Deterent to Islamic Extremist Terrorist Nuke Attack?

Republican_Man

Alright, this morning I went to another Republican breakfast and, for the 2nd time that I've been there, Congressman Tom Tancredo spoke.
Recently he has come against great criticism for his comment about perhaps nuking one of the holy cities of Islam if the terrorists were to nuke a city in the US. He was responding to a question like, in an interview with I forget, "Do you think that the terrorists may have control of nuclear weapons that they may use against the United States, and if so, how do you think we should react?"
Well, he essentially said that we should "nuke Mecca," as the media's taken it. However, what his real purpose was was to say something radical that would get people thinking--what should we do if we were to be attacked by a nuclear missile by the Islamic Extremist Terrorists, particularly Al Quada? Saying something that radical has really gotten people to talk. Here's my opinion, and I'll be interested in hearing yours:
President Bush should announce that if a severe attack by the terrorists, such as a nuclear attack, were to happen, the capital city of each nation that greatly funded them would be destroyed. That would most likely be Riad in Saudi Arabia, Demascus in Syria, and Tehran in Iran. We would not do what we had to do in Iraq--nation building. We would be taking a hard-line stance against the FUNDERS of terrorism, saying that if they fund the terrorists (like Iran is doing for Iraqi terrorism, as is Syria and perhaps Saudi Arabi) and we get hit with millions of people dying, they will be attacked hard.
We need to do that--it'll be similar to the Cold War in that there would be mutually assured destruction. If we are attacked, then the funders will be attacked. Just saying that and MEANING it will stop the funding there, and if not, then so be it. That's the only real way to stop it.

But now, what say you? What should we say as a deterent to a nuclear attack? What should we do if the terrorists attacked us by nuclear means? (Same answer for both.)

Arellia · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:43 pm**

I've believed for a long time that we should take the policy of threatening their major cities. Savage put it-- "Hand our pamphlets to their civilians, tell them to get out and level it." I happen to agree. It's the way war should be waged. (According to the rules of not only good military tactics, but the bible too) If they sent a nuke over here, I wouldn't hesitate at all. It would be idiotic to do so.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:43 pm**

I'm all for retaliaton; however, I don't think that responding with nuclear action is the best idea, if thats how we're attacked. It could launch a nuclear war, and where/when would it end? With the population of the US, and most of the middle east destroyed?

And, I don't think attacking a holy city is the answer, either. That was the original intention of the The Target Committee (group who chose targets to bomb in the war against Japan), who chose Kyoto, Japan's holy city. They decided against that, because they figured that would only increase the Japanese people's desire to fight. They were probably right.

Republican_Man · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:47 pm**

I didn't say nuclear retaliation. I said bombing--not necessarily nuclear.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:50 pm**

You didn't rule it out, either. Was just saying.

Not to mention:

Republican_Man · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:56 pm**

Well, I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. Some sort of bombing--preferably not nuclear. Although Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked to end the war...But I digress.

Arellia · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:56 pm**

Personally, I think they should've levelled a few cities already... anybody recall Fullujiah? Heh... that was a sad example of military strategy...

webtaz99 · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:57 pm**

If Islamic terrorists manage to detonate a nuclear weapon in the US, the fault would lie with the governement for not stopping them in time. If we can toss away over $200 billion a year for "welfare", we should be able to stop the transport of nuclear materials/weapons in our country. What about the "welfare" of normal hardworking folks?

Republican_Man · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:06 pm**

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

Bombing Mecca is a REALLY BAD idea. The worst idea. It would only make America the enemy of every Muslim

Hitchhiker · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:12 pm**

No nuclear weapons. Certainly not nuclear weapons.

I'm quite ambivalent here. While obviously the governments of the Middle East are not innocent, I'm not sure we should go about bombing their cities because they've had dealings with terrorists. Those are innocent civilians who would be killed only because they had the terrible luck to be in that city at the time? Yes, the terrorists did not stop at killing civilians. But when we stoop to their level of retaliation, we become no better than they.

From a realistic standpoint I doubt terrorists could manufacture their own weapon (simply because they'd like weapons-grade material). Launching another country's nuclear missiles would be a different story. I'm wondering though . . . it'd be kind of ironic to have a terrorist cell launch a missile from a country that isn't supposed to have nuclear weapons, no?

Republican_Man · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:19 pm**

I know that there are innocent civilians, and they would get good warning, but it's the only way to retalliate. There's no other way.
And they could easily get them/the resources from those funding nations, which is exactly my point

Hitchhiker · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:34 pm**

Republican_Man · **Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:40 pm**

Actually, I think they could have a nuclear weapon now. I think that they could do it over our eyes, actually, and that intelligence wouldn't necessarily have word ahead of time

And those nations that are funding the terrorists--the governments--would be bombed in retaliation. Plain and simple. Like we did in Bosnia.

borgslayer · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:17 pm**

I say nuke the mountain region between Afghanistan and Pakistan border so Bin Laden will die from radiation!

Republican_Man · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:47 pm**

borgslayer · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:54 pm**

Hitchhiker · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:58 pm**

Republican_Man · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:29 pm**

Founder · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:12 pm**

Bomb Mecca!? Absolutely not. Thats a Holy area. Sounds like something an Athiest would suggest...ugh. No we should leave Mecca alone....

Republican_Man · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:15 pm**

Founder · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 pm**

It saddens me that a Catholic would suggest that....

I still wouldn't support it if they hit us with a nuclear weapon. Because we wouldn't be attacking them, but attacking Islam as a whole. Islam is NOT our enemy. These radicals are.

What should we do if terrorists hit us with a nuclear weapon? I honestly don't know. So many factors would have to be considered. I mean what nation would they be from? If they were from various countries, that would be diffcult to attack...

Republican_Man · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:24 pm**

Again, he was just shifting the debate to that when asked a question by saying something radical.

And what about bombing the capital city of each nation that gave major funding and support to the terrorists (ie Iran, Syra, and Saudi Arabia).

Founder · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:32 pm**

I don't know about that. Thats pretty much declaring war on an entire section of Earth. All of the Middle East. Almost like Asian terrorist blowing up a major city in America. Do we nuke China, Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, etc etc etc? Thats too many enemies. We'd be hard press to attack them all. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we do NOTHING. If they did that, they would PAY. That is a difficult situation. I mean what if each government supported us, but some of the citizens turned terrorist like Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think its fair that we kill so many of their people, because SOME of them are terrorist. I suggest we dont BOMB anyone. Perhaps we demand these nations crack down on these terrorist pyschos and hand them over to us. If they do not comply, THEN we can consider them enemies. I dont know...this is just an all around bad situation...

Republican_Man · **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:52 pm**

Bombing (and I DON'T mean nuclear) the capital cities of the nations that are GREATLY funding terrorism is the only way to stop it. And who knows--things could be like the Cold War, regarding mutual destruction. We threaten this and MEAN it, and then they'll know this and stop funding them. But we DO have to mean it. However, think about it: would they really risk it?
And I don't mean another Iraq--just bomb one city of the main supporters of the terrorists, which are FUNDING them.