What SHOULD the USA do if terrorists NUKE us?

[Silverhair]

Neither candidate has addressed this issue. They have both talked about prevention. During the Cold War, our policy on what would happen if attacked was well known - massive retaliation. There was much public discussion on the morality and practicality of such a policy. The public voted overwhelmingly for candidate who supported MAD. (Mutually Assured Destruction) There needs to be discussion now on what we will do. Even Bush himself has stated that we may not have someone to retaliate against if we get hit with a nuke.

So here is the scenario:

YOU are President. It is March 2007. You have had much success in your presidency and everything seems to be improving. But despite your best efforts, the worst still happens. We get hit with a suitcase nuke of about 2KT yield. The bomb is detonated close to the pentagon. (A blast of that size is about right for a suitcase nuke. It will wipe out the pentagon and the very close area around it, but the city itself will not be greatly harmed. Fallout will usually go out to sea.) It is now two days later. You have done the standard address to the nation and the proper disaster relief stuff. Now to numerous media outlets and on the internet AQ posts very credible proof that they are responsible. They make no demands but just end the tape with the statement, "Death to America".

What do you do?
NOTE: Please do not respond with, "Under my Presidency that would not happen." That is ducking the question. Despite your best efforts - IT HAPPENED. Now what? Emphasis of the question is on international affairs side of the issue, please.

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. what should the USA do if BUSH nukes us?

i'm more worried about that than i am about terrorists

[Silverhair]

11. So what would YOU do?

You can't pretend the danger isn't real. Well, OK, you CAN pretend it isn't, but it would only be a pretense. So - YOU are the president. Now what?

[7th_Sephiroth]

34. give me the particulars

it it after or before the election? it it Widely known it was bush who ordered the strike? did he do it to stop the election or to kill kerry so bush would keep the WH indefinately?

[Silverhair]

40. Reread my original post. ALL of those particulars are there. N/T

[7th_Sephiroth]

44. fight fire with fire

i'd track down sleeper cells and have them sumarily executed, and any country that harbors AQ will disappear from the map

[YankeeFan]

86. Don't Look Now But...

That is how we got into Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2001 the evidence pointed to the Taliban. And after they bragged and admitted it, we started preparations to wipe them out. And now only a handful here and there left. The last I read about them they were crying because they couldn't disrupt the elections like they threatened to.
I hate to say it, But here is one instance where the Bush Leaguer had a success.

Then because Saddam Hussein never listened to the many UN Resolutions passed against him AFTER the first Gulf War, "we" went after him.
Which is a mess as we all know.

If America DOES get nuked like he said, are you going to be like the Bush Leaguer? Or are you going to be like Kerry and get permission from the UN first? That's basically what this Thread is all really about.

PS Hurray for me! This is my 100th Post!

[eridani]

87. What planet are you on, anyway?

Karzai is mayor of Kabul, and the rest of Afghanistan that isn't under control by the Taliban is controlled by fundie drug lords who are just as bad. The elections there changed nothing whatsoever on the ground.

Hussein certainly did listen to the UN resolutions--no WMD, remember?

[7th_Sephiroth]

91. the difference between them and me is

i wont pussyfoot around, life is meaningless to me, and i will not think twice about ordering the deaths of millions if they harbor terrorists

[yankeedem]

103. You jumped the gun

Your "unmasking" isn't scheduled til November 2! Or have you given up on the boy king winning?

[demnan]

2. Oh great!

So you're blowing up Arlington! Full of nice interesting Dems including some of my best friends. Sorry, I can't think about that objectively. I used to live there.

[Silverhair]

17. Sorry. I was just guessing at what target they would go for.

A 2KT yield would NOT eliminate Arlington. It would take out the pentagon and the very close area. The damage would be less than an F5 tornado touching down. Except for the pentagon. I think it would be the most likely target of a suitcase nuke.

[demnan]

23. Well I used to live 1/2 a mile from the Pentagon

Sorry, I just don't like these kind of scenarios, it's something Cheney would do to wipe out a bunch of apartment dwelling Democrats.

[Hutzpa]

3. You worried 'bout terrahrist, worry bout your own folks

doing the job first hand.




:nuke:

[billyoc]

7. Sword of Gideon style

program of assasinations of AQ members worldwide.

[Silverhair]

19. That's a non-answer.

Reread my post. In the Cold War there was public discussion of the dreaded, "What if?" We need public discussion of that question again.

[Goldmund]

4. It's a good question

How would you answer it?

[Silverhair]

20. On questions like this I always reserve my answer until later.

I don't want people responding to my answer. I want their original thoughts.

[Goldmund]

26. OK, here is what I would do:

(and this is assuming that they didn't get the nuke from any state actor -- if I found out that the state X willingly gave them a nuke then I would treat it the same as if that state launched a nuclear missile on us)

Nothing in response to the act itself. I would have a global policy to diminish terrorism, and the metric of its success would be fire wider than whether or not they would be able to commit a single act. If that metric showed success -- and the premise of your question implies that it would -- then I would do absolutely nothing that I wouldn't be already doing. There would be nothing I could do, anyway, other than blindly retaliate, kill thousands more innocent people, and fan the flames of a civilizational war -- which is, I suspect, what the reason for perpertrating this act would have been in the first place.

[wuushew]

5. Pullout of the Middle East, develop green tech and stop support for Israel

In the aftermath of the explosion the fallout could analyzed to determine its origin. Once that is accomplished an investigation could be launched to locate the remaining suspects. Since I don't believe you can declare war on non-state entities we should sit back and pursue extradition of the alleged terrorists for a fair, open and public trial.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Tsk, tsk. Careful with that voice of reason, it makes too much sense.

Dontcha know that flagwaving, strutting, and killing more people is much more likely to get votes?

I'll bet you're one of them durn libruls that read books and do other un American activities.

[Silverhair]

24. What would likely happen to you at the next election?

That is a valid question. If a very angry American public replaced you and your party because your action appeared too weak, you have to consider what would happen then. Imagine a country lead by somebody to the right of Bush, and with a friendly congress.

[wuushew]

32. Cooler heads might prevail

America(except for the worst of the freeper right) was not still seething with anger over 9/11 on the eve of the Iraq war. In fact the minority of support for the war was only possible after a constant deluge of propaganda and disinformation which I as President would not engage in.

If this attack occurs in 2007 that gives me over a year to pursue diplomatic means at resolving threats to the United States. I think what you are describing is a Carter vs. Raygun election test, which although I may lose would save the lives of innocents from immediate American caused death.

[Romulus Quirinus]

35. I'm sorry, but

if we get nuked, even level-headed people will be pi$$ed.

The government will have to do something drastic, or things will be very ugly. Well, uglier than they with "just" a light nuking.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. You have a point.

American's attention span is somewhere between tragedy and the next big game. Given a year to calm things down might cause some folks to come to their senses and look for alternatives to blindly lashing out as Ramboya did against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mighty slim chance, though.

[mikehiggins]

6. Invade Iraq! Cut taxes! Read My Pet Goat!

Hey, it worked last time.

[Jack from Charlotte]

42. Read "My Pet goat," Cut taxes and invade...... Iceland.....

It's smaller, closer and easier to wipe out than Iraq. Also, the career military guys would get a different medal if we wack another country. I'm for that.

[Zorra]

8. Resign, and let a more qualified leader handle the situation. n/t

[prayin4rain]

10. LOL That's pretty funny.

:)

[Goldmund]

27. I didn't know the President of the US was an omnipotent god.

[northzax]

9. it completely depends on the situation

first off, most of the fallout on it's way out to sea would go over DC, Baltimore, suburban Maryland, Arlington is hardly on the coast.

second, massive, non-nuclear retaliation is in order if the attackers are a group, not a sovereign state (al quada as opposed to Iran) if it is a sovereign state, nuclear retaliation is in order, not simply to kill people, but to send the mexsage that the use of such weapons is inexcusable and will result in your prompt and certain extermination.

[serryjw]

12. A nightmare I really don't want to address

You stated the problem. There probably is NOT anyone we could retaliate against. That is WHY what Bushit is doing is stupid. Technology is such that this scenario is possible, ANYONE can make a mini nuke. As I have said before, How do find 12 men in a phone booth? They are in 60 countries,can not be identified and are growing daily thanks to the stupidity of Bushit.
Unfortunately. the answer to your question is not retaliation but destroying this democracy, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We would shut down our borders and you would need ID to do ANYTHING.

Want a window into your scenario? Look at what happened during the DC/Virginia snipper attacks. America would STOP, no work, no school and our economy would go into a depression that would make '37 look like a picnic.

[DrWeird]

13. Nuke some other city.

Doesn't matter if they have anything to do with it or not. Just pick one at random. You know, Bush Policy.

[porphyrian]

14. Continue as usual.

I'm not the CIA, the FBI, the federal, state, and local police, the Department of Homeland Security, or a mercenary trained in antiterrorism. If all of these people can't stop a nuclear attack on our soil, who can? I'm not giving up my fucking country, not to neocons, and certainly not to terrorists.

That said, your scenario won't happen. It's a bullshit tactic of the current administration to keep us in a state of fear so that we don't think straight and vote for their traitorous asses. I won't have it.

[Silverhair]

28. I hope it won't happen too. But it isn't wrong to ask, "What if"?

In fact, not to ask, "What if?" is merely denial.

[porphyrian]

29. Nope, just not necessary.

If you want to explore what to do after a nuclear holocaust, go play Gamma World. But don't play the fear game with the neocons right before the election.

[lectrobyte]

15. Begin an investigation and hunt down the responsible parties

that is, If I'm President Kerry. If I'm President Bush, I suppose I invade Nigeria or Venezuela for their oil.

[Ripley]

18. A smart president would not invade or nuke a "host" country.

And not divulge what our military operations are. Send out the Seals, etc. to find the guys who made the tape, claiming responsibility. It should be an undercover operation working with other intelligence agencies around the world.

Retaliating with nukes is impossible and nuts and would probably set off WWIII (or IV if you're so inclined).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Re-invade Greneda and declare "Mission Accomplished".

Or, perhaps bomb Burkina-Faso.

Bring pride back to 'Murka.

[rogerashton]

66. Well, there IS evidence that Burkina Faso collaborated in the 9-11 attacks

unlike Iraq.

[rogerashton]

22. Anything that could be done after should be done before.

Hunting down AQ figures, for example.

The most likely route for such munitions to enter the country would be by ship or airplane. Our ports are now unsecured. They should be secured.

Airport security against suitcase nukes is probably pretty strong now, but where it could be strengthened, that should be done too.

Of course, those things HAVE to be done before. Once the horse has escaped, however, it is a bit late to close the barn door -- and that's the slant built into your question.

[Silverhair]

30. Impossible to secure the ports that tightly.

A suitcase nuke weights less than 50 pounds. Lots of ways to smuggle that into the country.

Yes, I clearly stated that despite the best efforts, it happened anyway. Because the question is, "What if it happened anyway?"

[rogerashton]

67. Loaded question.

If "it" happens despite all prudent precautions, then just be happy that you have done what you can. "Hunt down Osama?" If you haven't done that already, why will you be able to do it after -- unless because you had not done all you could before.

Badly formed question.

[Silverhair]

81. AQ is more than just Osama.

Find OBL and kill him and AQ will still be around, and will soon have new leadership.

The question is well formed, but I shall state it in another way.

Your plan A is prevention. What is your plan B if plan A fails?

[rogerashton]

97. Beside the point.

Certainly contingency planning is needed -- but if we have not done all we can to eliminated AQ over the next few years, then we are negligent; and if we have done, then there is nothing more to do. And eliminating those who would attack is the main point for terrorism: responding to an attack by, for example, invading another country that had nothing to do with terrorism, is a way of making things worse; and that's what your question asks for.

[Silverhair]

98. No. My question does NOT ask FOR anything.

It asks: What SHOULD we do IF it happens? It is a completely open ended question.

[Technowitch]

25. Sorry, but there is ALWAYS evidence

And evidence and intelligence lead to finding out who did the deed.

And that leads to establishing beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible -- and offers a plan for retaliation.

Think about 9/11. Nothing published beforehand. A bunch of groups taking responsibility afterwards, and a bunch disavowing it. All of the hijackers were killed when the planes crashed.

And still, despite foot-dragging by the White House, it was established beyond any reasonable doubt that al Qaeda was responsible, and that led to Bin Laden. Not to mention the symbiotic relationship between al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Therefore the rest of the world (well, most of it) had NO problem with the United States attacking.

Were there a nuclear attack, there would be evidence, and that evidence would lead somewhere. I would ask for the world's help in bringing the perpetrators to justice. Build a real coalition -- and stay focused on the people who ACTUALLY DID THE DEED!

Shrub had a magnificent opportunity -- and he squandered it with his insane single-minded obsession with Saddam Hussein.

[951]

31. WAKE UP PEOPLE! If terrorists had the capability to nuke...

Israel would be in real trouble years ago.

[Zinfandel]

33. NEVER GOING TO FUCKING HAPPEN!

Bush wants North Korea, Iran etc. to develop nuclear weapons, so Bush can use the excuse to use them first...this is about world domination with these fascist...they don't give a fuck about you or me. YOU ARE NO MORE THAN A PEASANT WORKER WHO WANTS SOCIAL SECURITY WHEN YOU RETIRE...THEY WANT THAT MONEY, IT'S THEIRS, SO FUCK OFF AND DIE FIRST!

THIS QUESTION IS BULLSHIT...IT'S PUSHING BUSH & CHENEY'S GOAL...
FEAR, FEAR, FEAR AND MORE FEAR AND NEVER LET UP!

[ithacan]

78. right. ain't gonna happen

it's not an easy thing, to make a workable nuclear weapon.

State governments with tons of resources have tried and failed. Terrorists don't have those resources.

The whole nuclear scenario is nothing but a way for Bush and conservatives in general to try to extinguish any criticism of the bloated defense establishment, to evoke fear so people won't think about how the economic is going down the tubes.

[midnight armadillo]

36. Invade Canada.

Those damn Canucks, with their strong beer and universal health care, clearly they will have weakened us due to their proximity.

Annex the whole place!

[doubleplusgood]

88. Yes !

Think about it: why else would Canada mass 90% of their population within 200 miles of the U.S. if they weren't planing to invade us ?

[Emboldened Chimp]

37. I would attack Saudi Arabia

Since they are the largest sponsors of terror in the world. Perhaps this would have some effect on Iran, possibly igniting a revolution. The economic ramifications of such an attack would be severe, no doubt, but the economy would already be pretty fucked after a nuke went off. After ridding SA of the royal family, I would then execute a series of Special Ops raids that would target terrorist leaders/cells in many of the hot spots, including Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, et al. After the smoke clears, I would then kick start a vigorous effort to once and for all wean the US off its oil dependency and move toward alternative energy, Big Oil be damned. If they give me lip, their charters would be summarily revoked. Finally, I would decline running for president for a second term (provided I'm in my first), because the RW media would never let a sitting Democrat get re-elected after such a thing happened. I would retire to my mountain estate armed to the teeth and await the coming revolution that would take hold in our country and the world over. The end.

[Beam Me Up]

38. STOP SPREADING THE "TERRORIST ARE A REAL THREAT" MEME

I have silver hair too. The REAL terrorists are those in control of the National Security State: The ones capable of pulling of a 9/11 in broad day light and making it LOOK like "fundamentalist Muslims who hate us for our freedoms" (TM) did it. AND having sufficient stature to get everyone to go along with THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. THE LIE. etc.

[aden_nak]

39. Invade a country that had nothing to do with it. DUH.

[qs04]

41. What I'd do...

I'd have Negroponte, Kissinger, Bush, etc. on charges of Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, whatever was applicable. Actually I'd do that on day one of my term.

As for a response to the attack, retaliation against the group responsible and the leaders of whatever nation provided the weapon -- if that is how it was obtained -- if possible. Something non-NBC I think.

And I'd make plans for my retirement as there's no way my career/life would survive that first step.

[John BigBootay]

43. Sometimes the best solution is the military solution...

And sometime the military solution is a load of crap.

You won't get very good answers on DU, Silverhair, because I believe most people here are willing to pretend 9/11 was an aberation, an isolated case, and that Bushco is manufacturing the terror threat.

They probably are to some extent. I don't know what the REAL level of danger is, but I believe your scenario is possible and it's worth playing "what if" games if for no other reason than to prepare mentally for a possible occurance.

First of all, my Presidency would be aggressively seeking out alternative fuel sources, and I would be withdrawing interests and mending fences in the Middle East as rapidly as possible.

But if your scenario did occur under my watch I'd make damn sure I knew all the details: who did it, where the bomb was made, where the uranium came from, who harbored the terrorists, where any funding came from. And, after obtaining whatever coalition is this time willing to fight with us, ALL the people, groups and nations who were knowingly involved in the act would receive their turn in front of the might of the coalition army. I would spare no expense and I would make every effort to kill as many terrorists who choose to fight.

During this period of warfare I would make a promise to the terrorists that another attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against the United States would be answered in kind on a city in a rogue nation-- the city determined to be most dangerous, threatening or guilty. And I would keep this promise, but I would give the residents of the doomed city 2 days to evacuate.

If there was a third attack against the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, I would use in-kind weapons on another city, this time with no warning. And I would then continue to respond in kind, as warranted by the actions of the terrorists

I know that 98% of my DU readers are gasping, laughing hysterically or rolling their eyes-- but consider what the number one job of the President is to protect America and American lives.

As I said above, sometimes there is nothing else than a strict military solution.

That said, this is nothing more than a hypothetical "war game." Ultimately, it means nothing, but merely illustrates our differences of opinion.

[sangh0]

63. The "Dems won't fight" meme

coming from our resident "Always agrees with the rnc propoganda"

[John BigBootay]

69. Neener-Neener-NEEEE-ner! n/t

[TahitiNut]

45. Every Nuke has a "fingerprint" from which its source can be identified.

Any nation with nukes would be beyond insane to let them fall into the hands of some 'terrorist' group.

The same thing goes for weaponized biological substances.

[Selwynn]

47. Here's exactly what I would do:

The immediate concern right after the disaster would be FIRST to secure our own nation, boarders and control the damage and make sure that all emergency organizations have all resources and access to evacuate where needed, contain where unavoidable and take care of the survivors.

All trading would be immediately suspended, all of our defense bases around the global would obviously move to highest alert status, and the we would operate under the assumption that we're at war - simply because at that point we wouldn't know enough details to know who did what.

Within two hours of of the attack, I'd be on the airwaves. My first goal would be to tell the absolute honest truth to the people - truthfully talk about what we know, truthfully talk about what we don't. It wouldn't be a time for posturing or politicizing. I would be there to hold hands with America and be a source of strength amidst all the fear. Then I would establish a daily "briefing" with America, where I went on prime time television once a day to talk about exactly what was happening, what steps were being taken to deal with the tragedy, and what steps were being taken to respond appropriately.

Then obviously, all the joint chiefs would be assembled, and naturally we would start reviewing all intelligence. The difference between me and Bush is that I would not see the tragedy as an opportunity to push my own agenda. I would listen to information and analysis from all sides, and when we needed more intelligence and information, I would create an atmosphere of empowerment, where agents were not sent out and told to come back with a certain answer, but were instead sent out and told to come back with the truth.

While I was daily keeping the American people informed on exactly what their government was doing in response to this attack, I would also be putting together a response plan, and I would also be planning what would probably be the most important speech of my career - a speech that would announce key policy shifts. But I would not give that speech until we had enough information to hunt down the people responsible for the terrorist act and take them into custody.

Ok back to the actual action: I would be looking for two things - who are the specific people responsible and where are they, and did they have state-sponsored help and if so what country/countries gave that aid. If we had clear and credible evidence that this was a state-sponsored act, obviously a state of war would exist between us and we would push them to surrender. In that situation, it would be no different than Japan bombing Pearl harbor. If however, no clear state connection could be made, we would push forward with the capture of those terrorists responsible for the attack. If the terrorists were part of a larger organization, we would go after that organization. If states were supporting and harboring that organization, we would demand their immediate cooperation or declare war against them.

Assuming we get to the place where we have clear evidence of who was responsible for the attacks, we would go after them and if they had state backing, we would invade - very much like we did in Afghanistan. My only problem with what we did in Afghanistan was that it was so mismanaged. When I ordered a military response, I would prepare the speech of my life for immediately after it was safe to inform the public of our actions.

My speech would include the following parts: first, I would explain the action taken. I would explain the intelligence that shows who was responsible. If we had to take action against a state because it was a state-sponsored act, I would explain in detail the connection. I would have ideological words about our strength and resolve, and I would talk - like any good leader would - about our courage and unwillingness to coward or sacrifice our principles of freedom in the face of a terrorist enemy.

But then I would also begin to outline to the American people what would be the first of numerous speeches about our international policy. I would, through my words make it clear to the rest of the world that the United States would no longer take a hypocritical stance toward terrorism in the world, nor make itself a target through it policies in the middle east and elsewhere. I would talk to the American people about my beliefs that more than anything else, the United States should be a beacon of human rights and liberty in the world, and not a machine of domination and imperialism. We would strike with deadly force when attacked, but we will earn the trust and respect of every good and peace loving person on earth through our actions.

To that end, I would either in that speech or in speeches to come (because right after we were savagely attacked is not always the time when people are going to listen to a message of peace) I would begin to announce our withdraw from bases in the middle east, our withdraw from Iraq and our renewed diplomatic efforts to get the United Nations into the region in our place. There would be a fundamental shift in our support of Israel and ALL other nations in the word, from one of radical self interest to one of CONDITIONAL SUPPORT. That support would be conditional in each countries adherence to international law, to the principles of justice, to the maintenance of human rights and basic liberties.

No longer will we unconditionally support countries or governments that consistently violate international law and abuse human rights.

I would also, either in that speech or in speeches to come, being preparing the people for a United States that is a participant partner and not an domination imperialist power, in the global community. My Presidency and my response to the attack would be the end to The United States acting like a Rogue State. Again, this would be while I was in the middle of a military response to the terrorists and any state behind that terrorism. If a state did sponsor the attack, then we'd be in the middle of a declared war, but I would continue to announce these policy initiatives while at the same time showing unrelenting resolve to defeat our aggressor and protect our nation.

The next years of my administration would be all about ending the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. There are many things that we criticize and condemn other countries for which we do regularly. I would seek to stop that. I would look to Green tech, and alternative energy development and make that a number one priority to end our dependence on middle eastern oil. Much like JFK challenged America to go to the moon by the end of the decade, I would challenge American to eliminate oil dependency in ten years.

My administration would take the exact opposite approach of Bush. Instead of painting the world in black and white. I would constantly force the American people to accept two realities - first, the reality of an evil vicious enemy that hates us and wishes for our destruction. And our response to that enemy will be unwavering unrelenting and aggressive defense. Second, the reality of a fifty year long foreign policy that has been fundamentally unjust and exploitative, harmful to the long term future of our country (though very profitable in the short term to many) and that we must being to change within as well as resist our enemies abroad as we continue into the 21st century.

So to recap:
- frequent engagement with the people after the attack - daily speeches, constant information, honesty, openness, comfort
- a swift, accurate, appropriate military response to the attack. If individuals acting alone, law enforcement. If an organization acting collectively, a military campaign combined with law enforcement. If state sponsored, a military campaign to force the unconditional surrender of the aggressor.
- a beginning of significant policy shifts in American, with the understanding that our "might" must be coupled with our willingness and ability to recognize and acknowledge our own mistakes and the things that we must change to move forward and make the entire earth a safer more peaceful place
- the beginning of a campaign to end oil dependency in ten years, and make the development of green technology a top priority
- a fundamental change in our policy of support for other countries from one of unconditional when it severs our "strategic interests" to one that is conditional on the country's adherence to international law, participation in the global community, good human rights record, etc.
- a fundamental shift from a doctrine of hegemony and imperialism to a doctrine of multilateralism and cooperation.

Those policy doctrines would reflect long term and slow change, and nothing about them would stop me from boldly and aggressively bringing terrorists to justice or defending our country during a time of war with any nation state who attacked us.

That would be my start...
Sel

[Silverhair]

52. EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!! N/T

[Selwynn]

54. Vote for Selwynn 2016!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Great response!

How about running for president in 2012?

[sweetheart]

75. I would add...

I aggree and would pursue similarly, with these differences:

1. With global proliferation of nuclear materials and arms, there is
just a matter of time until they are used. I would size the initiative
afforded by the attack to call for the end of nuclear weapons in our
lifetime, and i would back this up by publically disarming and putting beyond use 80% of the US nuclear arsenal IMMEDIATELY, and i
would call on all other nuclear armed nations to do the same. So,
in addition to the points you made, get rid of all nukes, so that
such a travesty, or much worse, never happens again. In the
conditional foreign policy you mention, i would tie nuclear
disarmament tightly to progress in relations.

2. I would not have TV spots, the republicans would abuse them to
destroy any momentum. Rather, i would have periodic speaches, and
have my cabinet make regular public disclosures to congress.

3. I would rhetocially blame the military indusrial complex for
advancing the military empire, and use the political momentum to
end corporate personhood, so that the aerospace/war industry never
again controls the basis of policy for democratic free peoples.

4. In order to satisfy the FURY of the american people at being so
attacked, by a non-state opponent (say the suitcase bomb was USA
made), i would announce a policy of public above ground nuclear
tests until the last test, was the last nuke. The tests would be
held Annually to commemorate the attack, and the public would be
invited to see the tests, along with people and diplomats from
all nations. My thinking here, is that people do not know how
horrible these weapons are, so the'll need to see some up close to
GET disarmament.

[walldude]

95. Damn you stole my response

seriously, I think this may be a case of psychic plagerism. :D I will have to admit that you were more eloquent than I would have been but you also saved me typing a long essay. Wonderful, smart, humanitarian response. Let me know if you are running for office :D

[Solon]

48. The problem with your scenario...

OK, first off, no single terrorist group can develop a nuclear weapon on its own. Second, the "Suitcase" Nuke scenario is even less likely, considering that a 50 dollar Geiger Counter could detect one with no problem, it would be hard to smuggle one in. The ports are probably the easiest way, however, the biggest problem is for the terrorists to get their hands on one in the first place.

This means some state support, the problem there is that it is traceable, and any state knows that the United States will retaliate by wiping them out entirely. Even North Korea is not crazy enough to do that.

I would say giving odds of an actual nuclear terrorist attack on our soil is somewhere around One Billion to one, in other words not likely. This is better odds than getting struck by a killer asteroid in our lifetimes. The worst case I could imagine is a "Dirty" bomb or a simple Biological/Chemical attack. The reasons are obvious, all of these are more easily accessable by terrorist organizations, a domestic militia last year was caught with several hundred pound of Cyanide and explosives, with plans to detonate it in a stadium or crowded area. This could have killed many more people than 9/11, so what would the response be to such an attack, Nuking Montana?

Now as far as foriegn terrorists and the types of bombs I had mentioned in the above paragraph. I would put more money on a Chemical Weapon over that of Biological/Dirty(Radioactive) bomb. The problem is access over almost anything else, probably with the exception of Anthrax, which is largely inadequate as a terror weapon, most other effective diseases that could be used, especially in our climate, would be Ebola or Smallpox. They are extremely hard to find and cultivate, especially Smallpox, as it is only present in a few government labs in the World, and therefore extremely traceable. Natural Ebola is too deadly to handle without the facilities to contain it, and is so lethal that it actual will kill itself off.

Dirty Bombs have an even worse problem, getting the radioactive material is a mountain to climb all by itself, plus it has the same detection problem of Nuclear Weapons. Also, they are not as effective as we would believe, depending on the blast, they could create fallout, that is true, but with no massive amount of radiation as would occur like a nuclear weapon. How effective is a weapon of terror if it doesn't kill all of it victims for 10 to 30 years? Where is the shock value?

This is not to say that we shouldn't think about, or plan for it, but that it is very similar to MAD, in other words, everybody loses their lives. After the dust settles, we would have killed, if we were stupid, several million people to the hundreds of thousands of our own. In other words, by the end of the day, there would not be any victims or perpretrators only killers.

[John BigBootay]

49. A BILLION to ONE?

No.

I agree the odds are long at this moment in time-- but a billion to one is understating the threat. I can't give odds on this. No one can.

Lead shielding can defeat a geiger counter and fissionable material can be procured from rogue nations now-- and moreso in the future.

Skilled amateurs can make a nuclear bomb (minus the core) from plans and information available in books and on the internet.

I am not saying to be afraid-- but I am saying to be realistic. And it's better to be just a little paranoid (and looking for threats) than to be happily carefree.

[Solon]

68. Do You know how much lead, or concrete for that matter...

is needed to shield against Gamma Radiation? Its measured in feet, several feet in fact. Do you know how hard it is to transport such a package undetected? As far as building a nuclear bomb, it is not something you could build out of a garage or something. It doesn't really matter how much info is out there on how to build one, like me, I know all about the workings of an Internal Combustion Engine, how they work, even where certain parts go, but I'll be damned if I could build one, much less one that worked. There is also the concern with testing, how will they know it even works? They can't just test it, minus some state support, and that is iffy to begin with, so where are they going to test it? You can't hide it anywhere in the world, even underground, such a test would be detected, then the game is up before the attack could take place.

Second, unless the rogue nation in question is suicidal, no fissionable material will be handed to or sold to terrorists. Also, I'm not carefree, just the opposite, but I am NOT paranoid about it, just realistic. If 9/11 has taught us anything, it is that terrorists will use the CHEAPEST most EFFECTIVE and LEAST DETECTABLE method imaginable to carry out their attacks.

[serryjw]

51. Actually the worst case scenario is so simple

Ashcrack told us last year.....little dirty bombs going off in apartment houses across the country. The psychological damage could not be measured. Like I said in the previous post, people would just stay home like during the DC snipper attacks..America would just stop!

[Solon]

70. That would be hard to do...

More likely a chemical attack than a dirty bomb. The advantages are obvious. Less risk of detection, you can manufacture all the materials from US products and the damage, psychological and otherwise, would be greater.

[Silverhair]

82. You are correct. A chemical attack has greater probability.

And some very deadly gases can be made from common ingredients. A distribution system can be homemade too, from common stuff.

I used the word nuke instead of WMD or a gas attack for it's attention value. A gas attack could still produce tens of thousands of casualties. If I had asked the question using WMD instead of nuke, I don't think as many readers would have taken it as seriously. Most people don't understand that a gas attack can be worse than a backpack nuke.

So back to my original question. We get hit with a WMD attack. Now what do you do?

[Solon]

93. Depends on who did it...

I divide it up to two groups, Right Wingnut Domestic Terrorists, and then Foriegn Terrorists. If Domestic, then I would hunt them down, make sure they get a fair trial, etc. etc. Or just Nuke Montana. Remember the Worst Terrorist Attack before 9/11 was a domestic attack, plus the couple caught with that cyanide scare the shit out of me more than AQ could. Think about the neighbor down the street, the one who looks "normal" but could in reality be a domestic terrorist, how do you screen for that?

For the Foriegn ones, I would catch them as quickly as possible, investigate if any foriegn nation aided them, and if so, demand they turn over the perpretrators, if they don't, then invade(Make sure it is the RIGHT country).

[Solon]

94. I wanted to talk about something else as well...

Not response, but preventative measures. One is to, just in case, have radiation detectors at all Seaports and Airports, also Geiger Counters for all Border Patrol Officers. BTW: Nuclear Weapons are LESS effective on the ground that in the air, Line of Sight is MUCH smaller, causing less damage than lets say a small private plane with a Nuclear Weapon blowing up over a city.

Second is an infrastructure problem to minimize casualties in case of a biological or chemical attack. An obvious one is the Ventalation Systems in Office Buildings. I would figure that in case of such an attack, have these building close themselves off as much as possible from the surrounding atmosphere outside of them. Have new, optimized filtration systems that can filter out most pathogens and poisions from the air. Also another possiblility is to have positive pressure sections in buildings, where the pressure inside the area is greater that 1 atomosphere, not by much, just enough to prevent outside air from comming in. Whole buildings could be made this way if neccessary, basically like Cheyenne Mountain NORAD facility, just smaller. These techniques could also reduce Fallout casualties as well.

[Silverhair]

50. OK, Here is what I would do.

First let me address some of the comments. I am NOT spreading an RW meme. In the first debate, when Kerry was asked what the greatest threat to the USA was, he answered, "Nuclear proliferation." Was Kerry spreading a Republican Meme? No. He was speaking a simple truth. By talking about this subject, I am trying to stimulate public discussion, as was done in the Cold War.

In researching for this question, I found a diversity of opinion among experts as to how probable this was. NONE said it was impossible. Some even thought that AQ already had some Russian suitcase nukes. I don't think they do, because they would have used them already. But someday they may get one and that is a REAL possibility.

I disagree with the responder who thinks that Israel would be the first place they would use one. If they had one, we would be first. Take America down, and Israel falls on it's own.

In the way of prevention, as well as the usual things, I would also offer to buy any lose nukes. I would be hoping that the original group that had a lost nuke or nuclear material would be want to sell to the highest bidder. USA can outbid anybody. Who knows? Maybe we are doing that already.

I chose a 2KT nuke as I considered that suitcase nuke was the most likely scenario. I chose the Pentagon as I believe they would want to hit the highest value symbolic target available. I place the Pentagon above the White House as a desirable target because it represents the military might of the USA and it is an important military target.

NOW AS TO WHAT I WOULD DO:

Response would have to be both vigorous and effective. Trying to convince some terrorists friendly country to respond to a subpoena won't cut it. Treating it as an oversized criminal case would cause laughter among the terrorists of the world, and as soon as they could get another nuke we would get hit again.

However, we would have a lot going for us. I would not make a public you-are-with-us-or-against-us speech. That only serves to stiffen resistance from counties that might cooperate but need to appear independent. I would approach them through diplomacy on the idea that if the USA can be hit, they are vulnerable too if some other irrational terror group decides to target them. Most countries would quickly cooperate.

Financially, most countries would need to cooperate. A major hit on the USA would produce some huge waves in the international financial world. Like - serious turmoil in the markets. They would need international financial stability, and the only way to get that would be to stop the terror groups.

I know the civil libertarians among us will be appalled at this, but I would pull out all the stops in searching for the terror network. Yes, I would use any questioning method that might get results. And some people would simply disappear.

Of course, I would test for where the nuke was made, but that might not help. I could be one of those loose Russian nukes. I can't really blame Russia as there was a good bit of confusion and internal turmoil when the old Soviet Empire collapsed. If the nuke came from Iran or N.Korea, they would be subject to retaliation. Overwhelming retaliation.

If a country did not cooperate in finding terrorists in their nation, then I would have to use force. In cooperation with the coalition, of course.

That's it for now. Will write more later.

[sangh0]

64. But you ARE spreading a RW meme

Trying to convince some terrorists friendly country to respond to a subpoena won't cut it. Treating it as an oversized criminal case would cause laughter among the terrorists of the world

That came right from a bush* speech.

[John BigBootay]

71. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

You've got to get over the "just because Bush said X, means the only logical answer is Y" routine.

[sangh0]

73. Blind Squirrel??

I guess that's one way to put it, but around here, we call him a chimp*

I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

[John BigBootay]

76. Ho-hum... Sangha, you can do better...

chimp, shrub, whistle ass, bunnypants.. whatever.

Fact is, any President is right when they believe that terrorism is not a job for law enforcement, but the military.

People like you would rather say the sky is filled with green and pink polka-dots if the chimp proclaimed it was blue.

[sangh0]

79. People like me?

You mean us libruls?

[JVS]

53. Pre-emptively nuke everyone else

:-)

[patcox2]

55. Nuke those responsible.

It will be easy, I am willing to bet we could trace the source of the bomb materials accurately.

We should have an announced policy that in the event the US is nuked, Mecca is nuked, automatically and immediately. Just to give them some reason to think twice. Give the sane moslems a good reason to rat out any lunatics with a bomb, too.

[Goldmund]

57. "We should have an announced policy that in the event the US is nuked,

Mecca is nuked, automatically and immediately."

Wow man. If you announced that policy, some freeper would nuke the US immediately and automatically.

[patcox2]

58. Who would have the motivation and capability to do such a thing?

Besides Isreal, I mean. They are our ally, a staunch defender of freedom and democracy, and a peace loving country, so we know that would never happen.

[Goldmund]

60. Exactly

I thought you were being serious. Now I realize you were sarcastic.

[patcox2]

61. Only half sarcastic.

Seriously, MAD did work. In the worst of the cold war, it worked. the threat of annihilation prevented the cowboys on either side from even thinking about attacking. Its morally repugnant, MAD, but effective.

So, as I point out below, you can't deter terrorists, as opposed to a nation, because the terrorists come from various countries and they are personally willing to die anyway.

So, what do you do? Would such a threat deter them?

[Goldmund]

62. Russians would have cared if Russia was destroyed.

Islamic terrorists could give a fuck if Mecca was destroyed.

Russia is a place on the map, with coordinates that you can punch into missile guidance systems.

"Terrorstan" doesn't exist.

And even if it did -- hey, 72 virgins beats living in Amman or Cleveland.

If you destroyed Russia, Russian army would be no more.

If you destroyed Mecca, the Muslim army would have 1 billion willing soldiers.

Here's what I would do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2526530&mesg_id=2526688&page=

[sweetheart]

74. What if the suitcase bomb turns out to be American made?

Several of the american models are missing, really are... and it has
been covered up for obvious reasons.

Then what will you do, nuke kansas?

[patcox2]

56. Prevent it with a doctrine of "Mecca Assured Destruction"

MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked for 50 years. The problem with the terrorists is that the country they work from isn't necessarily their home, they are a network, a movement, not a country, so where should we bomb?

I suggest we announce a firm commitment to a revised MAD doctrine of Mecca Assured Destruction. If they bomb us, we bomb Mecca. (We start there, anyway). The terrorists cannot be deterred by the threat of their individual death, they are clearly willing to sacrifice themselves, but they would not be willing to sacrifice Mecca. And the mere threat of it would turn decent muslims against them; it could even, just possibly, mootivate the Saudi government to stop supporting al queada.

[nine23]

59. Duck n' Cover

[maxsolomon]

65. nuke mecca

and jerusalem.

i hate the ME.

[0rganism]

77. Arrest the people who gave the uranium to AQ

Use the opportunity to invigorate the multinational campaign to destroy the AQ terror network, starting with the people who published to the internet and all those connected to them, financially or operationally. Such activities are seldom truly anonymous, their is almost always a trail to follow, starting with the service providers and identity screeners, working backwards to the source.

Cooperate with local law enforcement to do so if possible, by demanding immediate extradition of any known AQ operatives. If not, bring the collaborators in using appropriate military force. Further increase efforts to track and lock down nuclear material, esp. in the former USSR (Like Kerry, I would make this a top priority from the day I took office.)

Summarily destroy any and all uranium refineries in terror-supporting or "rogue" regimes with nascent nuclear capability, such as Iran and North Korea. Use bombers and cruise missiles to accomplish this if necessary. This would be an absolutely non-negotiable point.

[sweetheart]

89. imagine how hard this is going to be

for the half life of this 700,000 years U235 material. It is just
a matter of time, until some nuclear plant fuel rod makes it in to
a bomb. There is simply too much of the stuff around, more every
day, and as generations of human beings go by, empires come and go,
and still this hot metal will be waiting for anyone with a grievance.

What worries me is not the scenario today, but the scenario in 2300
AD when all living knowledge of our initial experiments with nuclear
weapons has died.

[Karenina]

80. I ignored this thread on several passes...

Just cuz the title says everything about the asinine, self-absorption of Americans. JUST WHO are these "turrists" you speak of? If such an ocurrence comes to pass in the near future one would do well to look first at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the culprits. Your gub'mint is CURRENTLY, TODAY,committing GENOCIDE against a hapless people. It is murdering their citizens (AND SACRIFICING YOURS in a no-win, illegal invasion) poisoning their environment for an eternity, stealing their resources and setting up the apparatus to CONTINUE doing so OHNE ENDE. YOUR GUB'MINT is THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS TERRORIST ON THE PLANET, spreading hatred and blame EVERYWHERE. Your response is to sit comfortably at your keyboard positing hypotheticals about what to do if the chickens come home to roost. :puke: :puke: :puke:

[sweetheart]

90. Amen

The most likely source is the US arsenal... and then what?

[leftofthedial]

83. Invade Iraq again!

[leftofthedial]

84. Okay.

Invade Venezuela!

[Forkboy]

85. Dig a hole

and cover it with a door.With enough shovels we'll be alright.

[Arkana]

92. Here's my plan

First I secure the country's borders--flights grounded (yes, even the bin Laden family), all container ships coming into port turned away, and I inform the American people that I am fully aware of the gravity of the situation and that I will not tolerate an attack of this magnitude on our sovereignty.

At the same time, however, I want to level with everyone: tell them that there are things we know and things we do not know. No posturing, no smokin' em out, none of that shit. I will tell them that there will be no knee-jerk reactions to this--it will be thought-out, carefully planned, and flawlessly executed.

I make sure the intelligence community isn't asleep at the wheel. I would work tirelessly with terror experts (and AQ specialists, since the Big Dog had Clarke) about the best way to react. All the while, I continue to be brutally honest with the American people, telling them of each move we make, and of our decisions.

I make sure the Senate Intelligence Committee is well-briefed, They will need to know as much as possible if they are to have any influence. Remember, John Kerry hit terrorists where it hurts most--in the wallet.

I don't know how effective this would be, but I would put intense pressure on Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries to freeze terror groups' assets and deny them the money they need to carry out these attacks. There will be no more babying the goddamn Saudis.

Without funding, bin Laden and much of al Qaeda will be paralyzed. Because of their inability to project any threat, I will be able to flush out sleeper cells within the country and thus TRULY secure the homeland.

If I decide that war is necessary, I will not hesitate to go forward. If I find, through intelligence gathering, that ANY country has harbored al Qaeda or given them funding (yes, I'm talking to YOU, Saudi Arabia) then I will use force. I will gather as much international support as I possibly could and I will use every resource I have at hand to destroy the terror organizations responsible.

[Silverhair]

100. Your plan would also paralyze the USA economy.

Turn away all containers? No foreign trade? The economy would collapse.

How would you pressure the Saudis? What kind of pressure?

[TankLV]

96. Well, if bunkerboy and the repukes nuke us, I say haul every last one off

to prision for the traitors they are!

[Silverhair]

101. Please reread my original post.

I specified that AQ does it.

[NicRic]

99. bush>read My Pet goat 2 ;-)

.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

102. Increase clandestine operations to take out AQ leadership,

Institute security measures that would detect radio active material in transportation systems and start sending medical and nutritional aid to countries that hate the US to start changing the mindset theat the US is an evil entity bent on world domination.