Rumsfeld: Terrorists Will Get Nukes

[exp]

I don't think a preemptive strike is a legitimate option at this point. However, Bush needs to make it explicitly clear that any attack on the US that utilizes WMDs (and nuclear=chemical=biological AFAWC) will be responded to 100-fold (IOW "We will go ape-sh!t"). Of course that has always been understood but given the caliber of individuals we are dealing with I think it bears repeating in no uncertain terms. It should be emphasized that the rules change entirely after anyone deploys WMDs...absolute proof that a country sponsors terrorism would no longer be required and candidate nations would be annihilated "just to be on the safe side". Of course let's hope it doesn't come to that, but the threat of a catastrophic retaliatory strike is probably the only effective defense (if any) that America has right now.

 

[308nato]

Pre-emptive strikes such as the israeli's against the "nuclear powerplant" in Iraq are good. We wouldn't really need to nuke anyone to be pre-emptive at this point. Conventional force to counter WMD development wherever it may be.

Remember, only 2 things will survive nuclear war....bugs and Keith Richards.

 

[BlueApple]

Originally posted by: 308nato
Pre-emptive strikes such as the israeli's against the "nuclear powerplant" in Iraq are good. We wouldn't really need to nuke anyone to be pre-emptive at this point. Conventional force to counter WMD development wherever it may be.

A bit confused... do you mean a 'conventional force' as in what we did in Iraq will 500,000 troops, or more like using special ops and local force to topple the current regime (a la Afghanistan)?

If the terrorists use any kind of nuke on American soil, you can bet some terrorist-supporting country will get a taste of it...

^ Damn right!!

 

[Pocatello]

Very scary. I think we probably will be attacked by suicide bombers just like the Israelis are right now. It's not hard to pack your car full of explosives and blow it up at a traffic stop in the rush hour.

 

[her209]

Say "Hello" to the Stone Age again...

 

[Pocatello]

I don't think the Arab extremists want to bring everybody back to the stone age, perhaps to the dark age , at which time the western world was weak and the islamic world was thriving.

 

[wQuay]

Interstellar migration can't come fast enough.

 

[Kilban]

On a lighter note, I LOVE to hear Rumsfeld say "Al Queda".

Its funny when he says "UBL" refering to bin Laden.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Didn't they already find some guys with a bunch of explosives in the back of a van in NYC? Was under a bridge? Was several months ago.

 

[HappyPuppy]

I believe that the terrorists want to pinch the tiger and run, I don't think they are ready to actually pull its tail. The last time someone took a firm grip and gave a big yank they quickly became aware of the power of the military/industrial complex, not to mention the wrath of even the most complacent Americans.

The terrorists would, no doubt, be willing to use any weapon at their disposal to attack the U.S., but the country(ies) they get the weapons from can't hide like they do. The leaders of the underwriting countries know that if they don't keep some sort of control over their WMD's, the terrorists will use them, but they will pay for it.

 

[shiner]

If a nuke or chemical weapon were to be used in an attack on American soil you can bet that everything east of Israel and west of China would be one big sheet of glowing glass within a matter of days.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Word, Bro.

 

[BlueApple]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
If a nuke or chemical weapon were to be used in an attack on American soil you can bet that everything east of Israel and west of China would be one big sheet of glowing glass within a matter of days.

Don't forget Libya, Sudan, and North Korea.!!






Wait wait wait, we can't bomb Saudi Arabia!!!! They are our 'friends'.

 

[CichliSuite]

"If a nuke or chemical weapon were to be used in an attack on American soil you can bet that everything east of Israel and west of China would be one big sheet of glowing glass within a matter of days. "

...So our dick is bigger than theirs, big deal. The retaliation, although completely justifiable and understandable, won't fix the problem in the end - have we gained ANYTHING from the assfvcking of Afghanistan? It just goes to show the inevitability of world war. It's coming, people.

 

[HappyPuppy]

have we gained ANYTHING from the assfvcking of Afghanistan? I

Huh? Would you please explain your comment?

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Well, there's a huge difference between the cold war and this situation. We are saying that terrorists WILL get nukes. If they do get nukes, they wont hesitate to detonate it in the US. The Soviets would not have, they weren't crazy. They had 'em because we did, and it equaled out things. So if the terrorists WILL eventually hit us, why should we wait like sitting ducks?

You obviously didn't live through the Cold War and are saying this only through hindsight. At the time we knew that the nukes were coming. Bert the Turtle told us so. It wasn't a question of "if", it was a question of "when you see the blast". People said the exact same thing you are saying now. To paraphrase:

"So if the commies WILL eventually hit us, why should we wait like sitting ducks?"

And we said more than that, more often. Heck, we wrote songs about it. Fortunately, cool heads prevailed and hopefully they will again. I understand that terrorists don't play by the same rules as nations, but as HappyPuppy said, the backers are going to be very careful giving out their WMD. And he's seen more sh!t than 10,000 of you peckers.

 

[Booster]

Terrorists are nuts. And I'm sure because of this they will never get nukes, at least won't be able to detonate them before they're caught. Of course, there is such a threat, but it's unlikely in the forseeable future, IMO. These guys have no brains, once they blow themselves up God knows why. Their activity will lead not only to their own death and extinction, but their countries will also be ruined. It's sad to see that terrorist countries get financial aid to restore their economies. This way they will never learn their lesson.

 

[Random Variable]

I don't understand this administration. First they told us, "We will not allow rogue states to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists." But now they're saying, "We can't stop terrorists from requiring weapons of mass destruction, so prepare to get vaporized." There are so many mixed messages coming out the White House/DOD that it's maddening. And if this threat is as great as the the secreatary says it is, why the hell aren't we doing something about Iran and Iraq right now? What are we waiting for?

 

[kgraeme]

You think these are mixed messages? Just wait until the PSAs start running.

 

[shiner]

So our dick is bigger than theirs, big deal. The retaliation, although completely justifiable and understandable, won't fix the problem in the end - have we gained ANYTHING from the assfvcking of Afghanistan?

Sure it would fix the problem, none of those farkers would be alive to do anything. What have we gained by our action in Afghanistan? Well we have most likely stopped a few attacks, we've disrupted Al Queda, we've toppled a repressive regime, we've shown the world that we are serious abou dealing with terrorists, and we've got Bin Laden on the run like the scared little bitch he is.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
You think these are mixed messages? Just wait until the PSAs start running.

Which public service annoucements are you referring to?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Does anyone here really believe that we don't have SO teams on the ground in Iraq, Iran, S. Korea, Syria, Lebanon and any other country we think is capable of supplying the terrorists with weapons of the trade? Information is everything and we are preparing for the big one.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Vespasian

Originally posted by: kgraeme
You think these are mixed messages? Just wait until the PSAs start running.

Which public service annoucements are you referring to?

I'm just having cynical memories, don't mind me.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

why the hell aren't we doing something about Iran and Iraq right now? What are we waiting for?

Who says we aren't? I'd be willing to make a bet that we are doing pretty heavy recon. I imagine a strike would be strong and swift. None of that 4 or 5 day stuff, but complete domination in a very quick amount of time. Don't allow enough time for other countries to bitch and us go "ok" and back off. By the time they can say anything it's done. Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: kgraeme

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Well, there's a huge difference between the cold war and this situation. We are saying that terrorists WILL get nukes. If they do get nukes, they wont hesitate to detonate it in the US. The Soviets would not have, they weren't crazy. They had 'em because we did, and it equaled out things. So if the terrorists WILL eventually hit us, why should we wait like sitting ducks?

You obviously didn't live through the Cold War and are saying this only through hindsight. At the time we knew that the nukes were coming. Bert the Turtle told us so. It wasn't a question of "if", it was a question of "when you see the blast". People said the exact same thing you are saying now. To paraphrase:

"So if the commies WILL eventually hit us, why should we wait like sitting ducks?"

And we said more than that, more often. Heck, we wrote songs about it. Fortunately, cool heads prevailed and hopefully they will again. I understand that terrorists don't play by the same rules as nations, but as HappyPuppy said, the backers are going to be very careful giving out their WMD. And he's seen more sh!t than 10,000 of you peckers.

Ummm, I was born in 1976 so I did miss alot of it (missile crisis etc.). But I've done my reading, and my parents didnt stop telling me about it. Maybe I havent been around that long, but I've seen my share of sh!t, trust me.