|
|
 |
|
#21
12-11-2006, 10:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. 
|
|
#22
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.
|
|
#23
12-11-2006, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#24
12-11-2006, 11:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#25
12-11-2006, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That's why I don't think it will happen that way.
|
|
#26
12-11-2006, 12:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
#27
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 ..
|
|
#28
12-18-2006, 12:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#29
12-18-2006, 02:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
I'm greener than Al Gore so therefore I'm green enough!
|
|
#30
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..
|
|
#31
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.
|
Linear Mode
