Anyway, to answer your original question regarding the scenario:

I think that the US would:
(a) level the afghan/pakistan border with conventional bombs.
(b) 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!!!

Okay Muggaz, stay with me here for a second okay...

You said that Australia, unlike the United States, doesn't get targeted by terrorists because Australia, unlike the United States, doesn't do things to piss people off.

Just to refresh your memory, here is what you said:

It's not something I have to think about because we dont go around having our way with everyone else's country

I reminded you that Australia has had more people killed (as a % of population) by terrorists than the United States.  So either a) Australia has done more than the US to piss off people or Terrorists go after innocents for pretty much any reason.  And in fact, as I've said countless times, the terrorists don't hate the US because of any specific action, they hate THE WEST because it exists. That's why they attacked Australians -- they hate the west in all its forms.

Now, let's set aside the issue of whether you think being a pacificst makes you a "Better person" or not. Because in reality, Australia has been a participant in Iraq.

You are not concerned about the welfare of our "entire" planet. You certainly don't seem too sympathetic to Americans being murdered by terrorists.  You strike me as someone who just sympathizes with bullies in the hope that the bully will leave you alone.

I also find it amusing that you would consider JoeUser a "right wing hotbed".  Have you bothered to even look at the political point of view of the majority of people who write articles here? Or is it that you have become so far left that everything seems "right wing". 

As for changing people's opinions, you'll never be very effective at making a compelling argument as long as you come across as so ignorant. That always seems to be your specific problem in these kinds of debates. You are a reasonably good writer, but you are appallingly bad at debating because your grasp of facts is so tenuous and ability to remember your own previous statements (such as this example here where you had just stated how you don't have to worry about terrorist attacks because Australians don't piss people off.

joe: You are a text book example of why Americans have stopped caring about "world opinion".  I'm not sure which is worse, the idiotic claim that the US "carpet bombed" Afghanistan or the argument that the US deserved thousands of its people to be murdered because of vague US government policies that had essentially no affect whatsoever on those who commited these atrocities.

Terrorists go after innocents for pretty much any reason

Australia is targetted because we are alligned with the US... this is a simple fact that you cannot deny. Australia make people mad by proxy... nothing more.

If Australia was a world power like the US, with unilateral interventionist tactic, I would expect people to hate us... Thats the difference... you see nothing wrong at all with US foreign policy - where I do...

As for my debating, I am working on it - I would even be so brash as to state that those who aren't as aggressively inclined towards the USA's enemy would say I have risen some valid points... you will never take me seriously, and can I tell you something Brad? I dont care. You say I come across as Ignorant, as do you my friend... we just appeal to different audiences, and whilst my ideal goal would be to appeal to your audience, and your ideal goal would be to appeal to mine, The best we can continue to do, is state what we think, and why we think it.

I wish you nothing but peace - you seem like a nice enough dude on a personal level, but your compassion is something that is lacking.

BAM!!!

i speak in genearliseations...easyer to sum things up....im not gonna speak for every ones specific reasons.....as for the terrorist`s not being led by one person you are probably right but they all org`ed by a leader and theres some kind of inter relationss and co-operation between these fractions......and the one responsible for the twintowers was bin lardin....witch if we are to beleive what we are told on the news ,or if the info is correct ...was trained by bush to conduct terrorism against the ussr.....but theres no proof but what we are told...im about as sceptical as it gets when dealing with the data that we are fed by the media....for all i know bin lardin is nouthing more than a scape goat...an excuse to trigger off events....no one knows but a very corrupt govt that applys political preasure on just about every nation in the world.....as for tony blair...hes a puppet in my opinion...speaks for england with bush`s voice,

and brad ....the amearican s dont care about anything but their own personal freedom....world opinion stops at where it efects them and their way of life
good ol capitalism...me first! me first! me first!

NickyG: The Australian government in the 19th century set out to deliberately exterminate all the aboriginals. They succeeded in Tasmania. There are no native Tasmanians left. So no, the US is not "just as guilty" as Australia.

BTW, I haven't even written what I think the US would or should do. But I do believe massive retaliation would be the most likely response, not introspection. People being ticked off does not excuse mass murder.

Muggaz: France has serious problems with Islamic terrorists. Not on the scale of say Australia but it's pretty signifcant. Is France "aligned" with the US too?

Do you remember the date of the bombing in Indonesia? Let me help you out: October 2002. Please feel free to let us know what Australia had done, on behalf of the US, in 2002 to justify the mass murder of civilians.  Is there any occasion where appeasement isn't your first choice?

Here's a radical thought - sometimes the fault lies with the people who actually do the killing.

October 12 mate...

4 mates died - you shouldn't assume.

Australia supported USA, that is why... We also helped the East Timorese... that could also be a reason... who knows?

I have the attitude I posses, because I dont want my kids or their mates to die in a terrorist attack... Do I think going to Indonesia as an invading force would prevent that? you bet I dont.

BAM!!!

I have the attitude I posses, because I dont want my kids or their mates to die in a terrorist attack...

The Islamic extremists have already given you an easy way to ensure that you will never be attacked Muggaz. Just convert to their brand of Wahabi Islam, subject yourself and your entire nation to sharia law, and memorize the Koran. Then you will be totally safe! Unless of course, you have to ensure that you don't eat, work, or visit any place also frequented by "infidels" as the untargetted bombing of the other civilians there could quite easily turn you the fervent beleiver into a "martyr for the cause". A simple plan really, I just can't fathom why everyone has not jumped on this bandwagon?

yes the US is to blame...if they didnt go around poking around in other country bussines and dictateing how they should do things.

WARNING : AD HOMINEM ATTACK TO FOLLOW......

 

Joe - You sir are a scurvy cur.

NickyG: The Australian government in the 19th century set out to deliberately exterminate all the aboriginals. They succeeded in Tasmania. There are no native Tasmanians left. So no, the US is not "just as guilty" as Australia.

That is not entirely correct. There are native Tasmanians still around, but they were the 'lucky' ones whose ancestors escaped the genocide and managed to assimilate into other communities. The US had the same genocidal intents at one point, and the current status regarding Native American policy leaves a lot to be desired. An important reason why total genocide did not occur in the way that you regard Australia's accomplishment is that the land mass in comparision was that much smaller, as was the targeted population. I realize that this is not your intended topic regarding your original post, but you brought up the analogy.

NickyG: There are millions of native Americans and no, the US government never put together a progrom to exterminate all native Americans.

There are literally thousands of books with multiple listings of American Indian policies that state otherwise. Check google and type in Native American genocide for links, or better yet, go ask a professor of almost any college/university that studies the history of US and Native peoples relations. You can check out this link too, and see if it coincides with your idea of what genocide means.
Link

To answer your original question Brad,

I believe the current US administration would look for someone to retaliate against. It might assault Iran, and would probably have lots of international support unless the Iranian government immediately handed over suspects and actively engaged in remorse. The US government will then use the explosion as an excuse to invade some other country it doesn't like and all the international support will evaporate, more hatred will ensue and a few uyears later some terrorists (who were raised to hate the US in the Iran or the Iraq war) will repeat the terrorism with a chemical bomb.

Never ending cycle.

The cause for the terrorism must be analysed and solved. Revenge does not solve problems.

Paul.

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

The United States would respond very similarly to the way we did after 9/11. We would use our military to try to root out the terrorists.

The real question, though, is what would be in our best interests. To know that, I would need to know lots of other variables, which include why the the terrorists did it... NOT because I want to "understand them" in the sense of figuring out reasons to be sympathetic -- they just killed thousands of innocent people, for God's sake! I want to "understand them" in the sense that I want to know a) what these people's goals are, how best to thwart those goals, and c) how best to prevent others from using the same tactics in the future.

first off, to answer the question, i believe the US would do retalitory strikes.. both ground based as well as missle. then, as was said earlier in another person's post, i believe there would be a more isolationist inclination. to support that point, take Muggaz's comments.. s/he says that the US has too much of an interventionist policy.. but then, s/he also says the US should "... take it upon themselves to lead the way?..." so, the US should stay out of everyone's business, but yet, they should lead ppl at the same time.. thats rather counter intuitive don't you think? anyway, back to my point. i believe by that year, the conditions will be to the point that the US will start withdrawling all foreign support, both military and financially. will for all intensive purposes remove themselves from the world political scene. would still stay in NATO and the UN, but as generally a silent member. all cultural activities will be excluded from export. since it seems that our media, both informational and entertainment "causes problems." laws such as NAFTA and all other trade "break" aggrements will be dropped or severly redesigned. and laws would be passed to make it much harder to break the isolation. immigration will essentially be banned. in short, the US would become cultural and military isolationists. and i would hope, if they did this action, that the US would keep records of all the broadcasts and outrage before its instituted, calling for them to "get out of our business." so if the US is ever called on to support another country or group of countries, such as they were in WW2. they can turn it down, and good supporting reasons for doing so.

sorry world. if you want the US out of your business, but yet being your leaders, you had better get off your butts and get your leaders to draw up detailed rules for what the US can and can not do in other countries. otherwise the isolation WILL happen. no group of people will tolerate being damned for getting involved when asked by a certain group.. and damned for not getting involved with a certain group. once you put a society in that position, they will withdrawl from all contact. better to be damned for only one action, than for multiple actions. lol