close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

nightmare scenario

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by juramentado, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. juramentado

    juramentado

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Manila, Philippines
    the rumored nuke test blast in north korea reminded me of what i fear the most: terrorists getting hold of a nuke or a biological weapon which has no vaccine.

    my question is this: if a major city in the US is one day nuked, reduced to a crater by terrorists with a home made bomb, what would the US do? and what would it mean to the world?

    my own opinion is that the US will immediately launch airstrikes on some major islamic cities. ;P
     
  2. jasonub

    jasonub

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Location:
    Philippines
    watch the man who saw tomorow, the scenario is that a man from the middle east third antichrist will trigger world war 3. the guy wears a blue turban. he predicted napoleon as the first histler(hitler) as the second anti christ.

    now trouble has been brewing in the middle east and this scenario may happen
     

  3. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    "my own opinion is that the US will immediately launch airstrikes on some major islamic cities. "

    Quite possibly, my friend, but Americans don't need a nuclear strike on them to bomb islamic cities. They have done it already. Tripoli and Baghdad come to mind.

    Ultimately, it's hard to believe that the United States can win if it keeps on lumping all the 1.1 billion Muslims in the world together. That will just infuriate and unify them, the moderates with the few extemists. The U.S. has to win over the vast majority of moderate Muslims. Anybody who has been to Indonesia, for instance, knows that at least 99% of the Muslims there are not extremists.
     
  4. Allegra

    Allegra

    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Location:
    Philippines

    ******************
    hehe mukang nag subscribe ka na sa glocklist ah
     
  5. Eyespy

    Eyespy Proud Infidel

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    This is technically not a realistic scenario....
     
  6. julianz

    julianz toxic master

    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    sand castle
    Ultimately, it's hard to believe that the United States can win if it keeps on lumping all the 1.1 billion Muslims in the world together. That will just infuriate and unify them, the moderates with the few extemists. The U.S. has to win over the vast majority of moderate Muslims. Anybody who has been to Indonesia, for instance, knows that at least 99% of the Muslims there are not extremists. [/B][/QUOTE]

    you got that right ante..;W
     
  7. Alexii

    Alexii Janeway Forever

    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Location:
    Delta Quadrant
    So was the 9/11 attack. The vigilance of US Homeland Security must be in constant high gear for years to come. All it takes is just one narrow crack on the fence for terrorist cells to bring in a nuke and literally change the world order. Doomsday scenario.
     
  8. Eyespy

    Eyespy Proud Infidel

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    Not true. You cannot circumvent the physics involved in a suitcase nuclear bomb.
     
  9. dinggaling

    dinggaling APO Traveler

    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Location:
    Rainbow Clubhouse

    these talks bring back to my mind iran. i think being the new powder keg in the ME Iran will be a good reason for the US to launch a first strike if they don't stop making bomb=grade plutonium. this has been hugging the news for some time now. let's all follow the scenario. ;P


    _____________________________________________________

    "tough luck if the US bombs Iran"
     
  10. juramentado

    juramentado

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Manila, Philippines
    yes, I realize that a backpack nuke will probably not create a crater. that was a exaggeration, a figure of speech if you will...

    i'm of the opinion that an attack as serious as a nuke bomb detonation in a major US city or the release of a exotic bio weapon will be the turning point in this war on terrorism. I can barely imagine what the US will do when that happens.

    the much feared clash of civilizations will probably happen. god help us...
     
  11. BinLurking

    BinLurking Your Phone

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    In your backyard
    Okay, let's stir the pot, what would the Philippine government do if this happened in the Philippines. Let's face it, you are an easier target than the U.S.
     
  12. Valor1

    Valor1 Range Bum

    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    Location:
    Urban areas
    The Philippines will always resort to "investigations" and that's it. History always shows that in the Philippines, whenever something happens, all they can do is just to investigate.
     
  13. BinLurking

    BinLurking Your Phone

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    In your backyard
    Yeah, just like the Ryan Jaworski case, "it did not happen".
     
  14. New_comer

    New_comer

    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Location:
    Manila, Philippines
    Maybe, but one may not need to pulverize a whole city to paralyze all activity.

    "Dirty nukes" are a more feasible option. Simply detonate a whole busload of nuclear waste in the middle of Manhattan, and terrorists will get the same effect.

    I believe this was described in the newspapers not too long ago...
     
  15. BinLurking

    BinLurking Your Phone

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    In your backyard
    Yeah, it's really that easy to get a busload of nuclear waste in the U.S.! ;Q
     
  16. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    A nightmare scenario would be if the United States refused to give the U.N. inspectors time to finish their job, and invaded a country without the permission of the U.N. Security Council, and against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens of the free World and even the not-so-free-world, thereby incurring the ire and disdain of the majority of the human race.

    A nightmare scenario would be if the U.S. killed multiple tens of thousands of civilians in this invaded country, while loudly only mourning its own 1,000 dead, killed as invaders and occupiers .

    A nightmare scenario would be if the President of the United States were able to convince the majority of its citizens that a certian country was behind a supreme act of terror when in fact even the US intelligence agencies themselves said it wasn't.

    A nightmare scanario would be if this Rambo-wannabe President would be re-elected .

    Oh, wait, that sounds very familiar. Hmmm...
     
  17. juramentado

    juramentado

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    Manila, Philippines
    if that does happen here, it may spark a reglious / ethnic war. millions of non-muslims will riot and seek revenge for the death of millions in the blast and attack muslims. with all the illegal guns here, it will be bloody. mindanao in the 1970s will look like a kindergarden fight compared to what will happen. oh man that's scary....;P

    yes, we are an easier target. but sad to say, killing a few filipinos will not get the same terror effect as killing americans. this thought may anger some here but I think it's true. Death and how the international media reports it largely follows racial and economic lines. millions of bangladeshis drowning does not illicit the same attention as the death of a thousand americans. a victim's nationality plays a huge part on how CNN will report that person's death. :(

    sorry if this rubs people the wrong way...he did say let's stir the pot. ;)
     
  18. New_comer

    New_comer

    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Location:
    Manila, Philippines
    Nobody said this would be easy, but...

    Considering the volume of waste material generated by your own nuclear plants over the decades, discarded regularly to dumpsites all around the US (hopefully!;)), a little intelligence work should reveal where they are.

    Add a dose of fanaticism here and there, presto! You've got trouble.

    Happened more than once, would definitely happen again...
     
  19. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    Messages:
    3,052
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Location:
    almost home
    A terrorist nuclear detonation?
    We'd run to the US for assistance, of course.
    However, as the SuperFerry 14 disaster of last March confirms, our government is really prone towards denial when it comes to significant terrorist atacks. I doubt it'll happen, though*

    ---

    If I were a terrorist, I'd think about targetting badly-defended southern and middle Mexico with sufficient bioglogical-looking events, and watch the panicked population flood into the US. Heck, nuclear events will serve better. The southern US border's pretty porous, no? I cannot see how the US could secure it quickly enough, what with so many sympathetic Mexican-American voters in the US, and particularly near the border.

    With sufficient numbers, even absent the transmission of any biological agents into the US, can you imagine the resultant demand on basic resources? Then, when the government resources are eventually brought to bear on the southern border, one might activate sleeper cells towards localized but high-profile terrorist action in US population centers, just to keep the US government off balance.

    The 'stated' prize for the devils has always been obtaining US and US-ally disengagement from the Middle East, keeping the US from soiling holy sites, and from sponsorship of the 'Zionist squatters'. Destruction of th Great Satan sounds good too, but one step at a time...The more US resources are forcibly committed to 'homeland security' the less (perhaps) for sending rockets, bombs and bullets at Palestine (and now, Iraq).

    *I'm not sure large attacks on the Philippines really fit much into much more than marginally serving the overt objectives. They certainly don't serve the 'destruction of the Great Satan'. I don't buy that we'd be targetted as much as the US, on its soil or through its overseas citizens. Encouraging the election of a disengagement-leaning US president elected, that's almost an objective of its own.
    By comparison, changes in the Philippine presidency, or even the Philippine peace-and-order situation don't seem to matter much, towards the 'objectives'.



    .
     
  20. rhino465

    rhino465

    Messages:
    1,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Indiana, USA

    I'm surprised to see such comments from an obviously intelligent individual.

    The assertion that USA "refused to give the U.N. inspectors time to finish their job" is patently absurd. The interference with the inspections dates back years ... YEARS ... before 9/11. Then there was the FOURTEEN MONTHS that passed between the time the USA issued the ultimatum preceding the current war. How long is "enough" for you? Twenty years? A century? Please.

    By the way ... fourteen months is plenty of time to move and hide a lot of things like, oh, I don't know, VX nerve agent, fissionable materials, and other things they were not supposed to have but everyone knows they did. And "everyone" believed it at the time whether they admit it now or not. The fact that only minimal remnants of such weapons materials have been found is not even close to being conclusive evidence that the stuff wasn't there. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise.

    Re: Permission from the UN

    First of all, we don't need "permission" from the UN to do anything. Second, if you examine the UN resolutions (I believe there are two) enacted right after Sadaam Hussein surrendered in 1991, you will see that any refusal or interference with the inspections was adequate for military action on the part of any member of the security council. There's nothing in them that says that everyone has to wring their hands for twenty years while the bedwetters make up their minds. Furthermore, the only significant "objectors" on the security council stood to lose massive amounts of money if Iraq were invaded and obviously put their personal financial well being ahead of dealing with a significant threat to most of the western world.

    Re: against the wishes of the vast majority of citizens of the free World

    Even if that were true, and you only believe that if you believe what you see on CNN as "The Gospel," so what? Since when is making tough, necessary decisions based on whether or not it's popular with people who refuse to take any responsibility for their own safety, much less that of the world at large? The fact that French and Germans didn't like it makes it obvious that it was the right thing to do.

    Re: Iraq and terrorism

    I acknowledge that there is little if any hard evidence that any Iraqi gov't officials were involved directly in the planning and execution of the attacks on the USA on 9/11/2001. I also acknowledge that the Germans didn't help Japan plan the attack on Pearl Harbor on 12/07/1941. Apparently Germany and Japan had no relationship during WWII and all of the apparent collusion was merely a coincidence or misunderstanding on the part of all of the dead people.

    At risk of repeating myself, it is patently absurd to assert in any way that Iraq has not played a pivotal role sustaining and promoting Islamic extremist terrorism worldwide. There is plenty of documented evidence, much of which comes from non-US intelligence sources, of significant contact between Iraqi officials and representatives of Al-Qaida. Connections to many of the other notorious factions are even more documented (feel free to do some research). Direct funding, training camps, supply lines, asylum ... all of it was going on in Iraq.

    You can say that they didn't help directly with 9/11. You can't say they weren't a key player in the worldwide terrorism problem unless you want to be disingenous at best as well as simply wrong.

    I've spoken to many people who have been to Iraq in various capacities over the last couple of years. Many are US military, one Canadian, and the rest civilian contractors. I've yet to hear any doubts whatsoever that my gov't chose to do the right thing. The only thing most of them seem to think was not quite right is that they had to wait too long and didn't act with enough force from the start. One of my buddies is a civilian medic on his third contract
    there and he tells me that the almost all of the Iraqi people are gratful we're there.

    Forgive me if I take the word of people who have been there and interacted with Iraqis on a daily basis rather than the talking heads on the tv news who seek only to propagate their own socio-political agenda.