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.

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".

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

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.

"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!

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.

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!!!

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.

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!!!

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

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.

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