New York, 2008, nuclear terrorism

What if...

Some months ago I wrote an article outlining why I thought that it was important that the middle east solve their terrorist problem themselves. 

Let me postulate one example reason why. Imagine this scenario:

New York, Fall, 2008. A suicide bomber team has smuggled into the United States a crude 8 kiloton nuclear device. Assembled in lower New Jersey, the team rents a boat and brings it into New York harbor and sets it off. The destruction kills 47,000 people and destroys much of Manhattan.

It turns out that the fissionable material came from Iran from its illicit nuclear weapons program (but not sanctioned by Iran). The terrorist organization responsible, Al Qaeda, declares responsibility and is operating largely in the no-man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan along with certain outlying areas in Iran.

Thousands march in support of this action in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and the west bank.

What do you think the reaction of the United States be?

26,619 views 76 replies
Reply #1 Top
Well, if the UN somehow survived the attack, I imagine we would, once again, go hat in hand asking permission to go to war. They would drag their feet again and another 18 month rush to war would start, which would be opposed every step of the way by the political party not currently in office and probably the entire world media - depending on which party is in office, of course.

Seriously, if 9/11 failed to wake up about 50% of the country, what makes you think a nuclear strike would be any more effective? Body counts are just abstract numbers that get more real as they get bigger. Some people would rather watch imobilized as our nation is dismantled city by city, rather than have to make unseemly moral decisions. The only saving grace is that these people seem to be more likely to live in cities than more rural areas. At some point, the war effort will have the clear majority it needs. But sadly, I think we are more than a few 9/11's away from accepting the new reality.
Reply #2 Top

Cause and effect Brad.

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.

Paul.

Reply #3 Top
What are the causes for such terrorism in the first place?
Is the *anything* that would ever justify this act Solitair? US Policy decisions or something? I am dying to know what cause could *possibly* matter. At all. You are seriously trying Moral equivalency here? That is not a defensible position. Attacks against civilian targets with no military units involved are *never* justified. Not when we did them in WWII and not when others commit them now.
Reply #4 Top
What are the causes for such terrorism in the first place? And saying they just hate the US is not a proper answer.


1. The hateful rhetoric spread by Arab media and education, encouraged and enabled by leaders who would prefer to have their populations fixated on Jews and Americans instead of reforming their government.

2. The suppression of rhetoric that does not conform to an Islamic viewpoint.

3. The belief that commiting an act of suicidal violence grants eternal blessing.
Reply #6 Top
i hate to respond to questions with questions but the scenario is skewed to provoke a desired resply..

how does north korea respond?

what if there are cheering crowds in germany and france?

wholl take responsibility for foolishly causing our efforts, resources and focus to be diverted from capturing bin laden and disrupting al quaida?


Reply #7 Top
Cause and effect Brad.


If this was justification then we would be justified in turning those countries into slag. Sorry, they (Mid east countries and peoples) who disagree with US policies must find another answer, playing the current game will only end with their destruction.
Reply #8 Top

Solitair, no offense but you're skirting the issue.

What do you think the US reaction would be? Do you really think Americans would start going "why do they hate us?" If you think there is some sort of justification to intentionally murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians then there's really not much to discuss.

But that wasn't the question - the question isn't whether you think the US deserves to have thousands of Americans murdered. The question is what do you think the US response would be.

Reply #9 Top
Thanks for scaring the shit out of me!! New York is back on her feet and stronger than ever. Living in fear is completely useless. The US has tightened up security till its a stranglehold on the rest of the world. I know I'm just really politically naive, but I do live here, and it's not a fun feeling to wake up everyday scared of what might happen. I don't see the point in hypothesising or whatever, I don't think there's anymore anyone can do to prevent a repeat of 9/11, as you say- there's no justification for such attacks. I don't agree with the war on Iraq, and I hope if another tragedy occurs the government will find a different way of dealing with it than simply lowering Americans to the level of terrorists and killing a bunch of innocent people. Two wrongs do not make a right. I'm not smart enough to have any suggestions, and we don't appear to have any say in how the government reacts to terrorism anyway. All I can say is terrorism is relative thing, A lot of people called Nelson Mandela a terrorist, and now he's considered a freedom fighter, a hero. I'm not condoning terrorism, but these people have a system of beliefs they're probably brainwashed into, their beliefs and actions probably don't seem wrong to them, and beliefs are exceptionally hard to change. Raises an ethical question too, it would render us hypocrites to try and change their beliefs since this is the country that preaches freedom of speech and so on.
Reply #10 Top

Dylan, people who set off to murder as many innocents as they can -- with the goal being quantity of murders, are terrorists.

I don't think Mandella ever put together a plan to murder as many white people (for instance) as he could.

Reply #11 Top
Yeah that was a bad comparison. I just meant that to them what they're doing doesn't seem wrong, to them it's the right and just thing to do. If you try and see it from their perspective (their very fucked up perspective) then you can see how impossible it is to prevent this kind of thing happening again, because they're beliefs won't change.
Reply #12 Top
The right wing ignorance on this site, with plenty of spicy righteousness mixed in of course, probably shouldn't amaze me, but hey, I'm gullible. I figure people who say they want to understand history and meaning have actually taken a look at historical sequence and relationships, as well as contemplating all sorts of thinkers---not just Ayn Rand's gems and Irving Kristol's rants and Henry Kissinger's Machievellian strategies, but critics and opponents of, and thinkers contrary to the reactionaries that make right-wingers feel safe and comfortable---who have been speaking about issues of meaning and understanding for the past several centuries of 'enlightenment,' science, and progress.

Thus, when Paul inquires about the roots of terror, one might imagine that folks could consider---instead of jerking their knees and shaking their fingers in opprobrium---all sorts of recent and more deeply rooted events and actions which may have yielded strong antipathy toward the rulers of the United States. Recent events would consist of, among tens of thousands of other incidents and dozens of important tendencies, such things as the financing and logistical support of Al Qaeda in a cynical, self-serving, and stupid attempt to make the downfall of the Soviets faster, the overthrow of President Mossadech in Iran and the installation of the Butcher Shah Pahlevi in his place, the installation and elevation of Saddam Hussein before he became the most recent Frankenstein not to kill his maker, the OSS's and CIA's open-armed policy to Nazi butchers whom they relocated hither and yon to continue their 'good works' among 'lesser peoples'. Deeper rooted developments concern the growth of the most powerful corporate-military alliance in history, that has benefited from wars and rumors of wars for a century and a half, always at the expense of average people who fill the morgues and body bags on all sides of the situations at hand; as well, the White Supremacist thinking, that continues to imagine slavery as some fantasy of kind massa's and grateful negroes, not to mention the butchery of indigenous Americans as one of history's great leaps forward, is a tendency that is at the root of the hatred of both American rulers AND the more universal proclivity to embrace ignorance like it was mama's titty.

There's a lot to all of this, no doubt. We're all ignorant, of course. I'm an idiot---depending on the person with whom you speak---between half the time and some proportion approaching one. But I do like to get a little deeper than stancescalling names and rallying around the tattered flag, as if such ritualistic childishness might have any effect on our futures and our fortunes. The real issue, to me, is that the leaders of our land, whom we continue to allow to act in our name, have polluted the promise of our nation, to which the people of the world look as a last hope for humanity in many instances. Nothing pisses people off like righteous, cynically motivated hypocrisy, which define precisely the thinking and motivation of this country's current cabal of crooks in charge.

As to the original post, the prospects for a SECOND USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN A HOSTILE FASHION---or should I say a third? since we bombed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki---are much higher in the next year or so than at a later date. That we survive to 2008 will mean that the righteous and childish ignoramuses and thugs have lost their cachet. That's the thinking of those much wiser than me in any case.
Reply #13 Top
What do you think the reaction of the United States be?


I think that the US would invade Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Reply #14 Top

Jimbo,

I noticed you didn't actually answer the question either for all your talk. What do you think the US would do if one of its cities were nuked in this fashion. I realize left wingers such as yourself are usually paralyzed from doing anything in the real world but surely in this hypothetical you could at least put forward what you think the reaction would be.

Reply #15 Top
I have an answer, but I have a question first:

I am under the imression that these terrorist groups are being funded by wealthy persons, in order to procure weapons and fusion material.

Is it safe to presume that some of the funds are coming from persons who control the oil in Saudi Arabia?

IG
Reply #16 Top
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.
Reply #17 Top

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.

Reply #18 Top
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?
Reply #19 Top
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.
Reply #20 Top
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?
Reply #21 Top

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.

Reply #22 Top
"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.
Reply #23 Top
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

Reply #24 Top
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!!!
Reply #25 Top
one final thought: ill be happily surprised if we get through 2005 without having to deal with something like that.