On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:53 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Ohh my freind there is soooo much differance. Have we in retaliation > for the twin towers flown any planes into any terroist buildings? > No but we've flown quite a few Hawk missles into 'em. ;) > Will we if attack by nucleuar weapns retaliat with nuclear weaponms of our > own? > Tactical nuclear weapons can be as small as a couple of kilotons. Dropping a bunker buster into a fortified cave in the side of a mountain would be a lot easier than taking it down with a few hundred troops. If Chicago were nuked I can't imagine much outcry if we vaporized the side of a mountain in retaliation... Can you now see the huuuuge differance? > > You are correct terrorists seem to rejoice in the killing of the > infidel, do you honestly belive they would rechoice in being nukked in > their turn if they nuke us? > If terrorist had the same type of economy and social structure that a nation typically has then I would agree that nuclear weapons could be a deterrent. But terrorist organizations don't have cities or central governments. They are usually very decentralized and worry a lot less about assets being taken out by a single bomb. In fact, I doubt that our biggest bomb would do much more than put a minor dent into an organization like Bin Laden's which is spread across most of the planet.
