English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

I believe it would be a full scale, all out, non stop war til we win. Nuclear would be a whole new set a rules for the ballgame we are in.

All the U.S. & the world would support this as well.

2007-04-22 08:08:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

By melting....

Sorry... thats not right...

People would probably go all crazy and start trying to kill every guy with dark skin and beard... I don't know what we would do politically... but I can guarantee all the regular people would start freaking out and acting like a bunch of retards.... Not that theres no reason to be scared... but you'd probably see a lot of people doing very bad things to other people in the name of "Patriotism".

I'd be wondering who the Hell thought it was a good idea to declare "War on Terrorism", tell us we could be attacked from anywhere at any time.... and not seal our borders!!! Suitcase nukes used to be Sci-Fi, but they are real now!!!!!! Its almost like they want something horrible to happen to us!!!

If the threat is so real the response we have seen so far doesn't make a lot of sense back here on the homefront...

If something terrible did come in... they'd try to blame Mexico and Canada and everyone BUT the people who really didn't try to take the correct steps to protect us!!!

2007-04-22 08:06:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Simple, we would assess the damage done, beyond the infrastructure and lives lost, beyond the years of hospitalization by the survivors would be the economic hit. If, say, a nuke was delivered to LA on a container ship, the economic damage to the United States would be catostrophic. We would within a few short years become a third world country. Then you wouldn't have to worry about response or who's in charge, just feeding your family.

2007-04-22 08:19:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You'd have meetings, speeches, mourning ceremonies with high-priced singers and poets laureate moaning and groaning about peace and love (with one eye on the monitor), and CNN milking the life and tears out of anyone vaguely connected. Oh yes, and the movie version "dedicated to all who lost their lives" in this "greatest tragedy in American History." And on, and on, and on. Unfortunately, you'll never attack the real cause of the problem: the oversight of the Founding Fathers in not making it part of the Constitution that "No-one shall have the right to engage IN ANY ACTIVITY that disturbs the peace or threatens or impairs the ability of citizens to go about their daily business, or threatens the basic structure of democracy and / or the democratic rights and way of life of the citizens of these United States."
Well, it's a start! Just off the top of my head. You see, democracy as practiced until now has always born its own Achilles' heel: it allows itself to be destroyed from within. One is "free" to say and do what one wants, if one has good enough lawyers. Thus, your renegade militia, your "religious" cults, your home-grown terrorists protected by "constitutional rights," your mass murderers, your pedophile proselytizers. It's all part of the same flawed premise: your insufficiently considered Constitution.

2007-04-22 08:19:00 · answer #4 · answered by jaded 2 · 0 0

a great number of fantastic fortune with that. lots individuals bow hunt, yet even the main ardent of the sticks-and-string crowd will directly permit you recognize which you're on a fool's errand. Firearms are extremely necessary for conservation. As for "making attack weapons unlawful," you're first going to might desire to define them. The opposition to an attack weapons ban is partly because of the fact there is not any longer something that delineates them from different firearms; for this reason, it may be silly to allow that camel's nostril below the tent.

2016-10-28 17:06:43 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

We would shock and awe the terrorist's training ground for a few days, then we would pick a random country that had nothing to do with the original attack and bomb the bejezus out of them and then occupy their country and drive them into civil war and wait until we had been doing that for longer than we were in WWII, and we had killed thousands of American kids, and then we would be all pleased and stuff and we'd go back to Crawford, hopefully to never be heard from again.

2007-04-22 08:07:35 · answer #6 · answered by Stuart 7 · 5 1

First of all they arent stupid enuff to do it. lol, Pending the weapon hits the U.S we would totally blow the crap out of the country that did this. We would go all out, and it will evenutally tear the world up into anthor world war.

2007-04-22 08:04:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Probably just like New Orleans when Katrina went through....sitting around with their thumbs in their asses, while bitching that the government isn't doing things fast enough for them.

2007-04-22 08:20:31 · answer #8 · answered by ThatguyPete 3 · 1 1

Well, first we would have to bring our military back to America, to portect whats left, then we would be able to start some sort of plan of attack and drop a Nuc back on them.

2007-04-22 08:06:10 · answer #9 · answered by Juicy Fruit 4 · 1 1

Dumbya would declare an all-out war on Mongolia or Nicaragua, depending on where he can make more money.

2007-04-22 08:08:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

fedest.com, questions and answers