National Public Radio has a program called "All Things Considered". Yet, when someone actually Considers All Things, the liberal media feigns indignation. Amazing..
 
Quote    Reply

Elbandeedo    RE:nukes   4/14/2004 7:09:23 AM
My stance is, has been since 9/11 that nukes are a good idea. nuke 'em all. kill everything that moves in a country that is a base for terror and make the announcement far and wide: "You may not like us, you may think we are "bad" for doing this: That's your right to feel that way. However, no one, from this day forward has a right to kill another innocent in an act of terror. Consider carefully that YOUR stinking armpit of a country might be next to be nuked, when you are thinking about murdering innocents to advance your cause." I've definately gotten "grumpy" in my "old age". :-/ E.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:nukes - Elbandeedo    4/14/2004 7:16:11 AM
I should have thought there were a tad of difference in degree between being grumpy and starting to nuke left right and center??? No - what should be done is to think very carefully, that's a tactical advantage we have over terrorists - use it.
 
Quote    Reply

tank    RE:nukes   4/22/2004 11:58:21 PM
Thomas, what would your reply be when a city is nuked by terrorists.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       10/12/2006 9:30:09 PM

 Actually someone up there might have thought it an advantage for such a rumor to get out-"it is more important to be feared then to be loved".

But yes it is just a rumor. No one would use a nuke in such a petty backwater.

 
Quote    Reply

sofa    city   10/13/2006 1:52:25 AM
Sadly, it seems that losing a city to nukes is a near certainty.
 
When it happens, I only hope that we 'think outside the box', and not get dragged into a tit-for-tat. No tomahawks to look like we're doing something. This would be the time to go for the 'schwerpunkt'. Maybe something that was too strong to consider otherwise. Doesn't need to be nuclear, just has to be overwhelming success.
 
And one nuke means the likelihood of more, if something strong is not done to discourage it.
 
Half measures can be misunderstood as weakness. Which is why we would get nuked in the first place.
In the end, survival and mob-style respect is more important than being liked. Play nice and barbarism will continue to victimize you. Learned that growing up in a tough neighborhood.
 
Really think about losing a city. The horror. Losing a city must cause the enemy to lose so much more. Strike at the heart of every material and cultural thing they possess and demonstrate the unwavering will necessary to destroy their cultural roots and crush their will to continue. 
 
(a) 4 planes and no identifiable state actor:
Afganistan and Iraq invaded. Libya opened up.
Iran is next. Syria and Lebanon are poor step children living off the Iranian mullocracy, and fall as dominos.
Wahabis not yet reined in.
Working to re-shape region and wait 50-100 years for moderation and tolerance.
 
(b) 1 nuke and no identifiable state actor = escalation to one step short of inihilation
Identify the real enemy: islam. Put boots on ground in Mecca, Medina, Tehran, Qom, Kabul, Karachi, etc. Utterly destroy all holy sites of islam, worldwide, shia, sunni, wahabbi, and other off-shoots. Build Cathedrals and Temples. MAKE THEM TOLERATE IT. No waiting 50-100 years for the culture to moderate. Done wrong, this hardens them to strike another city. Done right, it destroys their cultural roots and crushes their will to continue. Think erasure of Nazi infrastructure, personnel, and the entire culture and philosophy in post-ww2 germany. Brutally refuse to accept their intolerance.
 
(c) 2nd nuke: Time to change the equation. Anihilation. Get them before they get us. Nuke all holy sites of islam and 20-40 major population centers. 100 million down. Not a victory, but survival. And a clear warning to others.
 
Brutal response is shocking, but more merciful than restraint, when that restraint leads to the loss of a second city. So be firm and brutal...to try and avoid the inevitable 'Dr Strangelove' anihilation response if a 2nd city was nuked.
 
I guess it's extreme, but I've studied the koran and hadiths, the history of islam, and of the region; over 20 yeras I've visited many different islamic countries and talked to scholars and the average man on the street; and I find that islam is extreme. Extremely extreme. It offers me a choice between assimilation into the barbaric hordes, or death and destruction. Sadly, I think it is innevitable that islam will set off a nuke in a us city. It's time to stop the madness and reclaim the future.
 
Other options after losing a city:
(1) Keep 'waiting' for islam to moderate. Diplomacy, UN, containment, will just get you more nukes.
(2) Finde a scapegoat and take some nominal action. Assassination, or invde soe minor country. Does nothing to discourage original party from more nukes.
(3) Pay bad guys to leave you alone. Buys you 10 years, and then 'bend-over'.
(4) Bend over now. Buy prayer rugs. Locate mecca. Accept dhimmitude and slavery.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy