The only good that would come from it - the US would stop being the only one that has used nuclear in anger. Hopefully we would have the good sense not to elevate our response to it. At minimum we would stop fighting with our hands tied behind our backs. The world loves an underdog. The Islamofacist would stop being one. The peacefull Muslims would get hurt in the world wide fall out. Maybe even WWIII.
2006-09-18 15:40:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by viablerenewables 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
If Bush is the commander in chief? Another Holocaust. Martial law in the US, rounding up all arabs, indisciminate bombing of muslim countries (most of which have chrsitian populations too), europeans and the rest of the countries of the world would have to decide who to side with or against, a draft, military build up, rationing, invasions, etc...
Chance of a nuclear exchange. Depends on who picks what side as to how it starts. Pakistan has bombs, India too, Syria is suspected of having them, Israel exhanges with Syria and hits Iran too, maybe Iraq too. Putin and China get itchy and will retaliate if threatened. North Korea may see it as an opportunity. France and England?? WW 3. I'll be on a plane to New Zealand.
2006-09-18 16:15:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Irony
The appeasers of the American Left who seem to love Islamofacists will most likely be the target as they gather in the cities. I vote for a nuke in the SF Bay area. The rest of the country can get rightously indignant and we can finally wipe out the Islamofacists where they live.
2006-09-18 15:37:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by rjf 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
That depends on whether we have a Leftist or an American President at the time.
A Leftist Prez, like Kerry or Hillary, would insist we figure out how to make the rest of the world 'like' us.
An American Prez would do his/her job and turn Mecca into a parking lot.
How about it folks? Is that the threat that should hang over Muslims' heads? Shape up or Mecca gets splattered? They are already holding that threat over OUR heads as we saw on 9/11.
2006-09-18 15:29:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by speakeasy 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
It would be a WHOLE new ballgame then. Unfortunately, we would probably all unite in the mission of destroying whoever launched the strike, then eventually the "Hate America" crowd would rear it's ugly head once again. Hopefully we would retalliate quickly BEFORE they start whining! It would be awful, but entirely possible the longer this war on terrorism lasts.
2006-09-18 15:34:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Cinner 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
The most serious response would be a full nuclear strike against the offending nation. The least serious would be a combined arms invasion of the nation by a NATO force.
2006-09-18 15:30:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Black Sabbath 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
we would need alot of body bags for here and the rest of the world.
Is it just me or have a bunch of innocent civillians in iraq die, yet we don't even notice. Is it that we are not informed or we just don't care.
2006-09-18 15:38:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by snowteller 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I'm afraid the Middle East would cease to exist as we know it.
We would respond in kind - and we have a much bigger club.
2006-09-18 15:33:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
then george will only have to blame himself for not listening to the recommendations of the 9/11 commission !!!
2006-09-18 15:38:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
You don't understand.. you hate the very people who are financed by your own government...they love seeing poor people fight and laugh all the way to the bank. Terrorism is a business looking at it any other way is unrealistic.
2006-09-18 15:31:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by dstr 6
·
1⤊
2⤋