Thats the thing Chuck, If they assume that they are well hidden. What would you suppose America, or British repsone to such a thing happening would be?
Naaa again I just can't see it, it is obvious though that you see things differantly, and again I must remind the pair of us, and everybody else too, that we are talking 'Belife' here. I just don't belive that anybody would want to initiate global nuclaer war. Hah now I think it only fair that as I have already accused your belife as being based in fear, you may assume that I may be somewhat prone to naivety. On Apr 14, 6:25 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > You are correct. I am not getting the point. > > I agree that the leaders of Al Queda would rather send their 'soldiers' to > do their dirty work. But why would that stop them from sending someone in > with a nuke or a dirty bomb if they assume that they are well enough hidden? > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > I see you are still not getting the point. > > > If any terroist first had nuclear weapons and by such I assume > > misslies. Then any launch will be easy enough for other powers to > > track down the launch site, then we hit them with our own misslies. > > The point is that if say the USA where attacked with nuclear misslies, > > they would retaliate in kind, as they must, I dare say the same is > > true for my goverment over here in the UK. > > > I doubt that Bin Laden wants to die, nor any top dog in any terrorist > > organisation, power being a corrupting influence and all that. Nope > > we can see that when we are hit by suicide bombers, these are normaly > > young easily infulenced people who have undergone an amount of good > > ole fashioned brain washing. Ahh the leaders though, nope I do not > > belive they would relish the idea of of being killed them selves. > > > On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
