• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Q- What do we do if Anthrax tied to Terrorist?

D

DDad

Golden Member
The conventional wisdom regarding Chemical & Biological weapons is that if they are used against the US, we will respond with Nukes.

The current Anthrax "breakout" may well have Terrorist ties. If proven, should the US consider atomic weapons, or at what point should they?
 
Nukes??? I hope never! If we use nukes (unless they are the "fall out free" kind that some people belive exist) it would basicly be the end of the world. Not only would we break EVERY treaty we have ever signed it would kill MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people (not just those people that we aimed them at).

I dont know what we would do if that anthrax was tied to terrorists, uhhh maybe bomb them and a sh!t load of other countries. Who knows, I just hope it was a accidental case.

Speaking of nukes, did anyone hear on cnn on sunday when one of the retired generals that cnn asks fairly dumb questions to, say that he doesnt think we would have used taticle nukes. Why would we? Wouldnt everyone in the world know if we used a nuke? Maybe the fall out free nukes exist.... just a thought
 
actually, we have not ruled out the use of nukes in this war; it is just very unlikely that they will be used.
 
Nukes, but it'd have to be a serious Bio/Chemical threat, if the Florida anthrax episode is tied in with terrorism, that's pretty sad, they could have done more damage with a 5 gallon can of gas & a lighter...
 
And why exactly would you use nukes? What would be the logic is using a 100 million-dollar missile to take out a hand full of people? The original idea of using nuclear weapons would be that of eradicating an entire country. The last time I checked we are not in a battle an entire country. We are in a battle a select hand full of terrorist cells.

I?m not sure why this would even be brought up. The things that people don?t realize is that the nuclear weapons we have today are not the same weapons that were used during WWII. Those were mere atom bombs. The nuclear weapons used today are Hydrogen bombs. These things use atom bombs as detonators. Don?t confuse what would happen today with what you see in photographs. The magnitude would be catastrophic.
 
Any idea how much effect nukes have in a mountainous area? Maybe if the caves collapse in which the terrrorists are hiding you may kill some, but otherwise, only with a lot of luck you might kill some.
 
i was just reading about these "mini-nukes" that are designed to destroy underground bunkers. i think it was compared to 300-300,000 tons of TNT, rather than the 9 megatons rated for a "regular" nuclear bomb. i'm no expert, so i could be wrong....

i think it was on cnn or msn.
 


<< How about praying a god exists?

Aelus >>



Why? Cant handle the fact that when you die you become nothing? Your thoughts, dreams, love, disappears?

If there was indeed a god, dont you think he would be stepping in to settle things now? Or, maybe god really backs Bin Laden, and not the rest of the world.

Finding faith in god all of a sudden seems like a grasp at the way the world was.
 


<< Nukes??? I hope never! If we use nukes (unless they are the "fall out free" kind that some people belive exist) it would basicly be the end of the world. Not only would we break EVERY treaty we have ever signed it would kill MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people (not just those people that we aimed them at). >>

Oh, boy. Here we go again. The United States has never signed a single treaty prohibiting us from using nukes at a time and place of our own chosing. Otherwise, why would we still have them if we signed treaties preventing us from using them? That thing that makes your head so heavy is your brain matter, use it.

The only thing we have signed are purely symbolic in nature and only express an "intent" to use restraint WRT using nukes. It is the legal equivalent of saying "We promise not to use nukes unless we think its proper to do so."
 
We do just what we are doing now. If we find that Iraq supplied the anthrax to the terrorists,and have tangeble proof, we will engage Saddam and Iraq. No problem.

If a missle was fired with a mass quantity of biochemical or gas or whatever,say like towards our carriers,or Isreal, then tacticle nukes may be employed. But remember, nukes are a deterent, not a first level ammunition. It would only be used as a last (and final) choice. The ramifications of such action may be more than we want to endure.

But rest assured, the resolve of this coalition is to wipe out weapons of mass destruction. I fully expect we will ratchet up the heat on Iraq within weeks from now, if not sooner.
 


<<

<< How about praying a god exists?

Aelus >>



Why? Cant handle the fact that when you die you become nothing? Your thoughts, dreams, love, disappears?

If there was indeed a god, dont you think he would be stepping in to settle things now? Or, maybe god really backs Bin Laden, and not the rest of the world.

Finding faith in god all of a sudden seems like a grasp at the way the world was. >>



you get my award of the day for intelligence. Do you want to borrow my battery powered sarcasm detector?

Aelus
 
Skoorb-

Define "tiny". I suppose, when compared to the national population, that 6000 is tiny. But we are committed to a war over that number of casualties. At what point would you consider using the Nukes?
 


<< Do you want to borrow my battery powered sarcasm detector >>

--hey can I borrow it when he is done with it?😉
 
I want to stress its only goal is detecting sarcasm, whatever other purpose of my battery powered sarcasm detector (tm) you find, is your, and solely your risk. The inventor is in no way liable for possible accidents.

Aelus
 


<< How about accept the responsibilty of a war nation and take the collateral damage? >>



What good does that possibly do? We are bombing a country that never has recovered from the last 20 years worth of bomings, invasions, and war. Taking out the poverty stricken people who were too poor to leave the cities does nothing.
 


<<

<< How about accept the responsibilty of a war nation and take the collateral damage? >>



What good does that possibly do? We are bombing a country that never has recovered from the last 20 years worth of bomings, invasions, and war. Taking out the poverty stricken people who were too poor to leave the cities does nothing. >>





I was saying the US shouldn't react with shock retaliations on its citizens. Its about time America matures.
 
My error. I thought you were saying the US should go for collateral damage against Afghanistan.
 


<< My error. I thought you were saying the US should go for collateral damage against Afghanistan. >>



No offense, but your assumption that collateral damage equates to enemy proves my point exactly.
 
Coca Cola

"How about accept the responsibilty of a war nation and take the collateral damage? "

Collateral damege is commonly referred to as damage done to civilians not targeted for military action. In this conflict civilians have been specifically targeted, hence it's not collateral damage. Also Biological & Chemical weapons don't discriminate between Civilian & Combatant- it's pretty much a "equal opportunity weapon"

As far as bombing a country that has not recovered from the last 20 yrs, I understand that they are having a hard time finding military targets. Funny, I didn't hear Bin Laden make that distinction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top