I think it would immediately liquidate all our obligations to buy favor around the world and the peace would suddenly rest upon Cold War style balance again.

I think we would face an immediate threat from Asia after such an event. The expectation to the paranoid there would be that we would nuke the crap out of all our perceived enemies. Once it was learned that we were attacked by a nuclear weapon, China, North Korea, heck, even fair-weather allies would immediately bristle and move to prevent a too far-reaching response. I think China would read us the riot act and make enough strategic movements that we wouldn't do anything too rash.

After the dust settled, though, the fat-and-happy status of the Middle East elite would be over; we'd not have to tiptoe around Saudi Arabia any more. Iran would eventually be toppled by a Western coalition, and the other Arab nations would be divided into two groups. Those whose rule is threatened by radical Islam, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, would face the wrath of their people and take a Western stance, and perhaps suffer civil war. The other Arab nations would do what they have done all along, keep quiet and continue to support terrorism in the cowardly fashion they have all along.

Just my thoughts. I am a firm believer that whatever can happen will eventually happen, so nuclear terrorism is something we have to look forward to, hopefully centuries in the future.

I have a feeling that if that were to happen, and we had a Republican in office, then if we were to go to war, there would be many chants of "No blood for oil!"

What are the causes for such terrorism in the first place? And saying they just hate the US is not a proper answer. US policy since 9/11 has greatly increased the likelihood of such a outcome not diminished it.

It seems that US policy was bad enough before 9/11 to lead up to 9/11, so I'm sure they'd have an excuse anyway.

I think China would read us the riot act and make enough strategic movements that we wouldn't do anything too rash.

Do you think that China would put its army at risk for Iran?

Let's limit the liberal-bashing to reasonable levels. The war in Afghanistan had 90+% support. Americans, even those who were dovish on Iraq, clearly recognized the necessity of war as a direct response to terrorism. Practically no one was crying "no blood for oil" in response the Afghan war.

In the scenario under consideration, I would expect a similar response from the government as after 9/11, and from the American people, only more so. The details would depend on the responses of the relevant governments. Pakistan would probably be quite cooperative, if Musharraf survives until 2008, so there'd be no need for a governmental overthrow. We'd move our troops as needed within Pakistan in order to round up Al Qaeda. Who knows what Afghanistan will look like in four years. With Iran, it's tough, since obviously they would have nukes. I imagine they'd at least let us move through the relevant outlying areas, though, to catch the terrorists involved, and would probably cooperate even more fully--after all, terrorsts stealing nuclear material from them isn't something they want, either. And their population is quite restive and pro-American at this point.

heres the problem i have with the scenario. when the tape of berg being beheaded surfaced, there were no public exhibitions of joy or support. nor would there likely be any in the event or a nuclear attack on new york city. be that as it may, you set the scenario, ill deal with it.

while im sure youd prefer to ignore north korea--might as well be consistent with current policy--im guessing thats where the most immediate reaction would register. if theyre as unhinged as they seem to be, im not sure theyd wait for what they believed to be the inevitable next step and theyd launch whatever they have at west coast targets. theyd have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

hindu nationalists in india might well conclude muslim countries are about to blasted off the face of the earth and wish to preempt a pakistani last gasp attack on them (pakistan being the most likely reasonable nuclear target despite our current dalliance with musharraf)

israel is already demonstrated its willingness to do whatever it takes and would very likely seize the day...in concert with india or inspired by them.

by this point, were well on our way to wiping out north korea (or as much of it as isnt buried under mountains) we lose most of the west coast (which negates the need for that pesky marriage amendment) the only real question is china's response. we also launch on iran (where once again there would be no mass dancefest but..) and afghanistan

my guess is china will take out india and refrain from responding to our attack on n korea since it eliminates a nagging problem there and fallout will soon decimate japan and south korea. by taking india out, china scores a clean sweep against their competitors.

the only question remaining is which of those left standing...russia or china..will eliminate isreal because as long as its gone this far, why not?

saudi, iraq, kuwait and the emirates may or may not be taken out by israel using its illegal wmd on its way out.

egypt will likely be spared until its visited with plagues never imagined by moses. as are we all

and how do you like your blue-eyed boy now mr death?

It's interesting has hard it is to get  people to just answer this.

I think many people would agree that such a scenario is plausible. So why so much pre-emptive excuse making and pre-rationalization about how the US "has it coming"? As if any of that would make a difference.

The question is pretty straight forward.

"Do you think that China would put its army at risk for Iran?"

The whole "Army" thing is way over thought. Any serious war against the US would not include an "Army", not for a long time, anyway. A true attempt to defeat the US militarily would take long range missle strikes, whether they be nuclear or conventiona. As I said above, the situation would revert to a cold war balance. It doesn't take open warfare to prevent action, just open antagonism from another nuclear power. They would immediately behave threateningly to Taiwan and probably North Korea would start lobbing missle tests over Japan again and the point would be made.

China would find expanding US influence threatening, and being the paranoid idiots they are, they would assume that a nuclear attack would be used as an excuse to expand that influence. Not unlike North Korea, that somehow believes we want to invade their snazzy little rat hole, China projects their own paranoia on others.

I have a response. Now, if you are looking for a “Bring it on” answer that involves massive machinery and guns. This will not appease you.

As I see it the problem, after the attack is the terrorist organization. Now, to pull off this attack the organization would need money. The only people who could supply the money are rich arabs and/or Muslims. The solution then is to eliminate the rich Arabs. No rich, no money, no funding, no attacks.

Now, this is not to say that all the rich Arabs are funding the organizations, but it is a good bet that they know those who do. And if a few of them get hurt, we can call it collateral damage.

Also, the effect of the solution may cause hardship for the folks at home for a time, but I believe we can weather the storm.

The solution: We will make them an offer they can’t refuse.

An anonymous email will go out to all those we suspect of funding the organizations. If the guilty parties are not arrested and brought to the US embassy within 3 weeks, 10 million dollars will be deleted from your account; and every day after that until this condition is met.
Should another attack happen on our soil again, 100 million will be removed from your account.

Then, we get HACKERS! The ones who create he worms that shut down computers. I am talking firewall blasting, mainframe crashing, greedy little programs. And follow through with the threat.

And any country that helps us, get a piece of the action.

IG

Interesting article...

I think it could go two ways - The US would probably have to look at their interventionist policies... Call me a heartless fool, but if the Middle East want to have crack-pot dictatorships in which the people suffer tremendous oppresion, that's kind of their business isn't it? I think that would be the cause of the attack... As for the reaction...

If people were to march in support of the death of that many people, well, i dont really know what to say about that... Instead of starting WWIII, the USA would simply have to remove itself from all assistance programs these countries benefit from.

4 Years is a long time in international politics, and I suppose you couldn't really count on Europe to support action from the US... I still have faith that the US wouldn't resort to a Nuclear attack on the Arab nations...

this is really quite perplexing indeed...

BAM!!!

one final thought: ill be happily surprised if we get through 2005 without having to deal with something like that.

"Would you like to play a game?"

*clap*

Muggaz, you think the response of the American people would be to look hard at its own "policies"?

If Sydney got nuked by Japan, for example, do you think Australians would look long and hard at how its policies may have offended Japan?

Well we are not going to sit on our buts.. I would expect that some submarine would launch there nukes.. the government will blame it on a rouge captain and bring the guy to trial (for following orders, of course) and make an example of why we 'would never do that'


Personally I'm all for sending all the "we brought it on ourselves" people to Afghanistan so they can apologize in person to bin laden for our _grievous_ crimes. I know a guy willing to pay for your ticket.

-Blade FireLight

The primary action the "U.S." would take---meaning the government on top of the people, over the people, against the people, as eternally fantasized by the cabal of crooks in charge now, not the Am erican people, who would just be stunned and furious---WOULD BE A CLAMPDOWN ON THE POPULATION HERE, INCLUDING MASS DETENTIONS, SUMMARY EXECUTIONS, ALL OF IT IN THE NAME OF SECURITY. Check out a roughly December "Atlantic Monthly" article that details Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. practicing "decapitation" exercises---bye bye 'Dubya'---since the mid 1980's.

As to responses abroad, these would only occur as fit the financial and political needs of the folks on top, who are in most real senses collusive in the entire fiasco from the beginning. To imagine that the stated intentions and feelings of our leaders bear any correspondence to what is actually happening strikes me as amazing, so I doubt I'd have much insight into what their agenda would be after such an incident. Anything from total annihilation, to selective strikes against annoyances like Fidel, to a call for a truly "New World Order" along the lines imagined by Adolf number one, seem plausible to me. I wrote an incredible short story about a similar scenario, based on an atomic event at Dan Quayle's 2004 inauguration, in which the nation comes completely apart at the seams in the aftermath. Who knows?

What do you think?

If Sydney got nuked by Japan, for example, do you think Australians would look long and hard at how its policies may have offended Japan?

You answered your own question mate... It's not something I have to think about because we dont go around having our way with everyone else's country.

You obviously think this threat is a very real one, and why is it real? because people dont like the US, and why dont people like the US? because they have interventionalist policies.

Cause and Effect... I dont care how psycho anyone is - you dont Nuke New York or fly yourself into a building just to go and make out with virgins... the USA makes alot of people mad, and as an American, you can try and understand all you want, however your vision is clouded by a star spangled banner that tells you whatever you do is the right thing, and no one has any right to have a beef with you.

I love my country to pieces, though I freely admit, If Australia got nuked, it would be because we have done the wrong thing by someone else... I am an Internationalist mate... as well as Australian... whereas you are just plane gun totting American, chomping at the bit for the next war to proove your advanced millitary might to scare off any pretenders...

BAM!!!