Zogby poll

[SmallTown]

So, again, I say: Being the biggest and baddest is a good thing, but it's nothing if you won't use your might to punish attackers.

That isn't what you said at the start of this thread, and that is a much more relevant point.

But then again. We have show our might in afghanistan and iraq, yet the terrorists are still plotting against us. And Like I said in the beginning, this only works with sane people/countries. Sure, we have altered some of their plans by going into afghanistan and Iraq, but we are still fighting an enemy with no face, no country, no tangibles to destroy. An enemey that has no fear of losing what they have because they have nothing to lose. We can't bomb their cities like we did in Japan, they have no cities. We can't go into kuwait like we did and push the enemy out because we don't really know who to push out. They are everywhere, and at the same time nowhere.
Sure, being the biggest guy on the block has worked pretty well, that notion isn't understood by our current enemy to be a deterrent. They see it as a reason to continue what they are doing. I think we have begun to modify our thinking about this, with the creation of DHS and the reworking of the intelligence community and this is the best way to go after this enemy. Sure, it won't make the same headlines as dropping an atomic bomb, it may not be all about "shock and awe", but it will be shown to be very effective against our current enemy.

 

[vraiblonde]

That isn't what you said at the start of this thread, and that is a much more relevant point.

It's not our arsenal, per se, but the willingness to use it that deters them.

Again, I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer.

this only works with sane people/countries

I think the bin Laden gang is quite sane - well, maybe not the ones that actually carry out the attacks, but the ones that plan them are obviously quite intelligent and sane.

An enemey that has no fear of losing what they have because they have nothing to lose

They have plenty to lose. They can lose their funding, they can lose their support, they can lose their lives. If they were truly insane, which I disagree with, you'd be right. But they obviously aren't insane and they obviously feel they have something to lose, otherwise there would have been jihad mania after 9-11. I'm some idiot sitting at a keyboard and even I realize that that would have been a great time to go whole hog and take out as much of the US as you could - strike while the iron is hot. The fact that they didn't do that tells me they're quite sane and, therefore, have fear.

Sure, being the biggest guy on the block has worked pretty well, that notion isn't understood by our current enemy to be a deterrent.

It is now.

They see it as a reason to continue what they are doing.

Then why haven't they? We haven't had an attack on our country since 9-11. When was the last time Muslim terrorists blew up one of our embassies or ships? Any plane bombings or hijackings happen lately?

it will be shown to be very effective against our current enemy.

The only thing intelligence helps you do is gather information. It doesn't stop your enemies, it just lets you know what they're up to. I agree with you that expanded intelligence and Homeland Security are great things to spend money on but, at some point you have to be willing to smack the bad guys around and let 'em know who's boss - in other words, ACT on your information.

 

[czygvtwkr]

What we really need to do is retaliate 10x whatever is done to us. I think its time we use a few of those ICBM's that our tax money was spent on.

 

[SmallTown]

Again, I'm not sure how I could have been any clearer.

nice try again. But that was far from being the first thing out of your mouth on this thread. you were babbling on until I called you on it, then you put in that part about us willing to use them.

They have plenty to lose. They can lose their funding, they can lose their support, they can lose their lives. If they were truly insane, which I disagree with, you'd be right.

How can you say suicide bombers are concerned about losing their lives?
See, I'm not nearly as concerned about bin laden who hides away in a cave all day as I am about the thousands willing to strap bombs to themselves.

Then why haven't they? We haven't had an attack on our country since 9-11. When was the last time Muslim terrorists blew up one of our embassies or ships? Any plane bombings or hijackings happen lately?

They don't operate on a set schedule

The only thing intelligence helps you do is gather information. It doesn't stop your enemies, it just lets you know what they're up to.

I'm sure you're aware that some of our drones being used are operated by the CIA, including one of the infamous ones we have videos of launching a very successful attack.

 

[vraiblonde]

Dear ST,

I'm sorry you're bored and want to amuse yourself by pretending not to understand the plain English words I have written in this thread.

I hope your day is better tomorrow.

Love,
Vrai

 

[SmallTown]

Dear ST,

I'm sorry you're bored and want to amuse yourself by pretending not to understand the plain English words I have written in this thread.

I hope your day is better tomorrow.

Love,
Vrai

 

[vraiblonde]

 

[Bruzilla]

It's not our arsenal, per se, but the willingness to use it that deters them.

I don't think so. Do you really think that anyone believes the US would use nuclear weapons to deter agression somewhere? The World learned quite a while ago that if you're going to have a nuclear attack you're going to need to roll all the dice, and most informed people know that roll won't come up 7s.

Even if say North Korea, assuming they ever do get a viable nuclear weapon, launched an attack on the US or Japan, do you actually think that the US would retaliate with nuclear arms? Or would a more moderate voice call for a vanilla air/ground/sea invasion? I don't think that the US government has the balls any longer to launch a nuke in anger, regardless of the circumstances. I think there would be too much concern about civilian casualties, and that would be the end of the nuclear option.

 

[SmallTown]

I don't think that the US government has the balls any longer to launch a nuke in anger, regardless of the circumstances.

Nothing about balls. One thing that separates us from the nuclear power wannabes is that we fully understand the consequences of a nuclear drop

 

[Bruzilla]

Much different scale there, vrai. Had any of those caused the kind of damage that 9/11 cause, who knows what the outcome would have been. I say osama was simply lucky that the first WTC bombing did not go as planned. As sad as it may sound, Neither Clinton nor Bush could have come close to justifying the war in afghanistan over the above mentioned events.

But you're still skirting the issue you brought up of does our nuclear arsenal deter this type of activity? The answer is no, some people simply don't care. Heck, if we went by the notion that we bow down to "the power", many of us would still be considered british.

You're wrong on that one. Reagan took out much of the greater Tripoli metropolitan area because one soldier was killed in a disco bombing. That's because Reagan was more interested in fighting bad guys than how Christiane Amanpour portrayed his actions on CNN. Reagan put the fear of god and country into Quadaffi and made it clear that his actions would have severe repercussions... ones that the colonel decided were too high to pay.

When Clinton failed to take aggressive action against OBL, it did two things. First it made Al Quada the military equal of the United States (they blow up a building, we blow up a building = equal capability in the eyes of many.) Second, after the Libyan attacks, there were many in the Middle East who expected to see OBL blown away... but he wasn't, which gave the impression that the US was either afraid or incapable of dealing with him. This gave him power, prestige, and funding.

9/11 sent a wake up call to a lot of people... nations learned that there would be consequences for supporting terrorists, and if you're going to call for a war against the US to gain support for your people, you'ld better be ready for GWB to call your bluff. 9/11 also showed that we do have limits as to what we'll tolerate, and while a biological, chemical, or even nuclear attack by terrorists in the US is a pretty easy thing to do, you haven't seen anyone develop the moxy to give it a try. Pre-9/11, the terrorists thought they could get away with anything. Now they know better.

 

[Bruzilla]

Nothing about balls. One thing that separates us from the nuclear power wannabes is that we fully understand the consequences of a nuclear drop

No... they do to. There's always been a lot of sabre rattling going on between nuclear powers. The US and Soviet Union and Pakistan and India are the chief offenders. Third World countries want nuclear weapons because of the status they bring and because they feel they will offer them security, needed or not. I don't see any country seeking a nuclear weapon for the express desire of actually using them.

I'm wondering if anyone's going to follow the pig-in-a-poke approach of North Korea?

 

[vraiblonde]

Do you really think that anyone believes the US would use nuclear weapons to deter agression somewhere?

I don't know if they're too sure anymore.

I have a question, though: does a nuclear attack necessarily have to completely decimate a large area? Does it have to be Hiroshima? Or can you have a smaller device that destroys maybe a 4 block radius rather than a whole city?

 

[czygvtwkr]

A MOAB will do that pretty nicely.

But they are investigating "small" nuclear devices. Ever see the "football" one that was designed to be lobbed from a mortor to take out troops? It was a cold war era thing.