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

[CocaCola5]

Sorry, I was loosely using the term collateral damages to mean a attack on civilians, in a sarcast way to just illustrate my point.

 

[DDad]

BTW, I don't mean for this thread to be either Pro or Anti war, but a reasonable discussion of what may well lay ahead.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

<< I was saying the US shouldn't react with shock retaliations on its citizens. Its about time America matures. >>



Gee no thanx. I would rather live in a country that does WHATEVER IT TAKES to ensure this doesnt happen again.

Read 'WHATEVER IT TAKES' as total annihilation.

This world isnt one big community.
We dont all frolick around holding hands.

If you are a SERIOUS and GRAVE threat to our sovereignty and safety of our citizens you will be eradicated.

 

[Deeko]

<< 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.
>>


ok...I in no way advocate the usage of nukes, but while yes, we do have ultra-powerful hydrogen and neutron bombs today...not every nuke we own is a 10 megaton. There are smaller ones ya know.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<< If you are a SERIOUS and GRAVE threat to our sovereignty and safety of our citizens you will be eradicated. >>



Damn skippy.

 

[isekii]

why the hell is everyone suggesting nukes ????

just use NAPALM~!!!!!!!

It's Environmental Friendly.. sorta.. and I dont think anything could live through the intense burning Napalm will do..