It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when"

by DanTheMan 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DanTheMan

  Radical, militant Islamists or a "rogue state" like N. Korea will eventually succeed in nuking one or more American cities. Of this I am utterly convinced, it is not a matter of it "might" happen, the question is how soon will they succeed in pulling it off, and what will the fallout of such an event be, besides the loss of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives?

  John Kerry in a recent stump speech said that all it would take is one megaterrorist attack to drastically change life as we know it. I wish I knew what he meant by this. Change as in utter chaos and pandimonium, every man for himself, a la Mad Max? Change as in devastating economical and political fallout, permanently relegating the USA to a secondary power and possibly paving the way for China or some other powerful country to become the dominant power?

  What do you think will be the aftermath when they succeed?
• 

  jgnat

  I go back to "if".
• 

  Gopher

  Jehovah will have to step in and save his people. Armageddon time!

  But seriously. It depends on who the attacking force is. If it's a nation like North Korea, it would be easier to deal with because the enemy is more defined, within particular borders, and could be geographically located. If it's Al-Quaida or some such faction without a geographic boundary, then how could America even retaliate?

  If it's such a faction, then it depends on how much material they have to make "dirty bombs" to spread radioactivity over urban America. I think such factions aren't very well-funded and that may well limit the volume of their attacks.

  If it is a rogue nation such as North Korea, I think the Americans would immediately strike back against the enemy and prevent further attacks.

  But of course even one such attack could make 9/11/2001 look like child's play.
• 

  jgnat

  I was born in the sixties, and even though I was never been a JW, I have seen my share of fear-mongering. The "end of the world" pundits smoked me twice. First, with fears of a nuclear winter. Where did that go? The second was the oil crisis of 1973/74. I didn't bother getting a driver's license. I read the expert reports, and I KNEW there would be no gas-burning engines by 2000.

  Smoked. Again.

  All that fear and anxiety, for nothing!
• 

  dustyb

  i personally think that its a real fact. all it takes is a drunk russian, a crazy korean, a stupid frenchman, and a bold american all to press one red button....and BOOM
• 

  jgnat

  Kids, kids.... it is not FACT until it happens. Up until that point, it is SPECULATION.
• 

  skiz

  I think the possibility of a conventional nuke is extremely small
  And I also think the possibility of an attack from an established government and/or country is remote

  The real danger is a 'suit case' nuke or a 'dirty bomb'
  And the danger is from shadow type groups or organizations like al-Qaida

  Without question NY, LA, and DC are the targets of choice but Chicago or SF would be a pretty 'big feather in the hat'

  Being a world power depends on military and economic might
  A large 'suitcase' nuke or large 'dirty bomb' would be very small compared to a conventional nuke but still inflict tremendous damage if exploded in the middle of a city
  The US military would be released full scale, somewhat like the all out effort of WW2
  The debate over Iraq would be small time compared to what the President will send the military to do at that point

  It's hard to say if the United States has already passed its historical highpoint economically but fairly safe to say ( even without 20/20 hindsight ) it hasn't passed its military highpoint. The world has never seen this advanced capability to project power as the US shows when the planes, bombs, and tanks start moving

  If the US would finish off as the big superpower, at the end, depends on alot of things
  Achieving military goals quickly would be the single biggest factor

  Then again, maybe Tomorrow, Morphius will show up at my door with 2 pills and none of this will matter

  David
• 

  Gopher

  Here's part of a YAHOO NEWS story that quotes the U.S. Ambassador for Terrorism as saying such a threat is real:

  U.S. Terror Expert Warns of Dirty Bomb

  Sun Feb 8, 4:22 PM ET

  By STEVEN GUTKIN, Associated Press Writer

  JAKARTA, Indonesia - Terrorists have the will and some of the expertise to make a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon, and are "doing everything they can" to acquire the materials, the U.S. State Department's top anti-terror official said in an interview with The Associated Press.

  AP Photo

  Cofer Black, U.S. ambassador at large for anti-terrorism, told The Associated Press that al-Qaida is still dangerous even though more than two-thirds of its leaders from the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have been killed or arrested.

  Speaking at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Jakarta on Saturday, Black said he and other U.S. officials are "killing ourselves" to make sure terrorists don't get a so-called "dirty bomb" or other unconventional weapons, but the threat remains.

  "We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a number of these groups, if they had it, would use it," said Black, who accompanied U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites ) to an Asia Pacific anti-terror summit on the Indonesian island of Bali last week.

  "They've got the will. A lot of these guys seek the expertise, and there's a reasonable amount of that out there, but what you're really looking for is the coming together of all the factors: the will, the expertise and the materials," he said.

  Authorities fear terrorists could create a dirty bomb, which would use conventional explosives to disperse a plume of radioactive dust over a city. Unlike a nuclear weapon, a dirty bomb would not ignite an atomic chain reaction and would not require highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which are hard to obtain. The materials could be a lower-grade isotope, like those used in medicine or research.

  Black's comments follow recent revelations that the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold equipment related to centrifuges, used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, to Iran, Libya and North Korea ( news - web sites ).
• 

  Carmel

  Name me one city america couldn't get along without! One nuc would not tip the balance of power to anyone else. What we do afterward and the events trailing such an event could knock the whole world's economy into a spin, but like the last goround, it would bounce back rather quickly. All it would take is one american election cycle and we'd be on course again.

  carmel of the "not to worry" class
• 

  JH

  I don't think that any country would dare nuke a US city. They would be destroyed 30 minutes later.

  A terrorist doing this is more probable, because they can hide anywhere and escape direct retaliation. I read someplace that even a dirty bomb is more of a psychological weapon than anything else. Only a few city blocks would be contaminated. Naturally if it happens in a big city, that's enough to create chaos for a while.

  If something like that happens, automatically we lose the liberties we once had, and the country becomes like a police state.