Geeforcer said:
But the current environment, the focus on attacking the US as the sole remaining superpower, obvious didn't exist during the Cold War. Russia and other Arab nations were the more important targets.
AQ has briefcase nukes. WTF?
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
But the current environment, the focus on attacking the US as the sole remaining superpower, obvious didn't exist during the Cold War. Russia and other Arab nations were the more important targets.
The Soviet Union dealt harshy with terrorism.
In Palestine, a suicide bomber not only achieves heroism and notoriety, like a school-shooter in the US, but like a Japanese executive who commits suicide for life insurance, the family of suicide bombers get taken care of by a sort of absurd social security system where bombing people gets your into the Hamas safety net. Israels response is to harass the camps.
What was the USSRs response to terrorism in the 70s when Russians were being kidnaped, executed, and ransomed in a string of attacks? The KGB kidnapped the extended families of terrorists, chopped them to pieces, and sent body parts to the terrorist group. It stopped.
As cold hearted as it may seem, the US needs to have a mutually assured destruction policy with middle east leaders, even if we never act on it. If a nuclear missle was launched from say, Saudi Arabia, *even accidently by a single madman* and the US retaliated on a similar level, many people would find the logic justified in the cold war, even though millions of innocents in Saudi Arabia with no voice would be hurt. Understandably, no one would risk launching nukes at the US. So people took very good care of their weapons to make sure no accidents happened. MAD paradoxically kept the world safe in the face of weapons that could destroy it.
But if a "suitcase nuke" were "launched" at the US, not by missile, but by citizen of one of these countries, it is treated differently, and I think that's wrong. It is now understood that the US will excercise "restraint", "back down" and just absorb such a hit because somehow a mercenary army operating a base inside the borders of the state lets you get around the "state vs state MAD" policy. E.g. if a NGO operating inside your terroritory kills millions inside some other terroritory, your government isn't responsible because it isn't "official"
Instead, the US should secretly tell Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others that they have two choices: either a) institute reforms to make their people happy and stop terrorism or b) crack down hard to stop. OR, if a major terrorist attack emanates from their border, provably, the result will be retaliation in kind.
If a Saudi citizen nukes New York, Riyadh gets nuked, or the tribal homelands where the families of the terrorists live. If the US just absorbs a nuke hit and treats it as a criminal investigation, it will be even worse.
I've read that many people blame Reagan for suicide bombing in the first place. It goes back to Beirut when 200+ marines were killed by one of the first suicide bombings. The US pulled out immediately. What was the lesson for terrorists around the world? Suicide bombing works. Notable increase of suicide terrorist after American and French peacekeepers got blown up and ran with their tail between their legs.
If someone hits the US with a nuke, I would hope that whoever is president will have the guts to make this the worst nightmare for the country that perpetrated it, which will almost certainly be traced to money from the middleast, even if the mule that carries out the attack is from a Western nation. (e.g. Beirut was perpetrated by Iran and they were never made to pay like Libya was)
In Palestine, a suicide bomber not only achieves heroism and notoriety, like a school-shooter in the US, but like a Japanese executive who commits suicide for life insurance, the family of suicide bombers get taken care of by a sort of absurd social security system where bombing people gets your into the Hamas safety net. Israels response is to harass the camps.
What was the USSRs response to terrorism in the 70s when Russians were being kidnaped, executed, and ransomed in a string of attacks? The KGB kidnapped the extended families of terrorists, chopped them to pieces, and sent body parts to the terrorist group. It stopped.
As cold hearted as it may seem, the US needs to have a mutually assured destruction policy with middle east leaders, even if we never act on it. If a nuclear missle was launched from say, Saudi Arabia, *even accidently by a single madman* and the US retaliated on a similar level, many people would find the logic justified in the cold war, even though millions of innocents in Saudi Arabia with no voice would be hurt. Understandably, no one would risk launching nukes at the US. So people took very good care of their weapons to make sure no accidents happened. MAD paradoxically kept the world safe in the face of weapons that could destroy it.
But if a "suitcase nuke" were "launched" at the US, not by missile, but by citizen of one of these countries, it is treated differently, and I think that's wrong. It is now understood that the US will excercise "restraint", "back down" and just absorb such a hit because somehow a mercenary army operating a base inside the borders of the state lets you get around the "state vs state MAD" policy. E.g. if a NGO operating inside your terroritory kills millions inside some other terroritory, your government isn't responsible because it isn't "official"
Instead, the US should secretly tell Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others that they have two choices: either a) institute reforms to make their people happy and stop terrorism or b) crack down hard to stop. OR, if a major terrorist attack emanates from their border, provably, the result will be retaliation in kind.
If a Saudi citizen nukes New York, Riyadh gets nuked, or the tribal homelands where the families of the terrorists live. If the US just absorbs a nuke hit and treats it as a criminal investigation, it will be even worse.
I've read that many people blame Reagan for suicide bombing in the first place. It goes back to Beirut when 200+ marines were killed by one of the first suicide bombings. The US pulled out immediately. What was the lesson for terrorists around the world? Suicide bombing works. Notable increase of suicide terrorist after American and French peacekeepers got blown up and ran with their tail between their legs.
If someone hits the US with a nuke, I would hope that whoever is president will have the guts to make this the worst nightmare for the country that perpetrated it, which will almost certainly be traced to money from the middleast, even if the mule that carries out the attack is from a Western nation. (e.g. Beirut was perpetrated by Iran and they were never made to pay like Libya was)
The problem I think with your argument is that the US isn't fighting a country or a family so much as an anti US ideology powered by old vs new culture, Islam vs Christianity, and Superpower vs poor-little guy.
It can't even be categorized ideologically.
This is why hitting them back harder won't do anything but disperse and inflame the problem. Look at Israel today, the hitting them back harder theory doesn't seem to be working very well there.
The problem is terrorists aren't sane. They actually believe they are going to make the world a better place this way and possibly get divine approval. Its difficult to fight insanity with a gun or bomb.
Caps
It can't even be categorized ideologically.
This is why hitting them back harder won't do anything but disperse and inflame the problem. Look at Israel today, the hitting them back harder theory doesn't seem to be working very well there.
The problem is terrorists aren't sane. They actually believe they are going to make the world a better place this way and possibly get divine approval. Its difficult to fight insanity with a gun or bomb.
Caps
CapsLock said:
DC wasn't arguing that hitting back would be a deterrent to terrorists themselves but to Arab leaders inclined to support them so they themselves aren't targetted for being too soft toward the West. And such Arab leaders aren't insane fundamentalists. Clarke on 60 Minutes argued tonight that there was no Iraqi terrorism since the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. during his Kuwait visit because we quietly told them we'd take their entire government out if they ever pulled shit like that again. A similar message needs to be sent to the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, etc. We get nuked and we trace those responsible back to your country in any way, kiss your capitol goodbye.
He was still arguing that the gov't that was somehow complicit should be using gestapo style suppression (since making them happy is not really an option, unfortuneately). That didn't work in Iran. And unless you want every other gov't to deprive thier people of rights completely, like say N korea, you will only inflame the problem as if the US was doing the oppressing itself. Russia doesn't seem to be winning in Chechnya (sp?) either.
Nor is the big stick working with N korea or Syria, nor possibly in Iraq, which is a long way from being all set and home free.
Caps
Nor is the big stick working with N korea or Syria, nor possibly in Iraq, which is a long way from being all set and home free.
Caps
Mendel said:
Obviously not, unless someone wants to posit that EU governments are actively aiding AQ or other terrorist organizations. It's not the nationality of the terrorist, it's the policies of nations, active or passive, toward terrorist organizations that suggests culpability on their parts.
Mendel said:
Exactly what I was trying to point out. Its an absurd strategy to blame foriegn government(S!) and all its innocent people for the insanity of a very few of its people. Thats a quick way to get popular fast.
How about Pakistan which is trying to cooperate? Punish them for not doing enough?
Caps
CapsLock said:
No one's talking about blaming a government for the actions of its citizens. We're talking about a situation where, say, we trace the purchase of a nuke by AQ that's subsequently used against the US. We then trace, say, the Saudis funneling money into AQ-owned bank accounts around the time of the purchase of the nuke (not that AQ needs money, but this is just off the top of my head). In such a scenario, what do we do? Tell the world that we'll fumble around like an impotent behemoth, issue stern warnings, drop a few conventional bombs? What signal or message does that send to the world?
John Reynolds said:
Um, thats exactly what democoder was suggesting>
So, I guess turn around would be fair play. The US doesn't do enough to stop a scientist from releasing a bio weapon, developed for the US gov't, in India or China, and so using a mutually assured destruction policy as suggested by Demo, and they should nuke a few US cities? You used the phrase "the Saudis funneling money", what you mean like all of them? Or the gov't? Or is it likely just a few rich families? What if they are living elsewhere? Again the prob is that this can't be narrowed down to any particular normal enemy.
What to do? Got me. The US IS an impotent behemoth with this situation. Force will only, is only, going to make it worse as even the CIA has recently reported. (On the threat of "second generation" terrorists) Its also a sitting duck as so many people have been able to come up with horriffic terrorist possibilities that the terrorists fortuneately haven't been smart enough to themselves. (Frankly I think the media should shut up in this area.) This thread case in point.
Its a very grave situation. I don't know how to beat the problem but good intelligence work will help stem it. As it has already.
Caps
If a US nuke is stolen by a terrorist group and launched at Russia, they would be justified in retaliation. If the US is so careless with it's weapons stockpiles, than it's our problem and responsibility. You cannot shirk off responsibility for an attack because you were incompetent, asleep at the wheel, or uninterested in something that happened on your property, under your watch, in your backyard.
And in case you missed it CapsLock, I gave Middle East leaders a CHOICE.
I said either 1) reform their governments so that their people's demands are met or 2) become like North Korea.
It's their choice, the end result is the same: Don't finance terrorism, don't allow people in your borders to finance it, and get a grip on your religious fanatics.
The Saudi's have been paying BLACKMAIL to terrorists for years to prevent a popular uprising. This money was used to fund wahhabist schools all over the middle east, and to directly fund terrorist operations. Terrorist groups operate on money, just like everyone else.
The Saudi's had untold wealth and a per-capita (until recently) GDP close to Western nations. Instead of building a just society for their people, they instead choose to squander it on theme parks for Princes, and to pay off religious leaders who practically control the of the country. The result of the Saudi policy was to take what would have been Domestic Terrorism against their regime, and focus on Western countries. I'm just saying that if they want to remain and power and not get Nuked or Invaded, they have two options: find another way to stay in power besides paying Mullahs, or crack down hard on their population.
The third option: export more human bombers to Western nations is not an option. We live in a world now where the weapons are getting more powerful, and we cannot tolerate a biooutbreak or chemical attack on a major western city. If it happens, retaliation and regime change must be massive.
Like I said, you may find that some future attacks will have human mules from even Western nations, but it is not the nationality of the cannon fodder that is the real issue, it is the breeding ground where the idealogy comes from and the MONEY TRAIL. The Saudi's need to wakeup like the Pakistanis did. Profliferation won't be tolerated and neither will international terrorism. You can lie down like a Dove if you want, but it ain't gonna stop AQ. AQ's still targeting France, even though they were opposed to the US. Even before 9/11, Bin Laden was badmouthing spain for Andulusia.
You've got to get it through your head that we are not dealing with separatists or socialists here, we're dealing with religious nuts. Religious nuts who are still smarting from the Arab world's downfall in the middle ages (back when they were the aggressors) You really think AQ has demands that Western nations can agree to? Like Aum Shinryko?
And in case you missed it CapsLock, I gave Middle East leaders a CHOICE.
I said either 1) reform their governments so that their people's demands are met or 2) become like North Korea.
It's their choice, the end result is the same: Don't finance terrorism, don't allow people in your borders to finance it, and get a grip on your religious fanatics.
The Saudi's have been paying BLACKMAIL to terrorists for years to prevent a popular uprising. This money was used to fund wahhabist schools all over the middle east, and to directly fund terrorist operations. Terrorist groups operate on money, just like everyone else.
The Saudi's had untold wealth and a per-capita (until recently) GDP close to Western nations. Instead of building a just society for their people, they instead choose to squander it on theme parks for Princes, and to pay off religious leaders who practically control the of the country. The result of the Saudi policy was to take what would have been Domestic Terrorism against their regime, and focus on Western countries. I'm just saying that if they want to remain and power and not get Nuked or Invaded, they have two options: find another way to stay in power besides paying Mullahs, or crack down hard on their population.
The third option: export more human bombers to Western nations is not an option. We live in a world now where the weapons are getting more powerful, and we cannot tolerate a biooutbreak or chemical attack on a major western city. If it happens, retaliation and regime change must be massive.
Like I said, you may find that some future attacks will have human mules from even Western nations, but it is not the nationality of the cannon fodder that is the real issue, it is the breeding ground where the idealogy comes from and the MONEY TRAIL. The Saudi's need to wakeup like the Pakistanis did. Profliferation won't be tolerated and neither will international terrorism. You can lie down like a Dove if you want, but it ain't gonna stop AQ. AQ's still targeting France, even though they were opposed to the US. Even before 9/11, Bin Laden was badmouthing spain for Andulusia.
You've got to get it through your head that we are not dealing with separatists or socialists here, we're dealing with religious nuts. Religious nuts who are still smarting from the Arab world's downfall in the middle ages (back when they were the aggressors) You really think AQ has demands that Western nations can agree to? Like Aum Shinryko?
I think it's more like Islam vs everyone else. Remember that they target both secular and nonsecular targets.CapsLock said:
later,
epic
If a nuke ever goes off in a coalition country, I would be for going in militarily to every single country that has ties/funded/hosted such people. One prays that never happens of course.
If that includes, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc etc. They would all have to be dealt with in kind, pretty much like we are dealing with Iraq now.
A nuke isn't like suicide bombing, or even hijacking a 747 into the world trade tower. Thats a whole different ballgame, and pretty much means full all out war.
I would expect such actions from pretty much any civilized country, the first priority is the safety of their own people.
If that includes, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc etc. They would all have to be dealt with in kind, pretty much like we are dealing with Iraq now.
A nuke isn't like suicide bombing, or even hijacking a 747 into the world trade tower. Thats a whole different ballgame, and pretty much means full all out war.
I would expect such actions from pretty much any civilized country, the first priority is the safety of their own people.
I just skimmed through this thread, but I don't really think that bombing the shit out of countries where terrorists currently hide out is a good solution. I mean sure, it could be legitimate to take action against goverments which obviously fund terrorists (although what's obvious might of course not be so obvious, which most of us hopefully have learned after the Iraq intelligence debacle). But I think it would end up to be a really biased system heh. Like if swede got his hands on a nuke and detonated it against an american city, I don't think anyone would be allowed to start firing nukes towards Sweden because we obviously hadn't done enough to hinder terrorism, but if it was done by an Iranian I don't think there even would be a debate if Iran was doing enough or not, it would be a fact that they let it happen.
erm , so the solution is to bomb the places the terrorists come from ?
great idea ! so when is the us gunna blow up washington dc then , or have we all forgotten the people who died in oklahoma ?
oh and while your at it , since the ira was funded by the usa for years could you let off a few bombs in downtown NY for me , okay so manchester needed a bit of rebuilding , but 3000lb bombs arent the nicest way to go about it...
just pointing out the hypocrisy
-dave-
great idea ! so when is the us gunna blow up washington dc then , or have we all forgotten the people who died in oklahoma ?
oh and while your at it , since the ira was funded by the usa for years could you let off a few bombs in downtown NY for me , okay so manchester needed a bit of rebuilding , but 3000lb bombs arent the nicest way to go about it...
just pointing out the hypocrisy
-dave-
Geeforcer said:
but it wasn't an intelligence failure (Iraq) it is policy making failure (and than blaming it on intelligence, which is what is happening now).
Mendel said:
and one Texan ,nuke Dallas (and Washington too in case he relocated) I say in that case. Just to be on the safe side.
You work for the cia?? maybe the state department, come on tell us where you work to know this as a fact.Druga Runda said:
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
Well I don't but there are many people who did and are saying the same thing on both sides of Atlantic, as well as many of those who are normally our allies.
IMHO some people only when actually Bush, Cheeney and Rumsfeld get into a quarell and start moaning how the "other" one made them do it, (or maybe they will all say: "Wolfowitz made us do it") will make them acknowledge that this was a policy making mistake. Or maybe when Colin Powell gets sick of lying and says: "Ah well I had to do it, it's my job, and I was framed - even Brits framed me with that second dossier. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2729697.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2732123.stm
http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/downingst.html
this is Monty Phyton level of comedy - if it weren't true... and even better you still are not questioning the whole charade.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Graphics and Semiconductor Industry