What would the "Liberal" solution be if 7 major cities were nuked by extremists?

Question

Recently, FBI Director Robert Mueller, in an interview with NewsMax, confirmed Williams' main claim. Mueller said al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Mueller told NewsMax that at times, the threat feels so real he lies awake at night thinking about the prospect.

Williams maintains that al-Qaida is not content on blowing up one nuclear device or even simply a "dirty" nuke — but wants to explode real nuclear devices in seven U.S. cities simultaneously.

Williams says these cities are New York, Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Miami, Boston, Houston, and Los Angeles.

Mueller seems to confirm this claim of multiple attacks, saying both New York and Washington would be likely targets. Already Williams says the U.S. government has Washington webbed by "choke" points to detect nuclear material.

For many Americans the threat of al-Qaida's nuclear ambitions begins in the time after the horrific 9/11 attacks.

But as Williams shows so clearly, al-Qaida has been devising its nuclear plan since the early 1990s — and the U.S. government and other intelligence services have been well aware of al-Qaida's plan.

For example, Williams quotes Michael Scheuer, a senior CIA official who headed the agency's bin Laden unit.

Scheuer admitted the CIA "found that [bin Laden] and al-Qaida were involved in an extraordinarily sophisticated and professional effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction — in this case, nuclear weapons; so, by the end of 1996, it was clear that this was an organization unlike any other one we had ever seen."

Remember, Scheuer is describing the period before 9/11, proving again that bin Laden had been investing enormous time, resources, and money into getting nuclear weapons for more than 10 years.

Bin Laden and his adherents believe this nuclear cataclysm will usher in "The Day of Islam," the dream of radical Muslims to see all of humankind fall in submission before the throne of Allah as the "Great Satan," America, is brought to her knees.

Williams is not surprised at all that bin Laden has planned to launch such nuclear attacks, suggesting his delay is consistent with his past pattern of activities. For sure, it is a plan that has been long in its hatching.

The REAL threat has ALWAYS been IRAN. Invasion with troops would cost tens of thousands of American lives. That would be foolish. Iran will fall from within due to pressure from the east and the west.People will rise.

I agree about the border security issue. GWB has failed us there.

Azawali.....Achmandinijhad is just as Hitler. Yet why invade Iran when you could remove Saddam and sfter time watch the Hitler in Iran fall from within.

Azawali.....Achmandinijhad is just as Hitler. Yet why invade Iran when you could remove Saddam and sfter time watch the Hitler in Iran fall from within.

Dangerous...Clinton had Bin Laden on a silver platter and you know it.

Barb----Mcarthur also wanted to barrel right through to Moscow!!!!

pip a suitcase nuke? your misinformed. A nuke such as little boy could be made with a 6' long by 6" wide steel pipe with weapons grade uranium in the middle and at one end. On the further end is conventional explosives when detonated it slams the uranium in the middle into the uranium at the far end causing the atoms to split. Kaboom!!!! I guess we should inspect every 6'x6" PVC pipe everywhere in the U.S.. The politics of fear haven't even begun yet. If it were this idea would be mainstreamed already!

AZAWALI____you make valid points

Answer 1

“What would the "Liberal" solution be if 7 major cities were nuked by extremists?”

I’m guessin’ basically the same, as the other so-called “party’s” solution (s) would be - that never seem to work.

I’m tellin’ ya… EVERYONE in our government needs to be replaced!

Answer 2

I'm not a liberal, so I don't know what they'd do.

Personally, I think the chances of setting a nuke off in America is a bit harder than it sounds. Not impossible. It would require a crew of knowledgeable individuals, and an incredible amount of secrecy and knowledge on security.

A little while ago there was individuals caught buying weapons grade weapon material. So it's not hard to believe it could happen if there's enough knowledgable people behind it. I think any liberal whom thinks it's impossible or it's just fear mongering ought to wake-up. It's one thing to look at the situation with likelyhood, but quite another to dismiss it and be neglectful.

I'd say the best thing to do is put as many convert operation out there to prevent the sale of this material...also a prevention of hostile state from acquiring it. America ought to invest heavily into thorium nucluer fuel technology. Thorium, unlike plutonium isn't useful for nucluer grade weapons; there's a larger supply of it in the world; meltdowns and radioactive problems are incredibly less likely; and there's a shorter period of radioactivity. We take excuse away from nationstates that want nucluer power, and we provide energy in a meaningful manner. That should have been done years ago.

I'm afraid if such a thing happened in America that martial law would have to come, and the level of relatively high tolerance we once had would be gone like that. I'm sure many liberals would come along...atleast for a while.

So essentially the best way is to prevent it through alternatives e.g thorium, secure nucluer material through diplomatic force, and prevent hostile regimes from selling or buying this material. I don't like to think of the afterwards, because we all know what will happen.

Answer 3

Its hard to ignore these things, but at the same time war, or the threat of has been used for years , like in some cases religion to scare people into control. Just like many politicians become lobbyists so do officers in the armed forces become middle men for selling the pentagon contracts for weapons and such. War and military build ups are big money maken business. I will never believe that FDR didnt know pearl harbor wasnt coming..maybe he didnt think it would be on a sunday, but he knew it was coming....then it was the Russians..now its the terrorists...it will always be something. I truly hope your wrong about the nukes though..i really do. As for the Liberal solution..they have none. They never have solutions just criticisms with no solutions offered

Answer 4

hm.. so to nuke a city.. it would have to be a suitcase nuke. only nations that have that kind of technology are the US, Britain, China, Russia and a handful of other friendly European nations.

Al Qaida can wish and want all day long.. it's not gonna happen.


but.. assuming it did.. I'd go after the real terrorists.. like we did right after 9/11..

and I wouldn't become "not very concerned with them" as Bush did with Bin Ladin

and I wouldn't invade a Middle Eastern nation that had nothing to do with the bombings along the way.

I'd also probably raise the level of special opps forces and use them more than the massive broad sword of an invasion force that is the US Army.. don't get me wrong.. our army kicks some major a*s.. but they aren't built to fight terrorism. The stat they tell West Point grads is that in a battle royal the US Armed forces could take the next 3 greatest powers on.. and I believe that.. but they aren't made to fight the war we have asked them to fight.. and thank God for that.. for they would have to be unbelievable oppressive and heartless to be effective.. I'm glad we have more humanity than that here in the US.

Also.. I'd not just use the military and special forces.. I'd launch a massive propaganda campaign and education campaign against terrorism.. for in the end.. that is the only real cure.


so .. do I have your vote?

Answer 5

obviously it's already too late if that were to happen


my solution to prevent it would be to implement a plan to train the Iraqi military and polices forces as quickly as possible and then to withdraw the majority of our troops (90%) from iraq and have the 10% only as an advisory or support role for the iraqi military (this group would be in iraq for no longer than 5 years)

the remaining 90% would be redeployed into much smaller much more efficient intelligence and counter terrorism forces that would be responsible for fighting al-queda and any other terrorist organizations that are a threat to the USA

of course I would also implement border enforcement

Answer 6

in case you had ever considered conflict or the injuries modern weapons reason, truly radiation ailment, burns, weigh down injuries, you wouldnt propose something like that. think of your loved ones in london whilst a 5MT nuke is dropped. they are purely a ways away sufficient to no longer be vaporised, yet close sufficient to go through vast burns and broken limbs and radiation poisoning (remember the litvinenko homicide, thats what happens). they're going to have not any help for quite a few days a minimum of and that they're going to go through a horrendously painful loss of existence without soreness alleviation, no water, no no longer something. could you relatively choose that on every physique? you are able to desire to strengthen up.

Answer 7

A: ummm.... what is the point? What would liberals do???? what would anybody do?
B: Don't know about you but a Nuke doesn't sound that bad. At least it would be quick.
C: Land of the Free. Home of the Brave! Stop posting random things like this. Holes in your story....
How did he know the name of a CIA agent? How is a dirty nuke different from a "real nuke" do you know the different classifications of Nuclear and atomic weapons? Because a "dirty nuke" is a Real nuke. I could keep going but you obviously would just cut and paste a response from an obscure Internet source.

Answer 8

The politics of fear:

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, Nazi

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it." General Douglas MacArthur

Answer 9

Kerry wanted to SECURE THE FORMER USSR NUCLEAR MATERIALS, WITHIN FOUR YEARS which would have prevented such an incident from happening. It's called FORESIGHT.

Bush has done zero about it.

If it happens under Bush's watch, he'll just blame Clinton. in his typical Ineffectual wimp fashion.

"CRITICAL CHOICES
Nuclear threat expected to pose a major challenge
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | October 2, 2004

WASHINGTON -- When John Kerry was asked to name the single most serious threat to America's security during his first debate against President Bush this week, the Democratic candidate didn't hesitate. "Nuclear proliferation," the Massachusetts senator said. "Nuclear proliferation."

Answer 10

Well if they nuked all of those cities a great part of the world population would be affected, the nuked air would not just sit over the US. So there would be death and devastation all over the world. If it happens it happens, I am not going to go into alarmist mode on Ifs.