Do you think it would be a good thing to nuke millions of innocent people in response to the horrible crime of nuking millions of innocent people?
One Nuke in 9/11
- Thread starter Prince Charon
- Start date
Do you think it would be a good thing to nuke millions of innocent people in response to the horrible crime of nuking millions of innocent people?
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Didn't you know? All members of certain groups spanning a couple hundred million members are the exact same.
I had to commute to Los Angeles for work every day a couple of years ago (70 miles one-way from my home). The money's in the big city but the housing costs are cheaper farther out (not only that, but I absolutely refuse to subject my son to the LA Unified School District--but that's a different story). From what I understand it's even more the case with New York City. People commute in from New Jersey, Connecticut, and upstate every day to take advantage of the high salaries in the city and the lower cost of living in the exurbs.
If any area in the US has a major economic collapse, it'll be the Tri-State area, at least until New England, Philadelphia, and points south gear up to replace the production and transportation assets lost with New York. Lots of ghost towns are created in New Jersey and Connecticut as people who counted on New York for a living relocate.
For the sake of clarity on my own behalf, absolutely not. I do think a nuclear reprisal is possible, and that this might (stressing worst case on this) happen if George W. really loses it.
Given hindsight on Cheney's ideas of going on a major rampage OTL (attacking Iran as well), I'm not convinced of Bush's and Cheney's sanity, and I'd just assume they not face the temptation of the Red Button. Not that they would, but they might, and if they do history will never forget it.
OTL would be the best case response, and I think more likely is a very heavy-handed conflict across most of the middle east with the aim of destroying Arab Islam as a political force, with the terrible costs and collateral this will mean. Such a conflict would either fail or be an act of ethnic cleansing.
Wyragen-TXRG4P
Banned
... this is utterly crazy. Especially the notion that a nuclear attack on New York would lead to an "end of the world".
The self-importance of it all is truly amazing.
The United States will NOT nuke Mecca unless it wants to deal with mass-panic and a loss of empathy from other nations. Mecca is one of the holiest cities on earth.
If I remember correctly, the destruction of Mecca is suppose to begin the End of the World in the Islamic faith. Prepare yourselves for more attacks on American soil.
If I remember correctly, the destruction of Mecca is suppose to begin the End of the World in the Islamic faith. Prepare yourselves for more attacks on American soil.
THis is, of course, true. I am not quite as sanguine aout the track record of Werstern governments being manipulated by terrorists, though. The history of most terrorist organisations includes at least one incident in which their enemies helped them enormously by doing exactly what they wanted.
Remember, the only entity on earth that can turn Ak Qaeda into a real political power is Washington DC, and they've certainly made an effort.
Neroon
Banned
Mecca or Media are not going to be nuked. But some Muslim city would be. Why? Because during the Cold War Moscow, Leningrad, Minsk, Kiev and dozens of other Soviet cities were also full of hundreds of millions of innocents. Nonetheless those would have been nuked if the Soviet Union had ever launched a nuclear first strike against NATO. Asking that the US not retaliate with a nuclear strike on it's own would be throwing out MAD. You cannot make the murder comparison about this.
RedRalphWiggum
Banned
Man I don't mean to be smartarsed, but you seem to have no idea what MAD actually means.
Problem: you would be retaliating against a target that is unrelated to the people responsible for attacking you. The point to MAD is deterrence: hitting us is going to be so costly you can't consider it. That requires an enemy who will be *hurt* by a nuclear strike. Al Qaeda would be *helped* by a nuclear strike. As a matter of fact, if the USA ever publicly stated their policy would be to nuke any Islamic city in response to nuclear terrorism, the likelihood of such an attack would go up quite drastically.
I remember how they wished to create Lake Afghanistan
MAD doesn't hit the nail...but I was thinking along similar lines. Your nuclear arsenal loses a lot of its value if you are proven unwilling to retaliate.
A nuclear 9/11 would have been a precedent. Bush & Cheney would have seriously pondered the need to retaliate with weapons of mass destruction. Seeing the carnage in New York on TV 24/7 for weeks, the western world might be forgiving.
With their minds set on Iraq - I assume Bagdad and Tikrit to be the targets. If the Taliban get singled out as a source of evil; then it might be Kabul.
MAD doesn't hit the nail...but I was thinking along similar lines. Your nuclear arsenal loses a lot of its value if you are proven unwilling to retaliate.
A nuclear 9/11 would have been a precedent. Bush & Cheney would have seriously pondered the need to retaliate with weapons of mass destruction. Seeing the carnage in New York on TV 24/7 for weeks, the western world might be forgiving.
With their minds set on Iraq - I assume Bagdad and Tikrit to be the targets. If the Taliban get singled out as a source of evil; then it might be Kabul.
Neroon
Banned
The enemy are the gouvernements who allow AQ to operate within it's borders. The enemy are the gouvernements who finance AQ through front organisations they fully know are just that. The enemy are the gouvernements who fund radical madrassas.
The enemy are the gouvernements who do that and a million of other large and small things designed to assist AQ while hiding behind AQ technically being stateless and are more afraid of AQ and it's sympathizers than of Western retaliation.
The argument about "innocent citizens" doesn't work. The citizens of the Soviet Union would have been innocent as well in the event of NATO responding to a nuclear strike.
Cultural impact
Rightly so. It is not as if there were no civilian dead in Afghanistan. Nuking is simply a diffent magnitude - on both sides.
But, aside from that, I was thinking about the cultural impact today. Somebody mentioned the dead CEOs - what about the dead celebrities living/working in NYC?
Broadway gone - where would the Musical industry relocate? Would it recover at all?
A lot of TV series would have to be altered/adjusted/cancelled: Friends, Law & Order (IIRC), King of Queens, NYPD blue, Sex and the City, Spin City...and these are just some of the series which were produced at the time. Sure anybody wouldn't mind seeing the one or the other gone - but what about the countless movies using NY as a backdrop; especially in the 2000s.
I imagine the Oscar gala of 2002 starting with a 30-minute-obituary. Before "Pearl Harbor" sweeps the statutettes....
Also, I assume that New York City is one of the intellectual hubs of "liberal America". Setting the direct political consequences of war-time aside; in the long run, the US would be more red than blue, mabye.
Rightly so. It is not as if there were no civilian dead in Afghanistan. Nuking is simply a diffent magnitude - on both sides.
But, aside from that, I was thinking about the cultural impact today. Somebody mentioned the dead CEOs - what about the dead celebrities living/working in NYC?
Broadway gone - where would the Musical industry relocate? Would it recover at all?
A lot of TV series would have to be altered/adjusted/cancelled: Friends, Law & Order (IIRC), King of Queens, NYPD blue, Sex and the City, Spin City...and these are just some of the series which were produced at the time. Sure anybody wouldn't mind seeing the one or the other gone - but what about the countless movies using NY as a backdrop; especially in the 2000s.
I imagine the Oscar gala of 2002 starting with a 30-minute-obituary. Before "Pearl Harbor" sweeps the statutettes....
Also, I assume that New York City is one of the intellectual hubs of "liberal America". Setting the direct political consequences of war-time aside; in the long run, the US would be more red than blue, mabye.
This scenario has come up here before, and every time, there's always someone who is certain that the US will toss nukes hither and yon across the Islamic world. IMO, what you would be more likely to see would be a blitz of US special forces on known AQ training camps. The US public may be screaming for revenge, but the US government first needs information. I'd imagine that the US military will have a 'sovereignty be damned' attitude when it comes to AQ, and they will go anywhere they can to grab as many AQ people as possible. I imagine the war in Afghanistan will go much as it did in OTL, although perhaps with more US troops involved. Once they have some AQ people in hand and more information to act on, then you'd start seeing more overt military action; bombing strikes on known camps, out and out sniping down of AQ leaders and abettors, etc. While the US wouldn't go so far as to 'lose its soul' and toss nukes around, I would think that there would be a disregard for national borders ("if you harbor AQ people, expect a visit from us") and a lack of concern for those innocent people unfortunate enough to be living near AQ camps...
I have to ask whether these assholes screaming to nuke Mecca would respond to Cuba, a Catholic nation, nuking Miami by calling for an immediate US nuclear strike on Rome.
And Santiago de Compostella, just to make things clear. For some obscure reason.
that's a real place? I always thought they just made that up in "Shrek 2"...
It would be a darkly amusing end to the massive pilgrimmage if one walked hundreds of miles to just find a sign saying "Japed!"