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're kidding right? Australia, land of successful genocide. So if aboriginals got their hands on a nuclear weapon and nuked Sydney you would do just hard thinking about what you did wrong? Or maybe you also forgot that Australia has troops in Iraq. And how quickly you forgot abut Indonesia.

It is no wonder why the US has little respect for "world opinion". When you have people like Muggaz and Valleyboy running around blaming the victim it's hard to take them seriously.

I didn't even give a suggested response by the US.

After 9/11 (which unless you're a fucking kook there was no justification for) it is not implausible that terrorists might managed to set of a nuclear weapon in a major US city.

The question was not meant as a way for left-wingers to practice their "blame America" diatributes. It was a serious question - what do you think would actually happen? If you think the US would just turn inward and say "Gosh, I guess we had it coming, we're just so bad." then you've learned nothing from the response of 9/11.  If you think the US might retaliate massively, then it seems to me that the best solution would be to try to do things now to prevent such an act.

Given that it is incredibly unlikely that anything short of full conversion of Islam would appease Al Qaeda (Muggaz apparently forgot that more Australians, as a percentage of their population, have died at their hands than Americans) that the solution is to try to eliminate Al Qaeda and get the nations that harbor and create these kinds of people to stop doing so.  The best way to do that is subject to debate.

JakeD: If I come up to you and punch you in the nose, is your first response going to be to try to understand why I punched you in the nose?

Australia, land of successful genocide. So if aboriginals got their hands on a nuclear weapon and nuked Sydney you would do just hard thinking about what you did wrong?

I doubt that they would nuke back upon every aboriginal reservation in retaliation... America sure wouldn't because it wouldn't be in the best interest for 'their' country. Don't forget that the States are just as guilty as Australia has been with the treatment of First Nation peoples, and continue to be so.

Like Muggaz has mentioned quite a few times, I figure that he'd repeat by saying that it would definitely be a time for thinking about how to respond, rather than just wildly pushing a few buttons.

Actually, Draginol, if you come up and punch someone in the nose and then just stand there, the most likely reaction (in my opinion) is "Ow! What the hell did you do that for?"
So yes, the first response IS to try and understand your motives.

Anyway, to answer your original question regarding the scenario:

I think that the US would:
(a) level the afghan/pakistan border with conventional bombs.
( demand that Iran immediately dismantle all of its nuclear capabilities, and if the demand is not met with immediate compliance, level any suspected nuclear facility in Iran.
(c) demand that Egypt, Saudi, Arabia, Iran, Syria, and the PLO denounce the activity of the terrorists and take immediate steps to capture and turn over to the US any suspected terrorist, including cooperating fully with any US military or intelligence action in the area.
(d) pass a whole bunch of new laws that would further erode our civil rights and move the US toward a police state.
(e) ratchet up a huge additional chunk of national debt, maybe even double it, in the course of (unsuccessfully) trying to address the problem.

If New York got nuked by terrorists...

Fall 2008 - a presidential campaign is going on in America. They'd probably suspend campaigning for awhile to get congressional approval for authorizing military action in Iran. They would demand to all international governments with nuclear capability that any future strikes on US soil will be considered to be from the country that generated the fissile material, without regards to actual intention. Then they have to strike Iran hard, probably taking out the Iranian government and plunge the country into civil war, while securing their nuclear facilities and effectively disabling them.

They cannot react without taking out another government since that would just pave the way for future terrorists to do the same thing without much punishment. Just giving a threat saying "close down your nuclear facilities otherwise we'll bomb you" just doesn't cut it since it'll just force their programs underground. They have to actually strike governments and make other world leaders feel insecure if they have a nuclear facility. Other governments need to take a bit more active interest in what's going on in their borders.

I don't think the geography particularily matters, just the fact that they used Iranian nuclear material that does. The threat could also contain a "if the terrorists are determined to be in country XYZ, then country XYZ is going to get bombed as well" type of threat, but the initial stage would be to bomb Iran since they had the nuclear material.

Domestically, cross-border flows would probably slow to a trickle, kind of like what happened after 9/11. Everybody will probably get fingerprinted and require some sort of US-issued visa in order to stay in the country. This will probably kill the Canadian economy since they're so dependent on trade exports. It would take a couple years to get back to normal.

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.

"Open antagonism" did not keep the US out of Vietnam or the Soviets out of Afghanistan. I could see China threatening Taiwan, but I think that action would be motivated by Taiwan, not Iran.

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.

Explain how the 9/11 bombings constituted "discriminate" killing.

dont create Isreal without giving the Palestinians a sovereign land

Wasn't Lebanon created at the same time as Israel by splitting up the British Palestinian Mandate?

dont support Iraq in any war against Iran

How about telling Iran, "Don't take US citizens hostage".

in respose to an earlyer comment....yes the US is to blame...if they didnt go around poking around in other country bussines and dictateing how they should do things....and of course if the didnt do this they wouldnt have trained up bin lardin with all these nice skills hes aquired and wouldnt have done what he done.......right at the start of this argument....some one stated "cause and consequence".......action ,reaction......the US is like a big bully in a school yard..stealing everyones lunches and beating on them when they dont do what they want....oh and of course they know what other kids have the better lunches(oil)

hard to say legitimately. Of course they would go to war again against whoever they thought did it. But Brad, it won't happen.

of course the the towers was a horrific thing...but how did the US respond.........becuase of one mans actions...they went and carpet bombed an entire nation into the ground....all the while calling them cowards ,not hat there was much left after the soviets got there...but that was the reason that the US got involved there in the first place..and dont forget WW2....."you sunk my battleships....how did they respond to that???....nuked not one but two cities!!!......a civilian target how bout that..what hypocrates.
once again...cant keep their hand to them selves,
yes im left wing in my polices but if we were the dominant in politics there wouldnt be half this crap going on....the world would be a happier more peaceful place to live,

if we were the dominant in politics there wouldnt be half this crap going on....the world would be a happier more peaceful place to live,

This is a falsehood, when a nation is directly threatened human nature takes over, not political nature. A neutralised right wing is no more war mongering than a neutralised left wing. Let us not forget that war is not only a right wing reaction when it comes to defence old boy. My good friend Tony Blair is a Labour Prime Minister, but stands allied with a very right wing Republican President. This would only happen in a time of war when human defence instincts take over.

becuase of one mans actions...they went and carpet bombed an entire nation into the ground

One man? That was a very stupid thing to say, the remarks of a peasant. If only one man threatened the West I think he could be killed with hasty vigour and the whole issue would be done with. We face networks of terrorists, not lone men spurting anti-Western rhetoric.

Bad form old boy.

"JakeD: If I come up to you and punch you in the nose, is your first response going to be to try to understand why I punched you in the nose?"
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know it man!

Muggaz apparently forgot that more Australians, as a percentage of their population, have died at their hands than Americans

Actually, I haven't forgot that mate... It just prooves that I am a better person than you, because I am not so quick to act with violence... Bali was a traumatising time for me, as was Sept 11... because whilst the acts were terrible, the retribution has been worse.

I am sick of this merry go round... Claim victory over our little arguments if you must, I dont care... call me a savage terrorist sympathiser all you want... hey, this is the Internet, i 'could' be Osama bin Laden for all you and Baker Street know! My conscience is clear.

It is no wonder why the US has little respect for "world opinion". When you have people like Muggaz and Valleyboy running around blaming the victim it's hard to take them seriously

VBA and myself are just two young guys concerned for the welfare of our entire planet, not just one land mass where you reside... I am glad America discounts world opinion based on a couple of crazy kooks like us - it is a perfect display of the American Ignorance/Arrogance that you so vehemontly bestow upon the left.

Brad, you are one inspiring character - knowing your's and many of your compatriots attitudes, it inspires me to be a better person... I know you dont have problems sleeping at night, because you have the biggest guns... the best thing people like VBA and myself can do is get our opinions out there, and this right wing hotbed, whilst emotionally stressful at times, is the best forum, because if one person just changes their opinion one iota, I will be happy... then pen (keyboard) is far mightier than the sword.

BAM!!!