• 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.

Theoretical thread: Political/military response to a nuclear terrorist attack

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How much money does it take for a terrorist to obtain a nuclear weapon? We've all seen the movies where terrorists obtain pretty much anything they want with enough cash. But the risk/reward has got to be incredible for moving a nuclear weapon on the black market in the real world.

Do we have the ability to track these types of transactions? In order to evade detection... or at least a red-flag, it would require many, upon many small transactions delayed in random order to accumulate into larger and larger accounts until one had the full monty to pay off a smuggler.


But as the OP requested... what "should" happen?

1. No matter who's the president, the world will sympathize.
2. The leader should use coalitions (NATO {militarily}, UN {peacefully}, etc.) to draw a line in the sand. To whom? Not to foriegn governments. But to the people of the world. Ask them if they want to suffer for the sins of their brothers, or do they want to live in peace?
3. Strike a charter in the UN (backed by the security council) that states that every government will recognize current borders as the final say in the matter. Disputed borders will be dealt with as "who's living there now" gets to govern themselves. Attacks across borders militarily will be dealt with by the *entire* UN coalition.
4. Acts of aggression deemed to be terrorist in nature and not government sponsored will immediately require UN coalition intervention. Refer the populace back to number 2.


One world government? Yes. In a way. I see it more like the world coalescing into self-rule, but responsibility for individual actions.

 
Originally posted by: Todd33
There would be no valid quick response, unless it was a knee jerk reaction. Are you going to attack the 80 countries they hide in? Are you prepared to invade Pakistan and Saudia Arabia? Maybe we could invade Iraq again? You would need to track down who is responsible with the help of the foreign countries, more S.W.A.T. like, less conventional. You don't need bombers and tanks to fight them. You would also need to pay more attention to those countries with lose nukes, spend more money to track and police them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Any responce would have to be a covert operation invovling under cover agents and a (please pardon the game reference here) "Splinter Cell" approach to uncovering who was involved and responsible.
 
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Assumption: Bush is in office at the time.

Response: I think we might see something very close to martial law being declared. The investigation for those involved would become a witch hunt and everyone would be in danger. There would be a huge uprising in the populace who would decry these actions. This would not quite reach a revolution/civil war state, but it would seriously divide the nation and put them at severe odds with the government and each other. Militarily, I think we'd suspend most non-military spending and funnel funds to several attacks of terrorist-harboring nations. We would have the support of several nations (GB, Australia, Germany, France, etc) in these attacks. The entire world would seem to adapt the "us against them" mentality in regards to terrorism. I'm not suggesting a WWIII, but somthing a bit slower and more sinister. The 'civilized' world versus the rest, or something similar.

*shrug* That's one possibility in my mind. I'm not sure a Kerry-in-office scenario would be much different, but would probably escalate a bit slower.
Click to expand...

I think it would be the same with Kerry. This is what Clinton did with saddam and trying to fund and overthrow of the Iraqi government.
 
Originally posted by: Puwaha
How much money does it take for a terrorist to obtain a nuclear weapon? We've all seen the movies where terrorists obtain pretty much anything they want with enough cash. But the risk/reward has got to be incredible for moving a nuclear weapon on the black market in the real world.

Do we have the ability to track these types of transactions? In order to evade detection... or at least a red-flag, it would require many, upon many small transactions delayed in random order to accumulate into larger and larger accounts until one had the full monty to pay off a smuggler.


But as the OP requested... what "should" happen?

1. No matter who's the president, the world will sympathize.
2. The leader should use coalitions (NATO {militarily}, UN {peacefully}, etc.) to draw a line in the sand. To whom? Not to foriegn governments. But to the people of the world. Ask them if they want to suffer for the sins of their brothers, or do they want to live in peace?
3. Strike a charter in the UN (backed by the security council) that states that every government will recognize current borders as the final say in the matter. Disputed borders will be dealt with as "who's living there now" gets to govern themselves. Attacks across borders militarily will be dealt with by the *entire* UN coalition.
4. Acts of aggression deemed to be terrorist in nature and not government sponsored will immediately require UN coalition intervention. Refer the populace back to number 2.


One world government? Yes. In a way. I see it more like the world coalescing into self-rule, but responsibility for individual actions.
Click to expand...

3 to me seems to imply that there is a state sanctioned terrorist attack. As far as all international border disputes being resolved because of a nuke in the US? I find that really hard to believe. While I can see how this would cause the nations of the world to come together I don't see this as the dawning of a world government. We already have that in the US, it's just that a majority of the population on this planet has no vote or voice in what it does or says.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
At anyrate, Al Quaeda *is* the Enemy, not Terrorism. The WoT is in itself a distraction from that fact, Al Queda is demonstrably more dangerous than all other Terrorist groups combined! Fvck the WoT, the War should be on Al Queda.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything but the last paragraph. I would argue that terrorist organizations do not have such clear demarcations between them. One terrorist organization is as good (or bad 😛) as any other. I also believe that if we leave one organization around that attacks country X, then country X could consider that an act of war on our part. Anyway, *nods* in general agreement.

If they want to deal in terror, I can't imagine anything more terrifying than having your door kicked down in the middle of the night by Delta Force. I met one of them in real life under friendly conditions and it was still a scary experience. 😀
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Assumption: Bush is in office at the time.

Response: I think we might see something very close to martial law being declared.
Click to expand...
This is the possibility that scares the hell out of me. The lingering doubts in the back of my mind about the true source of terrorism and even the one in a zillion chance that our government is the real source keep adding up to be the most logical alternative. Such action could be used to allow the installment of a fascist regime in our own country overnight. The grandest of all conspiracy theories, to be sure, but it weighs heavily on my mind.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: sandorski
At anyrate, Al Quaeda *is* the Enemy, not Terrorism. The WoT is in itself a distraction from that fact, Al Queda is demonstrably more dangerous than all other Terrorist groups combined! Fvck the WoT, the War should be on Al Queda.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything but the last paragraph. I would argue that terrorist organizations do not have such clear demarcations between them. One terrorist organization is as good (or bad 😛) as any other. I also believe that if we leave one organization around that attacks country X, then country X could consider that an act of war on our part. Anyway, *nods* in general agreement.

If they want to deal in terror, I can't imagine anything more terrifying than having your door kicked down in the middle of the night by Delta Force. I met one of them in real life under friendly conditions and it was still a scary experience. 😀
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Assumption: Bush is in office at the time.

Response: I think we might see something very close to martial law being declared.
Click to expand...
This is the possibility that scares the hell out of me. The lingering doubts in the back of my mind about the true source of terrorism and even the one in a zillion chance that our government is the real source keep adding up to be the most logical alternative. Such action could be used to allow the installment of a fascist regime in our own country overnight. The grandest of all conspiracy theories, to be sure, but it weighs heavily on my mind.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that all Terrorist organizations need to be dealt with, but if the US wants to avoid Mushroom Clouds, it had better deal with the one organization that has been bold enough and organized enough to most likely do so first.
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7

2. I am not aware of any US policy or action whose intended goals and objectives were to kill innocent people, so that number would be zero.
Click to expand...

Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. The School of the Americas (training vassal armies to kill innocents, same diff.) American-Indian War (and various skirmishes prior). Agent Orange. Shock and Awe.
 
First off I'd lock down the borders as best as possible.

Get radiation detection squads in every major city ASAP to look for other bombs. Then begins the foreign policy stuff.....

I'd pretty much say to Israel "We need a Palestinian state by tomorrow. Do it or our alliance is dead."

Start up the draft.

Then get on the phone with the leaders of Arab countries and tell them this is there last chance to turn in there terrorists. If we find out a government is supporting terrorists in any way, that country will get the shiit bombed out of it (non nuclear) and we'll invade.

Get an Arab anti-terrorist group composed of our allies troops (Jordan, Israel, uhh...Saudi Arabia? heh) put together (like an internation special forces group) to hunt down terrorist cells in the middle east.

Then I'd cross my fingers....
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Not what you think would happen - but what you think a response would be to prevent another attack...what *should* happen
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, I assume that this was an islamic jihad type of attack. If that were the case, eliminating the US as a threat to the muslim world would be the first step. That means staying out of the Israeli situation, and pulling out of Iraq.

The second step would be to send the most highly trained special op forces of the free world to hunt down and root out the terrorists. It should highly involve the intelligence community and covert ops. First, determine who the terrorists are using spies. Then just kill them while they sleep.

If this were to happen, the free world would unite and work together to hunt down these people. If the war in Iraq had been approached in a different manner (less autocratic, open to foreign ideas), I'm certain that we would have captured OBL by now along with a large number of Iraqi terrorists.
 
Originally posted by: Snagle
Get an Arab anti-terrorist group composed of our allies troops (Jordan, Israel, uhh...Saudi Arabia? heh) put together (like an internation special forces group) to hunt down terrorist cells in the middle east.
Click to expand...
I've heard mention of this idea before, but no talk of it actually being implemented. I wonder why they don't do this.
 
Originally posted by: Snagle
First off I'd lock down the borders as best as possible.

Get radiation detection squads in every major city ASAP to look for other bombs. Then begins the foreign policy stuff.....

I'd pretty much say to Israel "We need a Palestinian state by tomorrow. Do it or our alliance is dead."

Start up the draft.

Then get on the phone with the leaders of Arab countries and tell them this is there last chance to turn in there terrorists. If we find out a government is supporting terrorists in any way, that country will get the shiit bombed out of it (non nuclear) and we'll invade.

Get an Arab anti-terrorist group composed of our allies troops (Jordan, Israel, uhh...Saudi Arabia? heh) put together (like an internation special forces group) to hunt down terrorist cells in the middle east.

Then I'd cross my fingers....
Click to expand...

I'd have to say that this was my thinking also. Even in today's society, an act of that nature would have young Americans beating down the doors of recruiting centers across the nation. I don't think a draft would be necessary, but it would probably be likely if for no other reason than national security needs after such an event.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Under such a scenario, Kerry's doubling of the Special Forces and the concept of covert action becomes the most attractive solution.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the whole "doubling of the Special Forces" is a big heap of steaming BS, don't you?

Do you think that Special Forces has trouble finding recruits? They don't. Do you think they have trouble finding personnel who are qualified and able to do the job? They don't.

The only possible means of doubling the size of the Special Forces is to lower standards so that more soldiers can qualify. Six out of ten guys who try to make it into the SEALs don't have what it takes to make it.

Doubling the size of SF will only reduce their effectiveness as a tool by diluting the ability level of the personnel within. It's a plan that sounds good on paper, and appeals to the uneducated voter, but it's as workable as a perpetual motion machine.
 
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: sandorski
Under such a scenario, Kerry's doubling of the Special Forces and the concept of covert action becomes the most attractive solution.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the whole "doubling of the Special Forces" is a big heap of steaming BS, don't you?

Do you think that Special Forces has trouble finding recruits? They don't. Do you think they have trouble finding personnel who are qualified and able to do the job? They don't.

The only possible means of doubling the size of the Special Forces is to lower standards so that more soldiers can qualify. Six out of ten guys who try to make it into the SEALs don't have what it takes to make it.

Doubling the size of SF will only reduce their effectiveness as a tool by diluting the ability level of the personnel within. It's a plan that sounds good on paper, and appeals to the uneducated voter, but it's as workable as a perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...

There are many forms of Specialist Forces, not all require the top of the top. You need "Special Forces" that are trained for one purpose and one purpose only. They don't need expertise of all weapons, Vehicles, or even a Black Belt in Martial Arts. What they need is Specialization in Close Quarters Combat and the Weapons suited for it.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: sandorski
Under such a scenario, Kerry's doubling of the Special Forces and the concept of covert action becomes the most attractive solution.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the whole "doubling of the Special Forces" is a big heap of steaming BS, don't you?

Do you think that Special Forces has trouble finding recruits? They don't. Do you think they have trouble finding personnel who are qualified and able to do the job? They don't.

The only possible means of doubling the size of the Special Forces is to lower standards so that more soldiers can qualify. Six out of ten guys who try to make it into the SEALs don't have what it takes to make it.

Doubling the size of SF will only reduce their effectiveness as a tool by diluting the ability level of the personnel within. It's a plan that sounds good on paper, and appeals to the uneducated voter, but it's as workable as a perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...

There are many forms of Specialist Forces, not all require the top of the top. You need "Special Forces" that are trained for one purpose and one purpose only. They don't need expertise of all weapons, Vehicles, or even a Black Belt in Martial Arts. What they need is Specialization in Close Quarters Combat and the Weapons suited for it.
Click to expand...

It's not so easy as waving a magic wand and saying they only need training in these particular aspects. There is a certain mindset that is required, and it is sufficiently rare that even when A-Teams are listed as being twelve-man units, they often operate two to five men short because there just aren't the personnel to fill those billets! The only way to fill them is to lower the physical and psychological standards required to get in in the first place - if you do that, they become the "not-so-special-forces." Also, by lowering the standards and admitting guys who might not have gotten in before, you run the risk of alienating the personnel who busted their asses to get in, and losing the skilled operators that we currently have.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
I'd have to say that this was my thinking also. Even in today's society, an act of that nature would have young Americans beating down the doors of recruiting centers across the nation. I don't think a draft would be necessary, but it would probably be likely if for no other reason than national security needs after such an event.
Click to expand...
While special forces can recruit you directly off the street now (only in the last four years or so), your average kid out of high school will never qualify. The qualifications are very high, and the training is ridiculous - I don't know how much you can find out about it online, but I'd recommend reading up on it. I know several in the military who have attempted it after going through the most rigorous training available outside special forces and none of them have made it.
Originally posted by: X-Man
You do realize that the whole "doubling of the Special Forces" is a big heap of steaming BS, don't you?

Do you think that Special Forces has trouble finding recruits? They don't. Do you think they have trouble finding personnel who are qualified and able to do the job? They don't.

The only possible means of doubling the size of the Special Forces is to lower standards so that more soldiers can qualify. Six out of ten guys who try to make it into the SEALs don't have what it takes to make it.

Doubling the size of SF will only reduce their effectiveness as a tool by diluting the ability level of the personnel within. It's a plan that sounds good on paper, and appeals to the uneducated voter, but it's as workable as a perpetual motion machine.
Click to expand...
This is true to an extent, but the current selection procedure calls for volunteers. The volunteers attempt to pass training that is ridiculously impossible. What it involves turns many many promising individuals away. Selection could be made mandatory (commanders finger soldiers who they think would be good), though I doubt this is desirable, as the training requires motivation to have any prayer of making it through. Delta Force selects their recruits this way, though I think they pick a recruit then the recruit has the option of joining up or not.
Originally posted by: sandorski
There are many forms of Specialist Forces, not all require the top of the top. You need "Special Forces" that are trained for one purpose and one purpose only. They don't need expertise of all weapons, Vehicles, or even a Black Belt in Martial Arts. What they need is Specialization in Close Quarters Combat and the Weapons suited for it.
Click to expand...
If this was all you needed, you could just send in marines to do the job. What makes special forces special is their covert operations and other specialized training. Otherwise, they would never get close enough to the target to use their hand to hand skills.

The only way that you might be able to increase numbers of special forces without sacrificing quality is to advertise the possibility of being recruited to special forces. I doubt that this is practical for a variety of reasons, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top