Hypothetically, if Al Qaida exploded nuclear bomb in New York or London, how do you think we should respond?

Question

To answer my own question...it's more like when not if. But for starters, I don't think American politics have anything to do with it. It doesn't matter if a democrat or republican president is in place or what our policies are, when they have the material and capability to set it off, that's when it will happen, maybe next year, maybe 20 or 30 years from now. They are set out at destroying the western way of life and spreading their form of Islam around the globe. They are determined to start their holy war. ..duhhh!

My guess is that destroying Mecca and most of Pakistan would be the only appropriate response to one of our cities being nuked. Pakistan is a breeding ground for Islamic extremists and Mecca, well it would have to go as a symbolic response to such an attack. By the way, I am a democrat, but a moderate as are most Americans. Vote on the individual, not along party lines...

"Expose", you are so mistaken about democrats, most are not liberals. What you see on tv are those Holliwood celebrities who don't live in reality! I'm a democrat and I don't believe we should show any weakness or mercy on the Islamists, but we have to be smart how we go about it. GW, Rumsfeld are not smart, that's the truth, they are lost the propaganda war because of their idiocy.

If we destroy Mecca and an entire country, Pakistan where if they had free elections they would elect Osama Bin Laden in a heart beat. It would send a symbolic message that there is a price to pay for what they did. And that it is not in there interest to attack us again or they will pay such a high price for it. The Muslims world would blame Al Qaida for bringing it upon them. We are losing the Propaganda war and there is a reason for this!

CD, it won't be a country's government who supplies the means to set off a nuclear explosion it will be bought on the black market. Look at Pakistan (again). It was their beloved nuclear physicist, Khan who sold nuclear secrets and material to North Korea, Iran and Libya. And the government put him on house arrest in his mantion with servants and swimming pool...they could not punish him because he is a hero to their people.

Another point, every 9/11 terrorist and 7/11 (London Train bombings) went through Pakistan before carrying out their attacks. And yes Saudi Arabian citizens provide the majority of the finances to Al Qaida. They are financing the Sunni terrorists in Iraq right now...

Answer 1

You make some good points, but realistically a fair response would be to nuke targets in whatever country supplied that nuclear weapon. I'm thinking it would probably be North Korea, Iran, or Russia. Nuclear weapons have very clear signatures due to their radioactive components, and the plutonium or uranium or whatever they use will be traced to find out who supplied the weapons. I would agree a nuke for a nuke would be the only reasonable response to show that America is willing to counter violence with violence, which is sadly all these people understand.

I am not saying all Muslims are like this because clearly they are not. However, not all Germans were pushing Jews into the ovens and gas chambers. That doesn't relieve the others of responsibility for looking the other way or tolerating these extremists.

To all terrorist-apologists, we would not be "starting" a war with Islam. Islamic clerics declared that war in the 1980s. At first we had bigger fish to fry (the USSR), then we got complacent and ignored the attacks and ongoing war against us without responding. Finally, all Muslims who accept their oppressive regimes and tolerate such extremism by looking the other way do share responsibility. They are not completely innocent as you apologists would have us believe.

The extremists who fight us in the name of Islam have a centuries-old history of this kind of violence, intolerance, and war. What Islam needs is a reformation like the Christian faiths had after the atrocities by the Catholic Church (like the Spanish Inquisition) were widely recognized as anti-thetical to the very religion they purportedly enforced. Unfortunately, most of these "innocent" Muslims who don't directly support terrorism indirectly do so by refusing to reform the tenets of the religion that authorize such extremist behavior. In this way, they are even more guilty than the civilian Germans who merely ignored the fact that Jews were disappearing because they actively support the continuance of the system that supports terrorism. Ultimately, they all then share the level of guilt of the Nazi party. They weren't all working concentration camps, but they all supported the organization at least in ideas.

Answer 2

Why destroy a holy land or an entire country, due to extremists. Even if Pakistan is training terrorists, why would you kill off civilian populations because of it. Why destroy a holy land? As a symbol? Of what? Or hatred at a particular religion? Should be murder the Pope simply because, historically, the Catholic church has supported genocide? No!

The answer to your question is that, in this scenario, our first response needs to be to help the people on New York or London. Then to protect the people that weren't directly harmed.

Only once we help our people and provide security should be even THINK about retaliation.

And then what? So we blow up Mecca. Is this going to solve the problem? No. It's only going to inflame the moderate Moslems. Even single Moslem, no matter how moderate or liberal, is going to want to seek revenge.

At that point, we might as well all kill ourselves because death with be sure and painful at the hands of the millions of innocent Moslems that were wronged by out wrong-headed retaliation.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, you can't retaliate with a nuke on an organization. A majority of the Islamic people are peace loving. Al-qaida and other extremists just interpret the Koran differently. A nuclear bomb would rally the rest of the world to take action against terrorism. No more screwin around.

Answer 4

There is zero chance of an Islamic group nuking a financially important city such as London or New York.

They'd vaporize their bank accounts along with them and thus have no ability to further purchase more expensive toys. They would also destroy the NYSE and FTSE and all of the oil revenues of their overt and covert supporters would disappear.

Terrorist like money too.

Answer 5

Starting a war with Islam would be foolish. Why?
Al Qaida represents a small fraction of that religion. Protestants are Christians, but so are Catholics and Methodists and Baptists.
So if a Christian were to commit a terrorist act against some country, should they nuke Jerusalem?
There are 600 million Muslims in the world. If Mecca were bombed, not only would the death of thousands of non-Al Qaida innocents be assured, but the wrath of 600 million people would be aroused.
If the US were to bomb innocent people, we would have NO right to claim we are "one nation under God" , because that very act would be a massive act of evil.

Answer 6

I agree, nuke Saudi Arabia, because they finance the terrorist and Pakistan because they train the terrorist. That would send a strong message to the remaining terrorist left in the world.

Answer 7

Thank you.Thank you.Your name is accurate.Someone who sees the world around him as it really is.
Absolutly destroying Mecca would be an appropriate response.Also al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and their rock where Mohammed ascended to Heaven.Afterall.In the second crusade Baelin saved thousands of christian lives by threatening to do this.
Yes.After that,if these actions do not stop the attacks.I would seriously start considering Genocide.
I know that is extreme and people think I am a monster,but,deliver it to them before they do us.I think any rational person can agree that Genocide is their ultimate goal as well.

Answer 8

That's right. Every muslim is an al Qaeda member so just nuke em all. Turn the middle east into a parking lot. Kill everybody guilty or not. That'll solve the problem.
You're no better than the enemy.

I won't be voting for you for President.

Answer 9

If America wasn't hell bent on trespassing and destroying other countries and making enemies, this wouldn't be nearly as likely. America has earned some payback, plenty of it, and America has chosen the type. America dishes out shock and awe so it's only fair they get the same in return.

Answer 10

We might nuke Afghanistan but we'd likely do nothing. All you have to do is look at how cowardly and complacent Bush is and how he goes after the wrong targets instead of the right ones to know that he'd screw it up again.
He would not nuke the origins of where the terrorists come from because he is likely business partners with that specific country. He'd be as lost in the head lights as he was on 911...Daddy, daddy please help me daddy, I don't know what I ought to do?