On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:23 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote:
> Thats the thing Chuck, If they assume that they are well hidden. > You don't think that terrorists would go underground before blowing up a city? From what we have experienced so far, terrorists don't operate in the same way as a standing army. They don't confront combatants face-to-face. > What would you suppose America, or British repsone to such a thing > happening would be? > I think the first response would be similar to 9/11. Public outrage followed by choosing a target to attack. I think the difference would be that the president looking for a target would be more careful about the intel he's supplied with. Also, there would be a difference in military tactics. In previous wars nuclear weapons were the option of last resort ( mainly for fear of a public outcry ). In a retaliation against a nuclear strike I think the fear of an outcry would be far less and tactical nukes might be used more readily. > 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. > Sorry, I don't know the context of this comment. It's hard to follow your style of reply sometimes. > I just don't belive that anybody would want to initiate global nuclaer war. > First, a use of tactical nukes wouldn't be global nuclear war. On the battlefield, dropping a two kiloton nuke would be no different than dropping a two kiloton conventional bomb. Of course there would be psychological ramifications. Vaporizing Bin Laden with a nuke would send the message that we are willing to use nuclear weapons to get the point across. > 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. > Again, not sure of the context here...
