[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

You really want to live in a country that would do that?

I do.

Figures. Were you beaten up a lot as a kid or what?

I mean that I do live in a country like that. Had 9/11 taken place with Harry S Truman as President then what Bush did would have seemed downright restrained in comparison.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I mean that I do live in a country like that. Had 9/11 taken place with Harry S Truman as President then what Bush did would have seemed downright restrained in comparison.

Big difference between being at the end of a long, bloody war and trying to hasten the end, and being attacked by terrorists. Which 3 cities would you obliterate, and would you really want to live in a pariah state like that? I doubt even Harpo would support you in that. You're just having a wankfest is all.

Bush did invade Astan, which I fully supported. Unlike Truman tho, he couldn't keep his eye on the ball. Maybe on purpose.

[BartSimpson]

Andy, if the USA eventually has a city nuked (as most analysts believe is an eventuality) then you'll see that most Americans won't give a s*it what is thought of them elsewhere in the world so long as their kids are safe and the threat is vaporized.

I think Bootlegga cited the book Caliphate and it was an interesting read in that it portrayed a US attacked with seven nukes of which only three successfully detonated. The remaining four were in places like Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and some other traditionally liberal city. The political winds changed instantly as formerly liberal people realized they were only alive because someone botched the job of nuking them. The result was a US that ended up nuking some 200 cities and expelling all Muslims and then tragically invading Canada to clean it up, too.

Note that I do not agree with the ideas in the book, but I will note that the book looks an awful lot like a compliation of various War College papers I've read in the past. Meaning that it is a compilation of scenarios that other people have given thought too and the author of the book merely arranged.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Andy, if the USA eventually has a city nuked (as most analysts believe is an eventuality) then you'll see that most Americans won't give a s*it what is thought of them elsewhere in the world so long as their kids are safe and the threat is vaporized.

I think Bootlegga cited the book Caliphate and it was an interesting read in that it portrayed a US attacked with seven nukes of which only three successfully detonated. The remaining four were in places like Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and some other traditionally liberal city. The political winds changed instantly as formerly liberal people realized they were only alive because someone botched the job of nuking them. The result was a US that ended up nuking some 200 cities and expelling all Muslims and then tragically invading Canada to clean it up, too.

Please tell me which cities you would nuke that would eliminate the threat instead of increasing it? And I notice you've already upped the ante from 911 to several US cities being nuked. You do know that a full nuke is very unlikely, rather it would be a dirty bomb, which isn't really a nuke attack, right?

[GreenTiger]

Imagine what would have happened if 9-11 happened while Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan were President? They
would be even less restrained.

[andyt]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Imagine what would have happened if 9-11 happened while Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan were President?

They didn't have airliners in Teddy's time. So what would have happened if it occurred under Raygun?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Please tell me which cities you would nuke that would eliminate the threat instead of increasing it?

I think Putin was posturing with his comment. Nuking three cities would absolutely inflame the problem and eliminating the problem would mean all out war.

andyt andyt:

And I notice you've already upped the ante from 911 to several US cities being nuked.

I did not write the book.

andyt andyt:

You do know that a full nuke is very unlikely, rather it would be a dirty bomb, which isn't really a nuke attack, right?

The logistical difficulties of making and then placing a dirty bomb are virtually identical to those involved with a functioning nuclear device so it would make more sense for a terrorist group to use a functioning nuke since the associated risks with building and deploying such devices are about the same.

[GreenTiger]

Less restrained than Harry Truman, closer to General Ripper in Dr Srangelove.

[andyt]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Less restrained than Harry Truman.

You can do better than that. If 911 happened under Raygun, what exactly do you think he would do?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

So what would have happened if it occurred under Raygun?

Had 9/11 occured in, say, 1985, I can't imagine what Reagan would've done. At that point the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan so invading or attacking it would not have been an option. And attacking Iraq would've been irrelevant as it was not a threat at the time. I really think a 9/11 attack in 1985 would've befuddled the US back then.

[Proculation]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Imagine what would have happened if 9-11 happened while Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan were President? They
would be even less restrained.

Theodore Roosevelt was quite hardcore.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Please tell me which cities you would nuke that would eliminate the threat instead of increasing it?

I think Putin was posturing with his comment. Nuking three cities would absolutely inflame the problem and eliminating the problem would mean all out war.

andyt andyt:

And I notice you've already upped the ante from 911 to several US cities being nuked.

I did not write the book.

andyt andyt:

You do know that a full nuke is very unlikely, rather it would be a dirty bomb, which isn't really a nuke attack, right?

The logistical difficulties of making and then placing a dirty bomb are virtually identical to those involved with a functioning nuclear device so it would make more sense for a terrorist group to use a functioning nuke since the associated risks with building and deploying such devices are about the same.

You're weaseling out of the argument - you said you would support nuking 3 cities after 911. This isn't about any book. It's about what do you think that would accomplish.

As for the nuke argument, what you say is not what I've read.

But let's go with your argument. If terrorists, ie non-state affiliated actors, nuked one or more American city, what cities would you nuke in retaliation, and how would that reduce the threat of further actions? I mean if it was shown that the terrorists were supported or given refuge by a state, I could certainly see some ultimatum being given, that if ignored could result in nuking the offending country. But mostly likely, the support/funding would be traced back to Saudi Arabia - no addict wants to kill their dealer.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

You're weaseling out of the argument - you said you would support nuking 3 cities after 911. This isn't about any book. It's about what do you think that would accomplish.

I don't support the proposition, what I support is the savoir faire of the man who made it.

andyt andyt:

As for the nuke argument, what you say is not what I've read.

We do not read the same things.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Andy, if the USA eventually has a city nuked (as most analysts believe is an eventuality) then you'll see that most Americans won't give a s*it what is thought of them elsewhere in the world so long as their kids are safe and the threat is vaporized.

I think Bootlegga cited the book Caliphate and it was an interesting read in that it portrayed a US attacked with seven nukes of which only three successfully detonated. The remaining four were in places like Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and some other traditionally liberal city. The political winds changed instantly as formerly liberal people realized they were only alive because someone botched the job of nuking them. The result was a US that ended up nuking some 200 cities and expelling all Muslims and then tragically invading Canada to clean it up, too.

Note that I do not agree with the ideas in the book, but I will note that the book looks an awful lot like a compliation of various War College papers I've read in the past. Meaning that it is a compilation of scenarios that other people have given thought too and the author of the book merely arranged.

I just like that Putin had the cahones to say it.

Bad news for America: Your kids will not be safe. There's no such thing as safe. There's always fearmongers lining up on the left and right telling you that there is something new to be deathly afraid of, and the welathier an empire becomes the more suscetpible they become to being consumed by the paranoia that they are not "safe."

If the US invaded Canada we would kick their asses just like last time.

Woo-hooo. Bring it ON!!!!!

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I don't support the proposition, what I support is the savoir faire of the man who made it.

And his country got it's ass handed to them by the Mujahadeen too. Easy to talk when you're not the country that symbolizes the west. If Russia was top of the heap, people would be going after it. If it indiscriminately nuked cities, it wouldn't be top of the heap very long. It's not savoir faire, it's braggadocio.