Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Appropriate Retaliation (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7666)

timmgirvan 12-10-2006 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sham
At some future date, suppose five powerful nukes were set off near simultaneously in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. 250,000 Americans are killed instantly. Another million or more are doomed from blast injuries and radiation. Intelligence indicates that the bombs were supplied to Al Qaeda from Country X. What do you believe would be an appropriate US response to Country X?
Seriously....BLOW IT OFF THE MAP......that clear enough for you?

repent 12-10-2006 11:50 PM
can we please delete this thread.
who the hell thinks of these kinds of questions?

its like asking what you would do if someone killed a family member.
why even talk about it?


Repent

Seattleallstar 12-11-2006 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sham
At some future date, suppose five powerful nukes were set off near simultaneously in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. 250,000 Americans are killed instantly. Another million or more are doomed from blast injuries and radiation. Intelligence indicates that the bombs were supplied to Al Qaeda from Country X. What do you believe would be an appropriate US response to Country X?

country x should be subject to a thorough investigation about their involement with the terrorist group, if there is some sort of collaboration between the two is found. I believe some sort of sanction or imposed economic policy put on the country, then the US should be able to stage millitary action in the country to ferret out the terrorist cells. Futhermore, if more evidence is found that country x and the terrorist wholeheartedly share the same views about the US, may God have mercy on their souls.

brianwspencer 12-11-2006 11:16 AM
I don't see why people are hesitant to talk about this. It may be a stupid hypothetical, but certainly possible given the state of our world.

If we could prove, unequivocally, that a country knowingly supplied nukes to a terrorist group that then nuked several major cities in our country then the course of action would be easy. I'm not talking "Iraq-style intelligence" proving....i mean REALLY, without a single doubt in anyone's mind proving it...

we would then proceed to wipe them off the map. that would take care of that one. And I'm not talking Iraq-style wipe them off the map, I'm talking about literally just bombing them back to the stone age. That would certainly fix that problem.

Downthestretch55 12-11-2006 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
I don't see why people are hesitant to talk about this. It may be a stupid hypothetical, but certainly possible given the state of our world.

If we could prove, unequivocally, that a country knowingly supplied nukes to a terrorist group that then nuked several major cities in our country then the course of action would be easy. I'm not talking "Iraq-style intelligence" proving....i mean REALLY, without a single doubt in anyone's mind proving it...

we would then proceed to wipe them off the map. that would take care of that one. And I'm not talking Iraq-style wipe them off the map, I'm talking about literally just bombing them back to the stone age. That would certainly fix that problem.
Brian,
Though I don't disagree with you on this, I'll just say that this "game" has been played before.
It was called the "cold war". It had many twists and turns. Drilling school kids to duck and cover under their little desks (I did that!), Cuban missiles,
proxy wars...I could go on and on.
Detante made sane people on both sides of the meaning of MAD..mutually agreed (assured) destruction. Unfortunately, the capacity to eliminate all life on the planet by thirty times (despite ABM treaties), warnings of "nuclear winter",
hasn't dissuaded other nations from wanting to jump on the "nuke train".
It's beyond MAD...it's insane!
btw...personally, i don't think "human kind" will wimper away in this manner.
It will happen because a genetically engineered virus "escapes" accidentally from a lab thats trying to "refine" bio weapons. Saves time on rebuilding infrastructure. Problem is vaccine needs to be created before it gets loose.
Then the population needs to be immunized. This will tip the hand, but maybe keep the fingers off the "button".
Let's hope so.

brianwspencer 12-11-2006 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
Brian,
Though I don't disagree with you on this, I'll just say that this "game" has been played before.
It was called the "cold war". It had many twists and turns. Drilling school kids to duck and cover under their little desks (I did that!), Cuban missiles,
proxy wars...I could go on and on.
Detante made sane people on both sides of the meaning of MAD..mutually agreed destruction. Unfortunately, the capacity to eliminate all life on the planet by thirty times (despite ABM treaties), warnings of "nuclear winter",
hasn't dissuaded other nations from wanting to jump on the "nuke train".
It's beyond MAD...it's insane!
btw...personally, i don't think "human kind" will wimper away in this manner.
It will happen because a genetically engineered virus "escapes" accidentally from a lab thats trying to "refine" bio weapons. Saves time on rebuilding infrastructure. Problem is vaccine needs to be created before it gets loose.
Then the population needs to be immunized. This will tip the hand, but maybe keep the fingers off the "button".
Let's hope so.
I was actually going to talk about MAD -- because if we could prove that a country willfully put weapons like that in the hands of terrorists knowing that they would just be used against us...no country in the world is stupid enough to think that they would still exist very long afterwards

Downthestretch55 12-11-2006 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
I was actually going to talk about MAD -- because if we could prove that a country willfully put weapons like that in the hands of terrorists knowing that they would just be used against us...no country in the world is stupid enough to think that they would still exist very long afterwards
Correct on that. It's the "fear factor".
That's why I don't think it will happen that way.

ArlJim78 12-11-2006 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sham
The point of the question is to raise a fundamental issue about morality. Is there ever a line that can be crossed by the terrorist that would make it acceptable to kill innocents in order to stop the bad guys. The scenario I postulated is one that may have to be faced someday. Is it justifiable to kill 100 to save 1000, or kill 100,000 to save 10 million? Maybe it's justifiable to kill 1000 to save 100. I really don't know. Perhaps it boils down to a simple matter of self defense...better them than us.

Then there is the matter as to the identity of country X. If it was Russia or China, a significant retaliatory strike would be something else indeed than if country X was Iran or Pakistan.
Of course we could also take the view that in spite of country X's culpability in the matter, it was still the terrorist that actually instigated the attack, and only they should feel the wrath of retaliation.

I'm sorry that some of you found this question too silly to debate, but I assure you, the scenario I offered is under consideration as a future threat by various "think-tank" firms as to both emergency response and appropriate retaliation matters. I admit to exaggerating the "best guess" expected devastation by an order of magnitude to emphasize the point.
Good of you to include this part as it is nearly verbatim what i told you on another forum.

There are many doomsday scenarios that people on a horseracing board might not be so inclined to debate. That doesn't mean they think its silly, just irrelevant. Just because people in military think-tanks are debating something doesn't mean we have to find it interesting. They're paid to "think" about these things. Most likely there isn't one easy nice acceptable answer.
If it comes down to survival, or our own self defense, it becomes war and no war happens without causualites to the innocent. You can try to minimize it but it will happen.

I still can't figure out what is driving you to seek an answer to this question.

Do you work for a Think-Tank perhaps?

hoovesupsideyourhead 12-18-2006 12:19 PM
sham,...

a. this will never happen
b. trust me if it did happen everyone is getting nuked by us and it will be sorted out later..
c. these think tanks should work on how to defend a bio threat, much more likely...
d a day with diixie at the nfc playoff ,,when the cowboys lose would be perfect for any offender ..

Seattleallstar 12-18-2006 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sham
At some future date, suppose five powerful nukes were set off near simultaneously in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia. 250,000 Americans are killed instantly. Another million or more are doomed from blast injuries and radiation. Intelligence indicates that the bombs were supplied to Al Qaeda from Country X. What do you believe would be an appropriate US response to Country X?

what would result would be a full out bombing and use of all available weapons of mass destruction (including the super laser gun found in Roswell), by US forces with a little help from the UK. Country X and surronding nations would be wiped out

sham 12-18-2006 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead
sham,...

a. this will never happen
b. trust me if it did happen everyone is getting nuked by us and it will be sorted out later..
c. these think tanks should work on how to defend a bio threat, much more likely...
d a day with diixie at the nfc playoff ,,when the cowboys lose would be perfect for any offender ..
Yes it could happen. Here is a link to a Rand Corp study describing one scenario.

http://benmuse.typepad.com/ben_muse/...e_they_se.html

The bio threat is under consideration and study. One of the dirtiest would be a terrorist group intentionally becoming infected with small pox and then walking around crowded airports to spread the disease over multiple cities.

hoovesupsideyourhead 12-18-2006 03:27 PM
the rand corp does fine work and im sure they are on top of it..the smuggling of weapons does not seem to be the most liklely senario..as i have some back ground in n.b w.. that would be the most potental for human loss ,but again the athoritys are well versed in what to do and are pro actionary when it comes to this stuff..

Downthestretch55 12-18-2006 03:44 PM
Sham,
Initially I blew this thread off as it seemed too horrible to contemplate.
Then I went back and reread it. When you said this, you nailed it.

"Is there ever a line that can be crossed by the terrorist that would make it acceptable to kill innocents in order to stop the bad guys."

Your question is quite profound.
I'll just say that it's a matter of "perception". Which side of the fence are you standing on?
From the US position, appropriate actions have been evidenced.
From the Iraqi position, they might see exactly the same and also justify their response.
It's far too easy to see others as "bad guys".
Suffer the innocents.

btw...I agree with you that it will be biological...but not as you have conjectured.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 PM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.