- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Well, the Middle East would get alot "hotter" if you know what I'm saying.
So would the lines at the gas station.
Only in the short term.
Not to say I endorse the idea of strategic nuclear relaliation against the ME in general as a response, however most of the oil infastructure and certainly the reserves would be untouched by a nuclear strike. Give the area a little while for the real hot radioisotopes to burn out and roll back in and repair whatever damage done. The SPR, domestic production, and a little help from our friends up north should see us through well enough until ME production started to come back online.
:roll: Rrrrriiiight. Just like how swiftly we've resolved all Iraqi conflict and restored their oil production? Keep dreaming. ME fields would be offline for several years.
Most of the oil industry lies outside the population centers, which would obviously be the targets of strategic nuclear strikes.
Exactly how dense are you?
Nuking a few million Muslims creates scores of family/friends with a grudge to settle (read: insurgents aka terrorists). Tens of thousands of miles of pipeline, and all it takes is one person with one rudimentary explosive to interrupt the flow of oil.
It's like Iraq on a larger scale. A bigger quagmire for our country to sink into.
If anyone is having a trouble with scale it is you.
If the US, Russia, China, or heck even the French decided to take the gloves off the Muslim world in the ME would end. Most of the nuclear systems remaing in the world were built to fight a far larger (more targerts) and more spread out opponant than the ME (NATO countries vs. USSR).
How exactly would a nuclear weapon prevent one man from planting a bomb on an oil pipeline in a ME desert?
