I voted "other", because this topic is a waste of time and energy. Security expert Bruce Schneier calls it movie plot security, and I think it's a good term. We get all worked up over something we have no evidence, strong feeling, call to Miss Cleo, whatever, supporting it, just because it sounds bad. This kind of thinking is exactly where problems come in, because the entire discussion becomes about this hypothetical situation instead of dealing with the real issues or potential issues.
I realize that this probably wasn't the intention of the OP, but we get enough of this noise from people trying to defend the US against imaginary theats, I'm not sure how much more of it we need. You can't talk to a Bush supporter about warrantless wiretapping for 5 minutes because you hear "well what if there was a nuke hidden in New York" or similar nonsense.
I realize that this probably wasn't the intention of the OP, but we get enough of this noise from people trying to defend the US against imaginary theats, I'm not sure how much more of it we need. You can't talk to a Bush supporter about warrantless wiretapping for 5 minutes because you hear "well what if there was a nuke hidden in New York" or similar nonsense.
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
I said it reaks of racism, the actions that you support are borderline genocidal reguardless if those were your intentions.
If China did nuke us, I'd probably ask them what the f*ck they're thinking before I did anything rash, no I wouldn't want to nuke a city full of millions of people.
blanketing all of iran in nukes or otherwise following the detonation of a nuke in new york would be idiotic, irrational, and frowned upon by the world community. not to mention the entirety of our country. obviously, we would retaliate, but where is the question? assuming like the starter of this thread did, and it was Iran, we must first PROVE beyond ANY doubt that it was Iran, or more likely a terror group which Iran armed to do it. in that case, the nuke WOULD NOT decimate all of new york city. personally, I would be an advocate of a retaliatory attack on Iran should we be able to link them to however the bomb was detonated, or the bomb itself. both unlikely. but it really wouldn't matter. we would simply hand weapons to israel through a back door, and have them blast the living hell out of them, while screening them from criticism in the U.N.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
This "liberal" would say we must nuke a city in Iran if we are sure the Iranians did it.
Horrifying as it is, the concept of MAD in a limited sense applies. It must be made plain that any country that uses a nuke gets nuked back.
After that we should use conventional forces to destroy the Iranian military, and do our best to blockade the Iranian borders.
Horrifying as it is, the concept of MAD in a limited sense applies. It must be made plain that any country that uses a nuke gets nuked back.
After that we should use conventional forces to destroy the Iranian military, and do our best to blockade the Iranian borders.
I don't necessarily support killing all Iranians, but that was the first THOUGHT that came into my head when asked that question. What was the first thought that came into your mind when you realized 9/11 was a terrorist attack? Mine was sadness, and horror when I saw people jumping, and once I saw that, it became revenge. I was just putting myself in that mindset again if New York were nuked, and that's how I would feel right after it would happen.
I phrased it wrong, nobody wants to nuke anyone, or kill any "innocents." I should've said decide to nuke Beijing rather than want...
no, why should they it would be so much easier to give a device to some 16 year old palestinian kid.
Eh, then Israel would just nuke them. If Iran wants nuclear weapons, its to deter an Israeli attack. I doubt they'd be foolish enough to use them.
I don't think they'd use them either. However, it presents another problem. They now have a bargaining chip they didn't have before, and we lose a certain power over them. Both of us know that they can hurt us or our allies, badly. That's the true reason we don't want nukes spreading, that and the technology getting so commonplace that terrorists could somehow build their own. I don't think anyone believes a country would hit us with a preemptive strike, it would be suicide...
See that's the thing... every time some nutjob dictator does something to us, or we discuss them doing something to us this always comes up.
...but the 'people' are 'good'... he's just an evil dictator.
In my opinon, in these sorts of situations, you are either part of the solution or part of the problem - I don't see many shades of grey.
How long would you describe the Iranian people as being 'opressed' by some nutjob over there? Right - forever. ITS THE WAY THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE. It's their CULTURE. There is ALWAYS some madman or another running things.
If they are willing to let a crazy mullah or whatever do the kinds of things they always end up doing without calling them to task then they're not OPRESSED, they're COMPLICIT - if not in the action, then certainly in the SITUATION.
To me it comes down to this... clean up your own mess or we will. If you're 'opressed' and not on board with the nutjobs actions, then get the hell out of dodge before it gets razed.
Doesn't that justify terrorism? I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm honestly wondering if that's what you really meant to say. After all, if the people are responsible for EVERYTHING their leaders do, and they are also responsible for managing their leaders to the wishes of foreigners, doesn't that mean it's really our fault that Osama's goons flew planes into buildings on 9/11? They didn't like our foreign policy, and apparently we're responsible for every aspect of that foreign policy, so did we deserve it?
Well of course not, because there are standards of conduct that reasonable people can agree on. As much as people don't like your foreign policy, I'm not sure terrorism is justified against civilian populations. Similarly, even though we can construct some sort of system where the Iranian people are to blame, I'm not sure it's morally ok to nuke the crap out of them just because their government does something foolish.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I'm a whiny pascifist but I voted nuke their military. It just seems to me the quickest way to avery a long drawn out conflict. But I say we hold off long enough to make sure no one else is going to get involved, like Russia, or China, or someone else that may prove to be a match for us and ignite WWWIII.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Thanks, saved me some time of typing all that.
It's ok, I type fast...there's no way I would post as much as I do on P&N if I had to spend a lot of time typing out posts most people probably won't bother to read anyways
Hmm...not a lot of good options here.
I think the best way to go would be to install a US puppet police state. Kind of in the mold of China, if China was more repressive.
The government would work toward economic recovery and improvement of infastructure, but at the same time there would be no freedom of speech, assembly, or any such thing.
Advocating radical Islam or demonstrating against the authorities would be a jailable offense, for example. All schools would be closely monitored and would only teach government approved materials. The news would of course be heavily censored. There could be random searches of the entire population for weapons and such. Think of it as the fastest way to eliminate the old ideas without committing mass murder.
Sure, the new generations might want freedom and what not. But with such tight control of information and growing wealth (imagine how well off the Middle East could be if it wasn't run by despots!) chances are they'd turn out more like the Chinese, wanting to become liberalized and economically successful, rather than radical Islamists.
This might not be very tasteful to us freedom loving people, but what's the alternative? Mass murder on civilian populations that will simply further radicalize the survivors (Nuke)? Conventional attack and democratic reconstruction (See Iraq)?
I think the best way to go would be to install a US puppet police state. Kind of in the mold of China, if China was more repressive.
The government would work toward economic recovery and improvement of infastructure, but at the same time there would be no freedom of speech, assembly, or any such thing.
Advocating radical Islam or demonstrating against the authorities would be a jailable offense, for example. All schools would be closely monitored and would only teach government approved materials. The news would of course be heavily censored. There could be random searches of the entire population for weapons and such. Think of it as the fastest way to eliminate the old ideas without committing mass murder.
Sure, the new generations might want freedom and what not. But with such tight control of information and growing wealth (imagine how well off the Middle East could be if it wasn't run by despots!) chances are they'd turn out more like the Chinese, wanting to become liberalized and economically successful, rather than radical Islamists.
This might not be very tasteful to us freedom loving people, but what's the alternative? Mass murder on civilian populations that will simply further radicalize the survivors (Nuke)? Conventional attack and democratic reconstruction (See Iraq)?
So your responce to having our economy ruined and millions killed would be to put millions of troops in Iran and spend even more money we don't have, and by then, won't be able to afford?
Compared to your response, which is essentially getting revenge, and then sitting back and waiting for humanity to collapse? Because your plan sure isn't going to repair New York City, and it's simply going to make the Middle East worse. So, while we are homeless, we can sit around and wait to be nuked again!
Oh, and about the money, I think you're forgetting a police state can do whatever the hell it wants with all the natural and human resources of a country. Hello, massive oil profits!
All the oil in Iran wouldn't pay for a years worth of occupation of Iran in a police state style occupation. How much oil reserves do they have? 90 billion barrels, at $70 a barrell? That's $1.6 trillion worth of oil, barely even enough to dent our GDP, and that's if we could get all that oil in one year (which we obviously can't).
My solution isn't destroying Iran, that was the first thought that came into my head we should do if Iran nuked NYC. It'd be better to just bomb them to the stone age and nuke all their nuclear facilities.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter