If Islamic terrorists manage to use a WMD (nuclear, Chemical, or Bio weapon) on a US city,?

Question

Would you support or demand that the US retaliate by using its nuclear weapons on Mecca and all other Islamic holy places?

Answer 1

The problem with your scenario is that destroying a city in an Arab or Muslim country and comprised by 98% innocent people doesn't punish those who set of the weapon in the US.

The US citizen's initial response I have no doubt would be to launch a massive retaliatory strike at the first perceived target. But would it be the right target?

However. If it were determined that that a foreign government had knowledge and supported (gave them the weapon or means to produce it) then I suggest that even Allah wouldn't be able to protect that country from the firestorm from hell that the US arsenal would rain down on them. And on any country that aligns themselves with the soon to be parking lot of a country.

Answer 2

Hell no.

First, by sending a nuke over Mecca effectively does two things to us:
- we prove that we are capitalist barbarians to the Islamic followers, which by the way, the majority of them hates terrorists as much as we do, maybe more, since they (the terrorists) are giving Islam a bad name;

- we alienate whatever goodwill we have cultivated to this point and invalid them all in an instant. We also effectively alienate whatever allies that we might have up till now.

My informed guess is we might declare sanctions or some other forms of aggressive diplomatic solutions, like waging a limited war against those bunch of individuals responsible, not against the alleged countries from which they are originally from (the US attacked Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, where Osama was born in).

Answer 3

The life of nuclear weapons has no concerning to international peace. it rather is approximately who possesses them, and the posseser's intentions. the present international Nuclear disposition interior of reason balanced in a fashion that it promotes protection tension stability and peace. there is now not some thing refuting that, the numerous violent conflicts are not to any extent further a created from recent nuclear weapons. Endstate: Nukes used as risk-free practices sell peace. in any diverse case, they sell violence. yet yet another actual international Analgoy: Fertilizers. Fertilizers would be used to toughen agricultural production bobbing up stablility and peace in 0.33 international international places, yet additionally in those comparable international places the fertilizers are used as weapon in homestead made Explosives production. Does there life impact peace? No, it rather is how they are used, basically like Nuclear weapons.

Answer 4

support finding away to stop terrorists - regardless of what weapons are used. in war the fasteest soltuion is the least costly in terms of hmn sufferring. if that means massive retaliation that would be a good idea, but i doubt attacking a population center would stop a few irrate terrorists.

Answer 5

No, Islamic terrorists are a small minoirty and don't represent all of Islam.
Same goes for Christianity: if a Christian terrorist nukes a US city, I wouldn't support bombing the Vatican either.

Answer 6

I sort of agree with putting the Islamic World on notice that we might be inclined to nuke Mecca if they don't get their act together.

Answer 7

How many innocent people are you prepared to kill in the name of the war on terror, or do they not count as humans because of the location that they choose to live in. No I would not support a nuclear attack on anyone.

Answer 8

Did anyone ever tell you that you have a remarkable skill for putting everyone's mind at ease?

Answer 9

I would love it, but it wont happen. We are too politically correct to even name the enemy as islam. We are still pretending it is only a few radicals

Answer 10

No....We chose 3 Arab cities and reduce them to nothing and if they wish to continue their stupidity we should keep on bombing them until nothing remains of their filthy jihadi hides but burnt ribs.