Do you beleive that perhaps, people 50 years from now might see nuking Iran, Syria, NK today as a good idea?

Question

posted this as an answer to the president question and yahoo answers felt the need to 'delete’ it.
what a bunch of petty losers.

Anyway, if we leave Iraq and let things run their course...and say, 15 years down the line terrorists get nukes and radical islam becomes an 'empire' (that runs from Syria, to Iran, to Iraq)...and with this new found influence, a terrorist finds nukes (new oil money and influence),.and then then uses this to nuke (after Israel) one US city and then holds other cities hostage in the US (by threatening a nuke explosion) to prevent US retaliation on the ‘instigator countries’ which I have mentioned.

would we have seen today as the crucial time to make the world rid of terrorism? It is a crazy idea, but I am having a tough time to see whether it is a stroke of brilliance or craziness.

After all, terrorists have the advantage of being able to move and not care, to hide in caves and then, say, take over saudi arabia....they are run by an ideology,

and not by a centralized system of goverment. They are like a moving virus. Thoughts.

Hell, they could even take over Britain...and cause havoc in Europe...causing social meltdown if the US retaliated against the radical Islamic empire (ontop of the nuclear ransom scenario where the terrorists would hold cities hostage to prevent retaliation).

Furthermore, terrorists can detonate a nuke far from shore on a carrier, they don't even have to be ON US soil. And with virtually so many carriers on ports, etc crossing into US waters, it would be impossible to shut it all down in an isolationist move or shoot down any approaching ships---such would most prob cause fallout on coastal cities.
If you compare both systems, radical islam and ours----ours is more vulnerable. We are not willing to put in everything to defend our way of life--the yare willing to kill themselves in the name of 'allah'---

And there are so many ways to use our own system, against us...just because of everything civilization as we know it is dependent on (oil, centralized system of goverment, etc)

they, on the other hand, do not have any centralized control or goverment...making them harder to destroy.

One nuke in washington by the terrorists completely breaks down our system to respond in a united way in retaliation.

starting over...

I agree with you completely,

Nuclear weapons are not the answer to terrorism

but maybe terrorism's answer to us, may in fact be nuclear weapons.

in such a case, maybe nuclear weapons, are needed to obliterate the existance, of nuclear terrorism.

gameplan...yea,

I consult myself all the time.

Answer 1

do you not realize to nuke anywhere would cause the end of the world for human life

Answer 2

Unfortunately, if we nuked any country, 99.9999% of the people killed would be innocent of terrorism. Unfortunately, one terrorist can cause enough hatred that all of the people that are from the country or of the same religion become suspect.

Nuclear bombs are not the answer to terrorism, unfortunately I don't know what is. We are dealing with people that are not rational in any way, shape or form. They are unpredictable and I hate to say it, but they are evil.

Answer 3

violence begets even more suitable violence. the answer's to artwork jointly in a effective communicate. no longer each project must be confronted head on in a confrontational way. guy has been endowed with intelligence and he could use it for the ease of mankind no longer its destruction. the theory to nuke yet another even as it has achieved no longer some thing to damage is a lot less complicated reported than achieved. learn from historic previous and go searching you of those large civilisation and empires who grew to grow to be smug and oppressive jointly with the roman empire. the position are they now. they only lie in airborne dirt and dust and in trouble-free words in the memory of guy. mankind could for this reason use the attitude of changing subject matters in an ecosystem the position that's condusive to communicate, communicate and knowledge with one purpose in concepts it truly is to attain the reality. as quickly because it truly is agreed upon then that's binding on anybody to stay with its course.

Answer 4

No matter what the reason for setting off a nuclear device, we'd regret it in fifty years. Can you imagine what it would do to the environment?

Answer 5

If we nuked all 3 of them then the world would probably come to an end. because we launch ours then they would set of theres then we probably will all die from the radiation.

Answer 6

You need to see a psychiatrist!

Answer 7

if we are still around at that time.

Answer 8

Iran, syria and much more countries!!!!!!