quite simply, first in the aftermath of said attack....the nations Defcon would be brought close to the same during the cuban missle crisis of the 60's...second, the navy would put to sea, this includes the SSBN's (boomer submarines) , the President would put the RDF (82nd Airborne) and numerous MEU's (marine expeditionary units) on alert for possible deployment....the usual public statement is made by the president and admin, air, rail, and ship borne traffic would be halted....national guard would deploy to key areas in their respective states. Now if we have a good idea who was behind the attack, where the funding came from and even possibly where the fissionable material came from...then we'd act.....targets of choice would be Irans reactors and stockpile bunkers for one of two possible strikes....a large scale strike by aircraft or an attack via nuclear tipped tomahawk missles....either will cause a temp increase in the radical recruitment..but thats to be expected....now as for NK...with the pacific fleet deployed , and SSBN's taking positions for optimomal firing , NK would be given a very loud public warning, stay out of it or face possible destruction...China would for the most part..aside from public bitching...would essentially decide not to play "Texas Hold'm" with their current hand and stay on a relaxed military posture (china for all the hype is a paper tiger conventionally, and a marginal power nuclear wise)...various nations would go on increased alert...S.K., Japan, Austrailia, western Europe (Nato)....India now may well try for a first strike knockout of Pakistan but its questionable depending on if Mushariff is still alive.....Turkey may find it a perfect time to launch a new campaign against the PKK sepratists in their country again.....Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Arabia will undoubtably go on high alert as well....leaving Syria and Iran in a very dangerous position as they are not exactly on the best terms with their neighbors in region.....Iraq might face increased turmoil as well as Afghanistan....but this scenario is somewhat a big picture theory.....as there are quite a lot of small side issues which undoubtably pop up to force us and others to adjust our response plans.....As for the UN, lol, the president may go to them to try and get some concerted effort out of that body but more likely he or she...cant tell these things....will most likely in laymens terms give the UN and ultimatum..."either this body acts as it was set to or the US pulls out"

Im sure world opinion as today would follow the tired old anti-US rhetoric denouncing any sort of retaliation that might not follow the tired line of appeasement and negotiations....and we very well might find the US heading even more towards and isolationist policy akin to that of pre-WW2 which may benefit the US but would pretty much sink the rest of the world into a cesspool...(who they gonna call on when their chestnuts are roasting in a fire ...again? France??)

One final thought....is that Russia may remain somewhat quiet on this issue for one reason only...it gives them a perfect window for increased attacks..possibly with chem/bio agents to use in the Chechnya conflict..which no doubt will be still ongoing
some questions one has to ask as well

could the US response be somewhat overkill? Possibly
Will our allies (and fair weather friends) react to our response positively or negatively...?who knows..bit of both
Will nation X (insert your choice here) throw a wrench into our efforts....most definately

but as i said before...this theory I wrote is too simple.....too many varibles and frankly I dont think i could conceive on them all

"If Australia got nuked, it would be because we have done the wrong thing by someone else.."

I don't see that as anything more than akin to "If a woman is raped she asked for it.". You can be hated for reasons outside your control. People are hated because of their race, their religion. The moral values of first world nations are a reason why many fundamentalists in other parts of the world hate us. Is simply existing "doing the wrong thing?".

How many nations and groups hate us with a passion and never kill thousands of people unrelated to their "beef"? Of course people have a right to have a "beef" with us, but is the "beef" the problem with terrorists, or is it the barbaric idea that targetting innocent people is a good way to make a point?

What I am seeing in obtuse opinions like this is the equation of Anger=Terrorism. You expect people to have a knee-jerk reaction to kill civilians to make a point. Ghandi was angry, Martin Luther King Jr. was angry. Only certain agry people make the leap to terrorism. We have multitudes of angry people in the US. To go a step further and say that when you make people angry your should expect to be the victims of terrorism is to validate terrorism as a means of expressing your anger. We don't tolerate that kind of behavior from our own, why should we tolerate it from anyone else, regardless of culture?

No, appeasing everyone in the world will not stop terrorism. In the first place it is impossible, the world is a competitive place. In addition, people with this kind of propensity for horror will always find an excuse. No normal human being can behead another human being. The ideology is far, far subordinate to the sickness in the soul and mind of a terrorist. You can have a beef without hating, and you can certainly be a psychopath or programmed killer without having a "beef".

Sorry for going off-topic Brad, but the kind of crap that Muggaz is spouting is very destructive, imho. It gives anyone with a "beef" the idea that terroristic acts are enevitable.

and how did you come by this info??? how the hell do you know...read it in a us sponsered mag or saw it on a us channel....hell doent matter wether it was a foregn source...all influenced by the us...all propaganda and fear spreading....
it could always be true of course but i take nouthing on modern media at face value ...all is biaist and onesided...when was the last time you saw anything from a middle eastan source(THAT WASNT FROM A WESTERN JOURNALIST OR RELAYED THROUGGH WESTERN CHANNELS)
we are told what they want us to know and all journalism is filtered before released..so everything is worded just right,
bottom line is we know what we are told and no more...unless of course you were involved or saw it first hand....so are you involved or did you see this first hand....if not to ether the how can you know???? just like the rest of us we know what we are told and thats all

any way what kind of moron makes a bomb in the us and waits four years before detonation and why manhattan....why not go for the hover dam...now theres a catastrophy...or the trans alaska pipe line, that would put a real spanner in the works ,if ya gonna do it....just do it i say...why wait,
terrorist these days....no immagination
not that im a terrorist of course...far to apathetic for that kind of behaviour...just a bemused non american bemused by bush`s idiocy
reap what you sow falla

then again i dont agree with the middle east ether,...i hate orginised religion...all simple minded people that presume to know what thier chosen gods want of them or what is best,....doesnt matter if cathlic or islamic ......were talking about a being that created the universe,the planets in it and everything on them and around them....to claim to know what such a being wants or what it plans or even to name it is presumptuous and would never have the audacity to think that in the first place,....why try and understand it

broaden you minds ppl....dont worry about the afterlife you are here now and living....go live

I don't see that as anything more than akin to "If a woman is raped she asked for it.".

Then you need to open your eyes...

I like that you used the term raped... because that exactly what I think America is doing to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan... Everything these cultures hold sacred is being violated...

I am going to try and help you understand... visit my blog soon. You think my 'crap' that I spout is 'destructive', simply because it doesn't go along with what you agree with.

I am sorry that you feel that way - let me assure you that should such a tragedy happen in 2008, I would be as sad as the next guy, thats a point you seem to miss in your degradation of my opinion. Not once have i mentioned appeasement in this case... You cant appease terrorist's - I agree, but do you think if American troops bombed/invaded/raped Iran, only the terrorists would suffer?

Do you know how much I wish Osama bin Laden was like Ghandi? Do you think the PLO would have any notority if they went on hunger strikes? People dont listen to words anymore, they only listen to death, and as the worlds Super Power - you have the responsability to lead the way.. you can choose death, or you can choose the other way...

Bakerstreet... you have a lot of nerve to put words into my mouth, but you are blinded by the same colours as Brad... so, I will get over it.

BAM!!!.

I didn't put a single word in your mouth. You said if we were bombed it would be BECAUSE of things we did. That isn't true. If we are bombed it is because someone decided to kill people because they were angry. When you say:

"If Australia got nuked, it would be because we have done the wrong thing by someone else.."

You place the responsibility for the bombing on the nation that is bombed. People should assume if they wear a short skirt they'll be raped or anger someone in traffic they will be shot? Provocations isn't the crime, the reaction is the crime, and the blame for that lies solely on the perpetrator.

Osama bin Laden says the exact same thing you say, that the victims of terrorism get it because they did something wrong. How sick is that? No amount of provocation justifies terrorism. You justify it, though, when you correlate a terroristic behavior with the actions of the victims. You tell terrorists that the blame for their actions doesn't reside with them, but to the people who provoked them.

I don't need to put words in your mouth. WHat you are saying is easily sickening enough. Listen to what you just said:

"Do you think the PLO would have any notoriety if they went on hunger strikes? People dont listen to words anymore, they only listen to death"

Wow, you should write that in a pamphlet and circulate it in the Middle East. I bet you wouldn't be able to tell it from all the other terrorist propaganda floating around. The fact is the world turns their backs on the Palestinians every time there is a major attack. I guess you see it as a "statement".

I imagine once America had got over the initial shock and devestation at such a horrific act there would be a lot of anger, confusion and hatred.
I imagine that all Arabs and Egyptians etc would be put into internment camps so that they could be "interrogated". At this stage all of them would be suspect. None of them will be released.
I imagine that one of these camps would be overthrown by an angry american militia and all the occupants executed. Whilst this would cause horror in the hearts of most americans (they were unsure of the fairness of the camps in the first place), there would be a lot of you who would think "Good, That's another 500 ragheads we don't hafta deal with".
In the meantime, the rest of the world, once we got thru the handwringing and "oh my god"ing would be getting plenty of reports of how you're all getting it back together.
In elementary schools all over the country children with dark features would be picked on and distrusted. Ties would be cut. Noone with a dark skin would be trusted. In order to win a begrudging respect, a dark skin person would have to bend over backwards proclaiming that all his values were identical to good ol' Uncle Sam. Even then it wouldn't work and if their not driven mad by the constant distrust and hassling by the self righteous whites, they would eventually leave the country.
The Christian Fundamentalists will try and claim it was a gay plot to take over the world and put us all in frocks (Nice frocks - nuthin cheap or tacky ok?) As a response to this misinformation two or three dunderheads will tie a homosexual to a wire fence and leave him there to die. (Hardly original but hey, that's phobic behaviour for you)
The KKK will claim it was a black plot. As a result several black americans will die either at the hands of vigilante groups or due to a lack of response from the authorities when their lives are threatened. In fact, all rap records will be banned as will most rock music.
Those of you who are not good god fearing christians would be singled out. You will be counted if you don't attend church.
Then everything about democracy that you hold so dear would crumble into paranoia and hatred.
People disenfranchised by the capitalistic society you have been cradling for so long will think this is their chance to rise up and seize power. Domestic politics will be in chaos. Vigilante groups of angry people will roam the streets looking out for threats.
You will take all your middle eastern music and art and burn it out of fear of being recognized as a sympathiser. But too late cos they're already looking for smoke rising (that's where the fire is).
The economy will go to pieces and crime will rule the streets. All those with guns will rule over all those without guns. Those with baseball bats will rule over the people with catching mitts. The elderly will be killed for their wealth. The poor will be enlisted in private armies. The kids will suffer the sins of the adults again.
Oh and Arnie will make a film about it. He'll make a film about a nice guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. The film will concentrate on his happy, happy family, his beautiful wife (always by his side despite an ongoing battle with alcohol), his terrific kids (one fabulous boy who plays football despite a learning handicap and his wonderful daughter just turned 16 who is in love for the very first time but is worried cos she's not a virgin). He'll enlist the company of an afroamerican guy who raps a lot and tells a lot of blue jokes and a japanese computer whizz kid whose attempts to pronounce english words will provide us with a lot of laughs.

But mostly what you'll do is get a tooth for a tooth. And then some.

You'll take over the political systems of the "rogue" countries. You will suppress any free speech that expresses anything you feel may be dangerous. You will arrest people on suspicion of involvement and torture them (and, of course, take lots of pics for the folks back home). You will introduce your own capital punishment systems (without all the socalled checks and balances). You will open up new McDonalds stores and sell more Coke. You will make a sequel to Forrest Gump (Gump Does Gaza).

You will scream and scream and hit out at anything and everything. You will be out of control.

And all the while the TV will continue to sell you lies.

And you'll buy them.......weeping.

God bless you, America. God bless you and keep you safe from harm.

why do you think they dont listen any more?....watch the news....look at each item...its all fear and propaganda...as long as i can remember its been this way.......people are decencitised to it...theve been hammered and hammered with it for so long they dont pay attention any more....i dont even live in amearica...the opposite side of the world...and apart from local goings on...thats pretty much all we see on the news...iraq this...iraq that...us policy on this .....us calls for that...hell my mate is off to micronesia for his course in a few weeks...he had to under go a fbi background cheak!!.....hes not even a us citizen...what kind of crap is that!!!!
what right do the fbi have to breach a foregn citizens civel rights ???

its my govt`s fault for having no spine....but its a prime example of interfereing in foregn politics,....its happening everywhere...even pissant little countrys where the us`s only interest is a spy station that they have there and a potential military port in the south pacific that they have been putting preasure on my govt to get. so far no...but the state of my govt ...it wont be long

Yeah.. good work... shirk the issue again...

Just answer - why as the worlds Super Power, cant the US take it upon themselves to lead the way?

You place the responsibility for the bombing on the nation that is bombed

In this particular occasion I do... that is correct. but this is not true in all occasions - we weren't talking about all occasions. Trust me, If New York was bombed in 2008, it would not deserve it, no... It would be responsible for it, that is for sure - there is a big difference.

Why dont the terrorists go around attack tahitian people, or interests? I mean, the terrorist's are savages and just live to kill people indiscriminately? is that right? You make the mistake of thinking the terrorist's kill indiscriminately, but unfortunately its you and even me in their sights, and the truth hurts, because you dont seem to understand why this is... I understand why.

Osama bin Laden says the exact same thing you say, that the victims of terrorism get it because they did something wrong. How sick is that? No amount of provocation justifies terrorism. You justify it, though, when you correlate a terroristic behavior with the actions of the victims. You tell terrorists that the blame for their actions doesn't reside with them, but to the people who provoked them.

The PLO can justify a suicide bomber the very same the US can justify a millitary base in Saudi Arabia - they are standing up for their interest's. Do I think the harmless patron in a restaurant in Tel Aviv deserves to die? or a kid on a bus? of course I dont... I can tell you why they did die though - because someone was mad, someone has been treated un-justly... you write it of as a simple provokation, that just tells me that you aren't as worldly as i thought you were...

How dare you compare me to Osama bin Laden?

This is rather off topic...

This is a hypothetical article, and based on my current opinion of US foreign policy, I would imagine several thousand people dying because of an incident where the US invaded... I dont know, one of these suicide bombers in the US was a little 16 year old kid when the US invaded Afghanistan, and he saw his whole family taken out by a bomb, and now he is older and wants to make America pay... We dont know that, and unless Brad stipulates the entire background of each individual terrorist and person behind the bombing, all i can do is speculate that it is a result of American foreign policy.

Turn the clock back 20 years... dont finance the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, dont support Iraq in any war against Iran, turn it back a few more and dont create Isreal without giving the Palestinians a sovereign land... My argument is, you wouldn't even need to write about this article, becuase it would not be a just fear, because the USA policies had not been interventionalist... Dont drop that WWII crap on me either... sit it out if you want... but that has nothing to do with the current debate.

BAM!!!

Muggaz: you make it an easy comparison; you place the blame for terrorism on the victims, just as he does.

The decision to hunger strike or to bomb resides completely with the terrorist. US policy has effected many, many people throughout the world, but only a small number of people have reacted in this particular way. They do so because they value their their meaningless "message" more than the lives of the people they kill.

If our policy was to blame for terrorism we'd face it from everyone that had a beef with us. Instead, it is a limited group of people who lack the humanity or sanity to respect human life. Using your logic, you could excuse any crime. If the terrorists aren't to blame, can you even punish them?

If someone gets angry someone else must have done something wrong? People can't be miguided? People are *always* justifiably angry? What kind ethos is this?

You can't blame people for other people's actions. If I flip you off in traffic and you shoot me it isn't my fault. You are blaming victims of a crime for the crime. Sick.

Must be a slow day on JoeUser for trite like this to have legs.

Ok, I give in... Bomb the towell heads...

You think you are the one coming across as compassionate for the common man... but really, you only care for Americans.

At this point, I ask you to beleive me, I am more sorry than anyone that the terrorists dont choose huger strikes - I cant emphasise my sincerity on a computer screen enough. It means that because of their actions, not only they will be killed, but the populations of places like Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be ravaged by war from an interventionalist force who have no respect for their culture.

And the kids grow up not right in the head...

Like terrorists...

BAM!!!

their terrorists becuase bush traind bin lardin and co....that and all the new recruits are desperate...they cant fight a conventinal war...dont have the funds to make it happen and no weapons to fight it
the avarage member would of been sitting at home one day eating dinner with his loved ones and a miss aimed poorly planned air stike devistated his local neighberhood...next thing he knows is hes got no family a lot of freinds have been killed his homes in ruins and the result is a hate filled bitter burned out shell of a humen being without anything left to live for....ripe pickings for recruiting...and all the zeal needed to carry things through...put yourself in their shoes....how would you feel if it happend to you.....i would sell my soul to whatever would give me vengence, and would spill oceans of blood to get it

and as for why the us is here..oil of course....and how covenient hat they paid for their campaign out of iraq`i oil but the us is the biggest arms dealer in the world.....someone got rebuild the defence force in iraq after they destroyed it all ...cant leave it defenceless after all...that and all the paranoia that war creates......arm up be safe..

Muggaz, you beat me to the punch, I cannot add much to what you have said. The emphasis of this article is the aftermath of an attack. To not immediately act on retribution is obviously seen as a sign of weakness on this board and that is unfortunate. What people forget is that events happen for a reason. If a murder takes place, an investigation ensues. We find MOTIVE. Little emphasis is ever placed on finding the motives of a terrorist. We just "respond" and oversensationalize the em crews, the er's, and firefighters into mythical status. Hollywood is blurring reality and not for the better.

A loss of confidence is better than an immediate lashing out, because this could escalate a response from someone else and so on. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see where this is going. It all comes down to bad policy of foreign affairs. Do a google search for military bases post ww2 and see how many countries there are troops in. It is staggering. Should one g7 country get p'od by a lashing out response, they would demand - not ask for a withdrawl of international troops. Naturally this would be ignored and this is where all the worldwide involvement goes from good to bad. Perception takes a nose dive and everyone loses.

Let's not get to that point.

JD