Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:

I would make it our stated policy that if we get hit in such fashion, ANY country associated in any way gets a full spread of nukes "operation death strike"...




first off god forbid they would be able to pull off something like this. it doesn't seem plausible, possible but not likely.

but for discussions sake, which countries would be a target of "operation death strike"? would saudi be on that list?

and since terrorist networks are silent and not linked to any specific countries do you think it would help/hurt?



This article is bogus but may indeed contain a kernel of truth..we know the MS-13 gangs are working with terrorists, we know they have been seeking nukes for some time, would certainly use nukes if available, and it is certainly possible that they actually have acquired some degree of nuclear capability, dirt bombs more likely than a small nuke but the later is not ruled out.

I am "semi-serious" when I say it should be our stated policy that if we are hit with WMD, we reserve the right to retailiate IN KIND, at OUR decression, with countries that have been found to be "associated" with the terrorist plot. I would leave this deliberately vague...(Note: SAYING we may or even would attack under certain circumstances does not ness mean we WOULD, that is another story, you know, kind of like certain UN resolutions that are imposed and then blown off by some)

It means that you better think twice. It could mean that if a Saudi citizen was found to be involved and that the government was even indirectly complicit they could be hit. If Mexico does nothing about its gangs and its policy that PROMOTES border crossing and we show a jihaddist took advantage of a corrupt police system to get a nuke across, it COULD be an act of war. The point is to put the world on notice that governments will potentially share in the blame if its country's people or resources greviously wound the US as a result of negligence. Negligence is key..I have no problem with a government that puts a good faith effort into stopping terrorism but happens to fail at times..the UK comes to mind. It defines a certain responsibilty and consequence for the actions of one's citizens. This is a REQUIRED mindset that all countries must have given the assymetrical nature of conflict in the 21st century.

Like I have said from the beginning...terrorism is by nature nebulous but terrorists require (at least for substantial operations) a certain amount of direct or tacit support from GOVERNMENTS. Governments are NOT so nebulous and are interested first and formost in maintaining there existance. We can use governments "survival instinct" as a bargaining chip if we demonstrate our will and ability to terminate errant governments. In Iraq and Afganistan, we have done this at high cost, restoring our bargaining power lost after decades of failed wars. In the end, this will be crucial to pushing back jihaddism.

1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)