Nuclear Terrorism

[IDL]

The american government seems quite willing to dwindle freedoms in order to keep America protected from nuclear weapons.

They always sell it like it's to protect freedom and liberty, but what they are doing is taking them away.

They need to keep people scared and eventually we'll be living in a totalitarian police state. That's the end game. People running scared into the arms of big brother.

 

[Bukowski82]

They always sell it like it's to protect freedom and liberty, but what they are doing is taking them away.

They need to keep people scared and eventually we'll be living in a totalitarian police state. That's the end game. People running scared into the arms of big brother.

I'm really impressed with your commitment to trolling these forums with New World Order nonsense... That has to be difficult to keep up.

 

[James Keith]

Most people believe that and I tend to agree, but what if a nuclear weapon went off in Los Angeles? Or Houston? When the trade centers went down, many americans saw Iraq as enough of a threat that they re-elected George Bush after he sent the American army at them, knowing they had nothing to do with 9/11 and the WMD were not real or ever found.

What would happen and how would you feel after a nuclear blast?

Yes despite all the conspiracy theories about oil, Iraq happened because the US was in no mood for playing footsie with enemies anymore, and willing to crush any rogue state that even played at threatening the US. We see even with president nobel peace prize, that presidents are always just chomping at the bit to try and "fix" the problems of the world, all they need is public consent.

That is the "danger" people fear, that the US may once again go out and waste its manpower and money trying to clean up the world's shitholes. Seems like a stupid thing for people, especially Europeans, to bitch about. It's not like we're trying to install communist states to stand against them. Even if the US annexed rogue states empire-style (which it clearly hasn't done and won't do) how is having the world's slums part of some empire worse than having it under control of a some idiot dictator or islamist psychos? I guess there may be good reasons to not want Russia in charge of Afghanistan for example, but I sure think the idea of Putin laying down the law there to be preferable to the status quo or the Taliban.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Lol at. "Nuclear Terrorism". There hasn't been a significant terrorist attack in a First World country using conventional explosives since 7/7 in the UK, and that was back in 2005. The Boston Bombers only managed to kill two people with their IED's. Tragic, of course, but hardly Apocalyptic. Nowadays, terrorists are reduced to stabbing lone off-duty soldiers to death with knives and trying to shoot cops with guns that blow up in their hands.

Getting hold of even a small, low yield Nuclear Weapon would be extremely expensive and difficult. You would need to buy it from tier one Organised Crime, and even most of those groups would be unwilling to risk the shit storm that would follow the detonation of a Nuke by terrorists if it could be traced back to them.

If a Nuke exploded on American soil, the response of the US Military could be summed up as Wrath of God, with the Knobs Turned Up to 11. Anyone and anything connected to the plot would be wiped from the face of the earth.

 

[Byron Carter]

I think it's a legitimate topic and certainly not "Fear Mongering".

Nuclear weapons are becoming easier to create. Fissionable material has been leaking from the former-U.S.S.R. territories for decades now.

You only need 3 things for nuclear terrorism to occur:

-People willing to do it. Check! In spades.
-People able to create the bombs - they're working day and night all over the world.
-Ability to deliver and detonate the bomb. Hard, but... a persistent group could probably do it, eventually.


With that in mind, seems like its only a matter of time.

 

[Byron Carter]

Lol at. "Nuclear Terrorism". There hasn't been a significant terrorist attack in a First World country using conventional explosives since 7/7 in the UK, and that was back in 2005. The Boston Bombers only managed to kill two people with their IED's. Tragic, of course, but hardly Apocalyptic. Nowadays, terrorists are reduced to stabbing lone off-duty soldiers to death with knives and trying to shoot cops with guns that blow up in their hands.

Getting hold of even a small, low yield Nuclear Weapon would be extremely expensive and difficult. You would need to buy it from tier one Organised Crime, and even most of those groups would be unwilling to risk the shit storm that would follow the detonation of a Nuke by terrorists if it could be traced back to them.

If a Nuke exploded on American soil, the response of the US Military could be summed up as Wrath of God, with the Knobs Turned Up to 11. Anyone and anything connected to the plot would be wiped from the face of the earth.

Think about your cell phone for a moment. Think about how in your lifetime, your cell phone has become smaller, and more efficient... while at the same time, becoming cheaper.

Nuclear technology is the same. It's becoming easier to make, the knowledge is already there, thanks in part to the internet. The bombs are becoming smaller.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

You know that statement is bullshit.

But it makes him sound cool for all the other ignoramuses.