View Full Version : Be Very Afraid

Bally Heck
11th Mar 2002, 01:15
Reading the Sunday papers, it would appear that the United States is rattling it's nuclear sabre. Surely they cannot be serious. . .. .Don't know about anyone else but the very thought of a man with an IQ barely into double figures having his hand on the button that could end the world scares the crap out of me.. .. .Would a United States citizen care to enlighten me as to what is going on?

11th Mar 2002, 01:18
An absolutely normal review of contingency plans was leaked to the press and blown out of all proportion. Or do you think they have'nt had such plans for years. The SIOP would cover all such contingencies.

11th Mar 2002, 01:20
Well, he might have his finger on the button but we all know itīs gonna send a big flag with "BANG!" written on it out the top of the White House!. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

tony draper
11th Mar 2002, 01:23
Why not, nuclear weapons kept the peace in the west for the last sixty years.. .I honestly believe that the only reason most of my generation are still alive is because of them.. .Perhaps its time the USA issued a warning similar to Kennedy's, that any attack on the west by weapons of mass destruction will result in a full scale nuclear strike on the capitals of the middle east, and bloody well mean it.. .We would see how quickly those bastids cleaned their act up.

11th Mar 2002, 02:51
Well said Mr. Draper.

Gash Handlin
11th Mar 2002, 03:41
absolutely right Mr D, (and congratulations on what I believe is youre first ever serious post to this forum <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> ). .. .but back to the topic,. .. .What's the point of having a Nuclear Deterrent if the people you are trying to Deter dont believe you have the political will to press the button.. .. .Plus remember that a nuclear response doesnt have to be a world shattering MAD* exchange, it could be as simple as a tactical warhead lobbed into the general area that whoever you're after happens to be at the time.. .. .*Mutually Assured Destruction for the non spotters out there.

11th Mar 2002, 04:08
As someone from a country that has lived under the American nuclear umbrella for better than the last five decades, it worries me not at all.

11th Mar 2002, 04:37
My immediate thought was that the 'leak' was officially contrived to 'send the message'.. .. .Does no harm for the sabre to be rattled occasionally as a reminder to the hot heads - unless they are in possession of nuclear devices and they don't care what happens to their country folk.

11th Mar 2002, 04:42
The very term "Sabre Rattling" says it all.. .. .If the headlines said "Sabre cuts off heads", then that would be the time to worry.

11th Mar 2002, 06:04
Hope that wasn't a dig at Drapes! He's the only sane one here.. .Whole heartedly agree too. You can threaten to punish a naughty child but if you never carry it out their behaviour just gets worse as they know they will get away with it.. .It's important not to get to 'Gun Ho' though i'm sure the last thing anyone wants is nulcear missiles flying all over the place.

11th Mar 2002, 06:54
At the risk of getting smacked for being political and/or religious, what makes you think those for whom this 'warning' was intended give a s**t ? It's not hard to imagine that MAD actually fits their objectives very well. Would they 'sacrifice' their entire nation to destroy the great satan ? In a heartbeat.

11th Mar 2002, 07:20
I’m at university right now, and if Bush even mumbled in his sleep something about a ‘small tactical nuclear strike’ (leave one hell of a dribble mark on the pillow) then the centre of my campus would be packed with protestors. . .. .Even if it was aimed into the Sahara desert and threatened only to give one camel stress-induced asthma they would try to tear the place apart. This is partly due to a immediate hatred/fear of any word that even slightly sounds like nuclear (be it ship, power plant or missile), and also partly due to many of them being bored and wanting to burn things. . .. .My point is that the reaction of an enemy to nuclear big-talk is possibly less of a political problem than the domestic outcry. The only solution that I can think of is for me to infiltrate them, and lead them on a massive protest march to the Shetland Islands. Upon our arrival, Uncle Bush can throw a few tomahawks our way. Unfortunately, it appears I’ll have to die for the cause, but surrounded by all those opinionated soap-dodgers, it may be a blessed release.. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 13:34: Message edited by: Pretzel Logic ]</small>

Gash Handlin
12th Mar 2002, 02:29
Papertiger,. .. .The whole point of MAD was that both sides had so many thousands of spare warheads after the initial ammount required to take out the enemy that an exchange would totally wipe out both sides. Because of this it was always seen as an impossible battle to win therefore pointless starting.. .. .These days I would imagine there are few world powers who have such large arsenals. The biggest worry is from states with a handful who could then lob them in the direction of the enemy knowing that the response won't be totally devastating.. .. .You must also remember that it is generally accepted that if a nation is attacked with a weapon of mass destruction, that it will retaliate with a weapon of mass destruction.. .. .Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are all such weapons. However the only 'legal' WMD is nuclear, the other two are outlawed by international treaty which western nations obey. . .. .Therefore the only response the western powers have to a state sponsored attack by chemical or biological weapons is to retaliate with nuclear weapons. It is widely accepted that the three countries identified in Dubyas famous speech as the "Axis of Evil" are all in possesion of at least chemical, if not biological and possibly nuclear weapons.. .. .It is therefore a very sensible precaution to plan a response to one of many possible scenarios involving an attack by one of these states.. .. .Such an attack would not however constitute MAD and as such it would only result in the rogue state being wiped out, I would be surprised if any state which currently poses a threat to the US could launch a devastating attack on the scale required to destroy the US, but it would surely bring down destruction on itself.. .. .But as was said at the beginning of this thread, this planning is nothing new, it has gone on for decades with hundreds of different scenarios considered and suitable responses planned. The items in the press last weekend are mereley reporting something which has been going on for years, the only difference is that people are paying attention now.. .. .Pretzel,. .. .A noble gent you are sir, but what sort of soup are they dodging??? I hope it's oxtail, always suspicious of oxtail soup, what on earth possesed someone to think boiling the bit of an ox that catches the sh!t as it passes by would make a tasty meal <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

12th Mar 2002, 04:20
Quite right, Gash. My point was that issuing rational or logical threats of retaliation against some of these rogue states (or quasi-states) is futile. . .I don't remember who came up with the 'madman theory of war' (JFK era I think), but it surely applies in this case. The only way to defeat an insane enemy is to become more insane yourself.. .And that does make me afraid.

12th Mar 2002, 11:53
First off, no dig at Mr. Draper. Ok. I really respect that man.. .. .Now to Mr. Pretzel Logic. I realize that you are young and in University. Hey no problem, I was there once myself, really!. .. .But as life goes on and your priorities in life change. Really, no sh!t , I would not lie about this, been there, got the t-shirt.. .. .Yes young sir, the United States has a plan that if, big IF, that if a Middle Eastern country hits us with a nuke, guess what?. .. .We will hit back in kind. And a lot harder.. .. .“Oh wow man”, you ask? “How can we do this?”. .. .DUH!. .. .Remember Pearl Harbor. . .. .Think about it?. .. .Then give me your answer.. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 06:56: Message edited by: con-pilot ]</small>

12th Mar 2002, 12:20
con-pilot - -. .. .Good post. I would fly with you anywhere! Just hope, though, that I really don't get that chance. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> I hope you know what I mean by that last comment.. .. .Please re-read PRETZEL LOGIC's post. I really think he is on our side in this matter. It is his class mates that we really need to educate!. .-dAAvid. .ps - additional support for the Draper gentleman!. .. .edited to add the "ps" - dAAvid. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 07:21: Message edited by: AA SLF ]</small>

12th Mar 2002, 12:28
Dang AA SLF, that was fast. I’m on a 3-day layover in DC. When I sober up I will reread what Pretzel Logic said.. .. .But I’m on a roll right now. (I could still be wrong though!). .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

Dr. Hibbert
12th Mar 2002, 13:28
So it would be Self Assured Destruction?. .. .SAD indeed

Tricky Woo
12th Mar 2002, 14:20
Of course as long as no Americans get hurt in such a nuclear war then we're all as happy as Larry. Just press a few buttons and those naughty Arabs, Africans and Asians can all die like flies while the good ole USA gets on with its business.. .. .Of course, these weapons will be targetted to minimise civilian casualties to an acceptable figure, after all you can't make an omelette or six without breaking a few eggs. Anyway, those civilians aren't Americans, so who gives a toss, right?. .. .Hmm, let's see, what do we deem to be acceptable levels of collateral damage?. .. .Well, we're probably talking about a few millions dead, once we count the victims of the initial blasts, plus the countless others who will follow due to direct radiation, fallout, etc. Then we have famine, political upheaval, plus the likelihood of secondary triggered wars such as the one narrowly averted between India and Pakistan.. .. .Better to up that figure to around a few tens of million just to be on the safe side.. .. .Can someone please guarantee that not a single American will be killed amongst these tens of millions of unwashed foreigners, because that would be totally unacceptable.. .. .Easy as bug-spray, eh?. .. .TW

12th Mar 2002, 14:52
"nuke 'em 'till they glow",as we used to say in the firm. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" />

Tartan Gannet
12th Mar 2002, 15:00
Ok, Dubya hasnt the erudition of Blair or the oratory of the late JFK, but I feel he is pointing in the right direction. Id have voted for him in Nov 2000 had I been a US citizen.. .. .I have no fears about all this, for the reasons explained by posters of a like mind above.. .. .I DO however fear the madman who has procured nuclear weapons from some source, for example the former parts of the USSR, with "*****istan" in their names.. .. .Gash Handling, I wouldnt be too sure that the Western nations would feel themselves bound not to use biological weapons against some aggressor who had used this on them. Treaties are only as good as the paper they are printed on when you are at war. I know that neither side used gas or germs in WW2 at least in Europe, (the Japs did use Germ warfare in Manchuria),but this was more out of the fear of retaliation in kind, especially against their Civilian Populations than any treaty.. .. .TW, I wouldn't be so sure that the war between India and Pakistan has been averted. Delayed yes, but I feel that it is coming yet for aw' that as indeed is another Arab V Israel conflict in the not too distant future. Let us just hope that the USA, Russia and China will stay on the sidelines and not become directly involved in either scenario when it erupts.

12th Mar 2002, 16:26
I worry a lot about the over-simplification of this issue. Those who say "nuke the bustards" ignore the long effects that a nuclear strike will have, as TW has pointed out.. .. .What of the political and social effects as well? Remember that Pakistan had severe internal pressure over the invasion of Afghanistan. Would the Pakistani government be able to keep out of a strike against another Muslim country? If Saddam Hussein does not yet have nukes, Pakistan certainly does, as do India, and Israel, probably Saudi Arabia, and quite a few others.. .. .You think we'd come out of it unscathed?. .. .The other side of the coin is also worrying. Allowing Saddam Hussein to continue unchecked to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is not an option.. .. .The ever-escalating conflict in Israel has also to be included in the equation. At the risk of offending Danny, I cannot believe that Ariel Sharon has the right poicy. I mourn Rabin, who made so much progress towards bringing Jew and Muslim, Israeli and Palestinian together.. .. .Right now, much of the world is in grave danger, standing on the edge of a precipice. The last thing we need right now is a giant step forward. We need to stop, reflect, reconsider and possibly to be prepared to change our entire view of the world, and of nationhood.. .. .Please forgive me for quoting John Donne:-. .. ."No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

12th Mar 2002, 16:45
Pretzel,. .Good post.. .Do you also masquerade under the name of "biscuit" and have rather dubious family connections?

12th Mar 2002, 18:52
Pulse 1. .. .I’m not sure what you mean by ‘dubious family connections’. If you imply that I am of Italian origin and posses a large criminally inclined family then, no.. .. .If, however, you mean that collection of mentally unstable people down in Dorset, of which the father really should get back to work and stop reading PPRuNe, then………maybe.. .. .Hi, dad. You found me a lot quicker than I thought you would. I knew I should have said my occupation was lumberjack or something.

12th Mar 2002, 19:14
3,000+ people did not make it of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon "unscathed". This was a "localized" weapon-stolen from civilians and used against civilians-indiscriminately.. .. .Let's not forget who set the tone for the conflict. It's safe to say our opponents are not playing by any rules whatesover- so the "gloves are off". I feel while we should avoid civilian casulties- I think they are unavoidable, although that is edging toward a different thread. . .. .I thought about this from the moment the Towers fell- and I AM very afraid- nuclear weapons have ramifications that reach far past the initial explosions. That understood, I would not begrudge any country their response. I'll ask the PPruners- what response would be appropriate if a nuclear device or large scope bioweapon were used on your home country?. .. .Remember, anthrax (and to be fair-we still haven't positively attributed that) reached into individual's workplaces and homes. I want and expect my government to defend and protect me- that's actually where most of my tax money goes. I just hope they can do it in a preventative fashion.. .. .That said- I may be scared- but I'll be damned if I'll act scared.. .. .Have safe trips-everybody.. .. .Edited to add something.. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 14:16: Message edited by: OldAg84 ]</small>

13th Mar 2002, 02:53
Bally Heck,. .. . Ok Bally, as a U.S. citizen I'll attempt to enlighten you.. .. . Maybe those few around the world need a little reminder of the obliterating response to a large attack on the USA.. . . . From your profile it reads that you are a UK airline pilot. Tell us, in your career have you ever flown a jet fighter supersonic? How about one designed in the 1950's? Maybe one that looks like this?. .. .http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f102-17.jpg . .. .Surely one might think that a graduate of the U.S. Air Force pilot training who went on to qualify on the above aircraft would have an IQ greater than "barely double figures". President G.W.Bush did, and also received a masters degree from Yale. Our previous leader, loved "across the pond", dropped out of Oxford.. .Please post your experience in aircraft of greater performance.. .. .It has been fashionable to dismiss this President as a buffoon for his speaking gaffes here in the states since he started campaigning. This opinion has been epidemic in the EU. Immediately after 9/11 did he irrationaly lash out with our military with his "finger on the button"? No, he has provided real leadership, a hollow front man would have collapsed by now. Somewhat like a not well respected "actor" President who somehow went to Iceland and negotiated one-on-one with Gorbachev (sp?).. .. .Read the following series. It leaves no doubt who was in charge after 9/11. I doubt Bush's alleged handlers would be good enough to prop him up after 9/11 and fool Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. (he broke the Nixon Watergate scandal).. .. .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/news/postseries/tendaysinseptember/. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 21:59: Message edited by: WhatsaLizad? ]</small>

14th Mar 2002, 10:18
I would just like to say that I am in complete agreement with some of the foregoing posts, and in complete disagreement with others.. .. .By the way, Well Said Tony. When I make PM you are assured of a place in my administration.

15th Mar 2002, 19:03
Since all the opinions stopped (was it something I said?) . .. .I'll ask the PPruners again-. .. .-what response would be appropriate if a nuclear device or large scope bioweapon were used on your home country?

15th Mar 2002, 19:20
OldAg, since neither has been used against the USA, the question is irrelevant to what G Dubya appears to be planning.. .. .It is not appropriate to alienate almost the entire Muslim world, some of whose governments have nuclear weapons.. .. .It is not appropriate to aim a nuclear weapon at almost the first state you think of, without proof of their involvement in such terrorist attacks as have already been committed.. .. .It is not advisable to alienate almost all your support outside of Muslim countries.. .. .It IS advisable to try to seek a solution by concensus rather than by confrontation. Simply trying to bomb the bustards into submission is unlikely to succeed. You can never get them all. All you will do is give spur to the hatred of those who remain. Said bombing campaign is what Sharon is trying to do in Israel. It's not working. Further, many Israelis, to their credit, are now working out that what Sharon is trying to do demeans them as well as being counterproductive.. .. .The world is not black and white. You cannot divide it into "good guys" and "bad guys". And the bad guys, unlike in Hollywood westerns of the fifties and sixties, don't wear black hats to distinguish themselves from the white-hatted good guys (with apologies to Britannia crews here!)

tony draper
15th Mar 2002, 19:30
We don't need the Americans, UK alone could remove the middle east from the face of the globe.. .People forget that.. .Do them a favour send em all to paradise.. .. .In a bad mood Drapes is.

15th Mar 2002, 21:46
Hug- First let me say I respect you- but not your opinion at all-so if I get snide it's not personal. . .. .I take it it's appropriate for anyone to fly a planeload of innocents into a building of more innocents- can I infer that from your statement?. .. .I asked specifically what the response should be? Not whether it is appropriate or not.. .. .I would have no interest in "sitting down" with anybody "reasonable" enough to do what was done on 9/11.. .. .Did Osama/Al-Queda get our attention- absolutly. Did the get our respect/consideration/understanding. NO! . .. .While I would prefer to make friends- I care less whether anyone likes the U.S.- but you better respect us.. .. .If a country is harboring terrorist elements- they might fell the pressure to control/eliminate them if the knew the "heat" might be on them- literally. . .. .Finally- I don't think it belongs on this thread directly- but I'll answer it- I think Israel is treating the Palestinians in a reprehensible fashion- and I am sad to see the US supporting Israel the way it has- although that might be changing.. .. .I would have replied earlier-server challenges.. .. .Edited to remove a few premature finalies.. . . . <small>[ 15 March 2002, 18:14: Message edited by: OldAg84 ]</small>

15th Mar 2002, 22:29
"I take it it's appropriate for anyone to fly a planeload of innocents into a building of more innocents- can I infer that from your statement?". .. .No, you may not. Since you even have to ask, I see no further point in this conversation.

15th Mar 2002, 23:11
Is sarcasm a lost art?

Tricky Woo
18th Mar 2002, 19:25
OldAge84,. .. .What response is appropriate? Against terrorists?. .. .Ok, so if Osama and his evil chums did manage to set off a nuke in Manhattan, then an understandable response would be to nuke whoever did it. The trouble is that a nuclear response is one that applies against states, or large assets of a state, that can be clearly targetted.. .. .With Afghanistan, there was both a host country, terrorist bases, and a regime that were easily identifiable as targets.. .. .However, the Taliban have now gone to ground in many, many countries, in most cases without the approval of the governments concerned.. .. .When you're dealing with terrorists, then where will you want to drop the nukes? If there's a Taliban cell in Iran, then I presume you would advocate nuking Tehran, whether the Iranian government were aware of their presence or not. Same goes for Iraq and, er, North Korea, I suppose.. .. .Two birds with one nuke, eh?. .. .What if the terrorist cell is in, say, France or even, god forbid, the USA? You advocate nuking Paris and San Francisco?. .. .Lashing out at North Korea, Iraq or Iran will do no one any good. I have a particularly annoying colleague that I have to deal with every day. However, other annoying things also happen outside of work. I do not punch her in the mouth (if only) in response to, say, my recently dislocated arm, as the two are unconnected.. .. .No matter how much she gloated over my discomfort.. .. .TW

18th Mar 2002, 19:46
Tricky,. .. .I agree with you. It's a dilemma. I don't necessarily advocate nuking anyone, but I think in the current circumstances-. .. .-we should not self-limit our options- this is a reflection of the "new" rules of the "game" so to speak; . .. .- I don't think we can really negotiate with the terrorists;. .. .We have everything to lose- they have nothing to lose. . .. .For 50 odd years did the US like Russia? No Did we respect Russia? Yes. And vice versa. So the system worked as we kept each other at bay. I am afraid that is no longer the case.. .. .I asked what the appropriate response would be- I myself am not sure there ever is one- I wanted to see what people thought in general and from different perspectives. I appreciate your response.. .. .P.S. Can you find out if Hug is still mad at me? I was actually hoping he would contribute more.. .. .Edited, as usual, for typos. Anybody know of a good proofreading school?. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 14:48: Message edited by: OldAg84 ]</small>

bugg smasher
18th Mar 2002, 20:49
What is it exactly that TW does when he’s not pointing his imperious middle finger at the Yanks…

Tricky Woo
18th Mar 2002, 22:06
bugg smasher,. .. .I don't believe I do 'point my imperious finger at the Yanks'.. .. .What happened on September 11th shocked me as much as anyone, other than someone directly involved, or who someone who has lost a loved one.. .. .For some reason since then, anyone questioning American policy on after this outrage has been open to accusations of having 'pro-Taliban sympathies', or of being 'indifferent to September 11th', or of advocating that America should simply 'turn the other cheek'.. .. .Guess what: it is possible to question current US policy without holding any of the above opinions. That's democracy for you.. .. .Sorry if you have gained the wrong impression.. .. .TW

bugg smasher
20th Mar 2002, 08:57
TW, feel free to question anything you like, I even find myself dangerously close to agreeing with you on some things. It is merely atrocious manners on your part that I point out.

Bally Heck
20th Mar 2002, 15:21
Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction. That is a farly well known fact. A little known fact about nuclear weapons is that somewhere between 99% and 100% of the victims will be innocent . .. .Now if some genius could invent a politician/despot/dictator/evil professor * seeking weapon, many of the worlds problems would be solved. I reckon twenty or thirty such weapons would sort out mosst of the worlds conflicts.. .. .*delete as applicable.

Tricky Woo
20th Mar 2002, 19:05
Bally Heck,. .. .What atrocious manners you've just shown in pointing that out.. .. .TW

bugg smasher
20th Mar 2002, 20:20
“Of course as long as no Americans get hurt in such a nuclear war then we're all as happy as Larry…”. .. .“…I presume you would advocate nuking Tehran…”. .. .“…Two birds with one nuke, eh?”. .. .“…or even, god forbid, the USA? You advocate nuking Paris and San Francisco?”. .. .So what’s the agenda here TW?

Tricky Woo
20th Mar 2002, 21:14
bugg smasher,. .. .The agenda is simple: I don't want to see the most powerful nation on the planet nuking targets under any circumstances. Nor do I wish to see America triggering a 3rd World War, nuclear or otherwise, centred on the Arabic region, and spreading to the Indian sub-Continent.. .. .Why?. .. .Colateral damage.. .. .Believe it or not I have almost no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the nasty combatants in these countries. They're in uniform, so what do they expect? Sod 'em.. .. .However, the civilian and refugee deaths in the war theatre will likely overwhelm the combatant deaths. Probably by a factor of ten, or one hundred, or even more.. .. .That's where my concerns mainly lie.. .. .By the way, what's your agenda?. .. .TW

21st Mar 2002, 03:48
Tricky,. .. .I don't want to see a bunch of terrorists drop a nuke or bioweapon on New York, L.A. or even Manchester...why?- collateral damage!. .. .Think about it.. .. .Again, I point out...they play by thier own rules... .. .And again, I ask- what should our response be? I don't think you've answered my question.. .. .Don't mistake the above as advocating anything- but as an argument against being self-limiting.. .War is a tough business; I think for the most part the US is trying to avoid "collateral damage", if not because it's right, then for obvious political purposes.. .. .Finally, I think the relatives of all the victims here might take offense as have thier lost loved ones be spoken of as collateral damage- I think the loss is pretty real.. .. .And I can see Hug is still mad at me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

21st Mar 2002, 06:14
Bally Heck,. .. . Just wondering if you have the chance to post your flight experience in aircraft of higher performance than flown the President of the U.S. . .. .Your academic achievements would be good also. Since Bush has such a low IQ in your opinion, I'm wondering what astounding level of flight and academic experience you must have to form such a opinion.. .. . Leave out your nuclear physics knowledge.

Bally Heck
21st Mar 2002, 07:35
Sorry WhatsaLizad?. .. .I've been working and consequently neglected this thread. I am not a very bright boy. But I do know the names of several heads of state. This is not a requirement of my job. Just general knowledge. Now, if I was voting for a president of the most powerful country in the world, I would expect him to know these simple facts also. I repeat, I am not very bright. But I have no aspirations to be President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. Now, whether you like it or not, your president is generally perceived as a bimbo by a large number of people. This may be unjustified. No idea myself. Just how it seems to me.. .. .But political spin is everything. . .. .Thought Reagan wasn't too bright, . .. .Clinton very bright but flawed in all the right ways. . .. .Thatcher. Very bright...good spin. . .. .Major. Even brighter...bad spin. . .. .Blair...Dim...Excellent spin.. .. .On the subject. How many votes did Bush win the election by?. .. .Oh no. I've gone political. I hate it when that happens.. .. .(My qualifications to be president, or a fighter pilot or indeed a complete tosser are not an issue here. I have few aspirations. I just expect, and am usually denied bright guys making the decisions. Situation normal. My IQ however does make treble figures. ("C'mon Butch"). . . . <small>[ 21 March 2002, 02:45: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]</small>

Bally Heck
21st Mar 2002, 07:53
WhatsaLizad?. .. .Just in case I sent the wrong message. I am totally in favour of wiping out the Taliban, Ossama and Saddam. . .. .I would just be really p*ssed off if the innocent 98% of Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Scotland/Geordies were to get nuked in the process.

Tricky Woo
21st Mar 2002, 13:38
Ditto.. .. .TW

Tricky Woo
21st Mar 2002, 14:05
OldAg84,. .. .I think your question as to a 'correct response' deserves an answer, but I'm afraid it's not going to be very clear cut.. .. .The real problem with terrorism is that in the majority of cases there is rarely any meaningful response to be made at all.. .. .That's the brutal truth.. .. .A few years ago the IRA blew the hell out of my home town, Manchester. They also blew to hell a part of London called Canary Wharf. I'm not sure if you would class those explosions as weapons of mass destruction, but the damage in both places was incredible. Unfortunately for us all, the IRA obey(ed) the first rule of terrorism, which is to assimilate into the general population: there was no clear response possible, because there was no clear target identifiable.. .. .(This is not meant to be a digression into the IRA, I just want to illustrate the point).. .. .The fact that the Taliban/al-Qaeda chose to disobey that rule and clearly align themselves with the Taliban was a stroke of luck, IMHO, and not very smart of them. This gave the US and Allies a clear target to aim at, although at a cost of yet more instability in that general region.. .. .However, al-Qaeda is hardly likely to make the same mistake again. Now they've gone to ground, there's a good chance they'll resume their evil campaign. There'll be no clear target available, and it's highly unlikely there'll be no clear course of action.. .. .Then what?. .. .The original thread was with regards to a possible nuclear response to an attack on the US by a weapon of mass destruction. I've already made the point that any such response requires a clear target, and there'll likely be none. I'd like to expand on that to say that it is unlikely that al-Qaeda will present clear targets for even weapons of very minor destruction!. .. .TW

tony draper
21st Mar 2002, 14:18
Its down to religion in my book, our god gave us nukes, their god didn't give them any, nuff said. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" />

21st Mar 2002, 15:00
Far from it Mr D, their God appears to be giving them nukes (or something equally terrifying) AND the authority to use them against the infidel.. .. .You are right in one respect. The problem is religious at least in its proportions. The power of modern medical technology and weaponry are giving man Godlike power without even the wisdom of Solomon to go with it. . .. .We have the power to wipe out Bagdad. If we are certain that a terrorist organisation is about to launch an attack on Manhattan and the only way we can stop it is to do that, we are choosing between the innocents of Bagdad against those of Manhattan. If the answer to that is yes, does the same apply if the target is Tel Aviv?. .. .Also, if the answer is yes, at what degree of uncertainty does it become no.. .. .Impossible questions. Never before has my signature seemed mor meaningful.

21st Mar 2002, 18:31
TW. .. .Thanks for answering my query. I got the answer I expected, indeed the one that's "most" right in my mind- that there is no "correct" answer. That said; we should be prudent about our actions and smart about how we might limit or not limit ourselves.. . . . <small>[ 21 March 2002, 13:32: Message edited by: OldAg84 ]</small>

Tricky Woo
21st Mar 2002, 20:35
OldAg84,. .. .Agreed.. .. .I can only hope that the gods will be kind to us, and that human decency prevails in the end.. .. .I look at the situation in the Middle East, and especially in Israel, with dire foreboding. One way or another the world is about to enter a very dark chapter.. .. .God help us all, huh?. .. .TW

22nd Mar 2002, 02:06
I can't help but wonder (and this is pure SPECULATION, absolutely no real data to confirm (or deny for that matter) if OBL, Al Queda etc would stand to profit by playing Israel (and therefore the USA) against the Moslem people..... .. .HJ

Send Clowns
22nd Mar 2002, 02:12
Course they would, Hugh, their only source of real sympathy is Palestine. All the other grievances of the "Moslem people" is the Palestinian problem. They need the problem to gain followers, and thus the influence they crave. Love of money is not the source of all evil - love of political power is, money just buys influence.. .. .I put moslem people in quotes because they are not a coherent people - they are many and most hate most of the rest. Do you know which race is almost indistinguishable from the Palestinian people by genetic mix, and certainly their closest-related race? That would be the Jewish people.