Al-Qaeda Threatens Los Angeles, Melbourne

[HoodStrype]

Okay, this is getting annoying and old... are we not the nuclear SuperPower of the world?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169117,00.html

"Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, Allah willing," the masked man says on the tape...

Yea, and he says their will not show compassion this time. That makes a lot of sense!

I say we get rid of 'em like Eisenhower would have. Pull a few battle ships and subs up to the persian gulf and demand everyone with a problem to be turned over.

[Mr 5 0]

This might interest you:

U.S. Nuke Arms Plan Envisions Pre-Emption

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The ``Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,'' which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that ``the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president.''

But it says that in a changing environment ``terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends.''

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve,'' says the 69-page document dated March 15.

A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, .

Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post in Sunday editions, which said the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site and pointed out to it by a consultant for the Natural Resorces Defense Council.

The file was not available at that site Saturday evening, but a copy was available at www.globalsecurity.org.

``A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security,'' the draft says. ``U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them.''

It says ``deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective.''

It says ``this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.

``However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.''

It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict.

One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an ``imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.''

The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval.

However, the Senate voted in July to revive the ``bunker-buster'' program that Congress last year decided to kill.

Administration officials have maintained that the U.S. needs to try to develop a nuclear warhead that would be capable of destroying deeply buried targets including bunkers tunneled into solid rock.

But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon.

The Senate voted 53-43 to include $4 million for research into the feasibility of a bunker-buster nuclear warhead. Earlier this year, the House refused to provide the money, so a final decision will have to be worked out between the two chambers.

Fortunately, U.S. leadership (military and political) is well aware of the potential for a major terrorist strike here and is prepared to stop it, to the point of using nuclear weapons. Works for me.

[HoodStrype]

That's a little more soothing... that is if you're not living in the Persian Gulf! I think they should find chemical weapons and the means to deliver them if they look hard enough in Sudan, Iran etc...

[mysteed]

Using nukes to ward off an attack that could kill thousands...works for me.

[Unit 5302]

Nuclear fallout is the major concern. Say you nuke a terrorist camp in Syria. The fallout would affect a much larger area than the initial destructive force, killing a lot of innocent people.

You could also argue that Syria (or whatever country) has an obligation to control terrorist activities within their borders, and by not doing so, they invite attack.

There's a lot of philosophy involved here, and the reprecussions of a pre-emptive or even post-emptive nuclear strike by the United States on what would likely be a 3rd world country that cannot defend itself are likely to be very steep. It would also likely trigger another nuclear arms race. In any case, I don't think I'm qualified to make the call on right and wrong in this situation.

Carpet bombing with MOAB's and bunker busters would hopefully get the job done and prevent any major international rallying against us. Besides, a really good bluff is just about as good as a good hand anyway.

[HoodStrype]

Hmmm... Good point. Actually I was thinking in line of bluffing. I am leaning towards they invite the attack- but not with nukes unless they use chemicals. As far as Iran goes... I'm sort of "in the know." My wife is half Iranian. Here's an interesting fact most people don't know and most wouldn't care to believe, but it's true.

After 9/11, I believe it was the next day, Iranian women in the town of Meshad (can't spell it!) littered the town square with roses in rememberance of those Americans who lost their lives the day before. I was astonished to learn of this through my wife's relatives. It's their Government who needs to tote an *** whooping!

So I am with you on the innocent lives. So I think like I said before, order all women and children out and pull a couple of Destroyers and Subs into the bays...
What they lack doing over there is affecting life here, and I am with Bush when he says lets take care of it. I am not for the fact that we went into Iraq on a WMD scavenger hunt... we had plenty of reason to go in there besides that- say 17 unanswered orders from the UN that Saddam thumbed his nose at! Saddam could have prevented it. We could have been told the truth.

Oh yeah, I used to be very prone to hate before I met my wife... thank God I found her!

[Unit 5302]

Iran is pretty much the most progressive country in the region. The government in Iran has to be concerned with creating too much change in too short of a timespan.

Also, it's not always fair for the United States to sit back and point fingers at countries half way around the world for not taking terrorists out in their home countries. Many Middle Eastern countries do not have the infrastructure or reliable troops to take the terrorists on, and if they did, they would invite terrorist retaliation.

The only effective way at stopping the terrorists is to cripple their recruiting. Unfortunately, there is a lot of resentment towards Western nations, and the US in particular. It's even more difficult to stop the violence over there considering they've been killing each other for thousands of years, and the only time they stop fighting amongst themselves is to fight somebody else.