If An Anti-War Protester Was Elected President, How Soon Would A U.S. City Get Nuked By A Terrorist?

Question

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/ForeignDemsLg.JPG

We know Nancy Pelosi and Obama are against building a border wall even when a U.S. goverment study showed that nuclear bombs can be smuggled across the open border.

Nuclear bombs can be very small. "U.S. officials examine a M-388 Davy Crockett nuclear weapon. It used the smallest nuclear warhead ever developed by the United States."
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg

U.S. government report(GAO):
"Nuclear materials can be smuggled across a country’s border through a variety of means: they can behidden in a car; train; or ship; carried in personal luggage through an airport; or walkedacross an unprotected border."

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/ForeignDemsMd.JPG

More information: Pelosi thinks we should be spending less money on border security.

More information:

Mexico has indicated the border wall will work.

Answer 1

Now if you'd said get nuked with the blame being placed on a terrorist organization I'd say a couple of years... thus leaving two years for a conservative* "leader" to leap into action to save the country ie campaigning and get elected.

* Obviously not a true conservative in the fiscal or social sense. Just another puppet of the true power that strives to control us and labeled as a Conservative.

Answer 2

The same as if anyone is elected.

Yes, it's possible to build a nuclear weapon the size of a suitcase. But this capability is far beyond the capabilities of any of the terrorist associated nations or groups.

The border wall is a joke. Drug smugglers have already built tunnels big enough to drive a truck through. The only advantage to a wall is that it makes us all feel better. That's truly a false sense of security.

Terrorists *will* soon be able to lay their hands on nuclear materials, and possibly nuclear weapons But the threat is not that someone will walk a weapon across the southern border. The real threat is that these devices will be shipped in in containers, a miniscule percentage of which go through the type of inspection which would detect such weapons. And who was it that wanted to turn over port security to a Muslim owned company? Anyone want to answer that?

The idea that new or continued warfare will free us from the terrorist threat is fallacious and ignores the cultural history of the Middle East. Each terrorist that dies at the hands of American forces, creates a martyr, and more terrorists bent on avenging his death. Look how well it's working in Iraq, where even our own military acknowledges that things are getting worse.

A new approach is needed quickly if we are to reduce the terrorist threat. Clearly the current course is not working, If that means an anti-war president, then so be it.

Answer 3

If that happens there would be no cities anywhere to worry about. How soon will Dubya take before he nukes Tehran, North Korea, or some other city. He may be nutty or arrogant enough to do it? Shoot now talk later doesn't work the same when shooting with nukes. If there are nukes in the US that are in the hands of some illeged terrorist why hasn't our government gone after them? Or is that what they want to make the people more frightened and thus people can approve martial law and eventually the burning of the "GD paper" called the Constitution.

Answer 4

Why did Bush wait 5 years to place radiation detectors in airports? Why has Bush not built a border fence in the last 6 years? How many nuclear bombs has he already allowed to come into the states? Is he planning another False Flag attack, this time nuclear????

Answer 5

If you were elected president I would get the hell out of this country as fast as I could. I didn't realize someone could have an IQ lower than Bush's but obviously you take the cake. What is it like 12 maybe 14 on a good day. Anti-War protesters don't always protest all wars numb nuts they fight against why were there. Even if there was one elected why would there be a terrorist nuking us because we don't want to start a war with them?

Answer 6

Do you know how big a nuclear bomb is? You can't just throw one in the back of a pick up drive it through the AZ desert. Maybe in a container ship that you can drive into a US harbor but even that is unlikely to happen.

Answer 7

The best thing I can say about your question is that at least you spelled everything right. Your use of capital letters is way off, though. It's a question, not a headline.

Why don't you look into why your buddy in the White House didn't build a wall? He's had damn near 7 years to do it.

Answer 8

It depends with the powers that pull the strings wanted to happen. I believe most incidences in the US once investigated are false flag operations. We can track nuke material by satellite very easily. The only way for us to get nuked is if our guys let it happen so they can lock us down even more. satellite tracking is so powerful now they can hear conversations by laser (been doing it for 2 decades + now) and they can even distinguish heat signatures.

Answer 9

so if they can be smuggled across the "open border" then we should've taken a fraction of the billions of dollars spent fighting away from home for no reason and put them into our own homeland security and gaurding our borders so their not so "open". why should we need a wall???

Answer 10

If an anti-war protester was elected president, I would bet money that the world would be a safer place within a year.