The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack, page 2
The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:14 AM
There are a couple of email addresses near the end, check them out:
This next site isn’t available for some reason:
nmcc20a.nmcc.smil.mil...
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:58 AM
i have 100$ saying craaaazy americans will nuke the wrong country
oh wait thats not funny...
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:12 AM
Maybe we should adopt a policy like Gabriel's from the fictional movie Sword Fish.
Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
What would be the point of killing infidels if your actions is going to result in the death of 10 times as many muslims? I wouldnt be pretty but you aint going to win a war on terroism in a convential way.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:24 AM
Whether it is implimented or not you have to realize that the Pentagon has an attack plan and a response plan for every contingency. We are not talking about flying jets into buildings, we are not talking about bombing subways or buses. We are talking about a nuke going off in a major US city with catastrophic death and destruction. Just look at the damage Katrina has done to the Gulf Coast in both human misery and loss of life and then realize that this would only be a drop in the bucket to a nuclear explosion.
Then tell me that we should just lick our wounds and pray for peace and do nothing for fear of creating more terrorist? Sorry, but I do not agree with that at all. So if America is nuked, hundred of thousands or a million are killed then that is acceptable to the world. But if America responds with nukes then that would just create more hatred and terrorist! Does anyone else see whats wrong with this picture or is it just me. That is the kind of thinking that created this mess in the first place. If the USA had defended it's Embassy against the Iranians and swatted the Ally-two-hah-hahs in the first place, that would have sent a message throughout the Arab world that we are not to be trifled with. It is because of passive response that the terrorist grew bolder and daring since they did not fear reprisal. Then you say we cannot take out a whole country because of the actions of a few radicals. But it is okay to take out America because you don't agree with America Policy? Again there seems to be a double standard. Damned if we do and damned if we don't, so if I am going to be damned anyway then I'm coming out fighting. Someone said they don't care if America survives, it is unimportant. Maybe to you, but to use a little school yard mentality, don't get even, get ahead. The war on terror will never be won, No matter what we do there will always be idiots willing to die for their cause, whether misguided or not. The best you can hope for is to make sure the other poor idiot does the dying. America doesn't matter? Hum, sorry but if it comes down between America and the rest of the world, I'll take the USA.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:15 PM
this NAZI mentality didnt work for nazis and it wont work for USA. They killed 100 or 1000 innocent people for one german soldier and still they lost the war.
Your overconfidence in american superiority will be your doom...eventually...but hey, i am not here to preach....im here to learn.
Personally i see USA is heading where the famous Atlantis went, to the bottom of the sea, and not by some muslim radical but by yourself and the decisions you make.....by supporting the murdering foreign policy.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:53 PM
That wasnt the reason that Germany lost the war. The reason they lost was because they had a moron as a military leader. Hitler had great skill as talker and politician but when it came to military tactics
Lets forget that non-agression with Russia and attack them
perhaps the worst military blunder of all time. Lets declare war on the US
Lets turn our new Jet fighter into a bomber thus losing any edge it had with the extra bomb weight
Personally, I think this issue goes far deeper than anyone could ever imagine and I think we are oversimplifying things. I have no problem with "contigency plans" for nuclear attacks within our borders and you would have to be a fool to think that those plans are not well under way by certain "terrorists". What I DO have a problem with however is WHO all is involved in these plans. Evil is everywhere folks (It always has been) like a cancer and has always been "gnawing" away and clawing for dominance over that which is good. I fear however that in the recent years evil has found it's way into certain levels in our government and in such a way, it would just blow your mind. (Our president anyone?)
Just like Jesus said in Luke 12:56:
"Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?"
Or from the english version:
"O false ones! the face of the earth and the heaven is clear to you; how is it that the signs of these times are not as clear to you?"
It's pretty clear to me... Jesus was calling people with "spiritual blinders" on false ones! You can't be true unless you can truly "see" and you can't do that until you can see with your heart (spirit).
And one more thing: JUST like hitler, the antichrist will not reveal his true colors or intentions UNTIL it is too late.
I pray that everyone who reads this will go to the Lord and pray that your blinders are removed so that you may see the truth.
Some other versers to ponder:
Lu 21:8
"And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them."
2 Ti 3:13 (One of my personal favorites)
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived"
Rev 18:23 (Babylon anyone? could it be us.. the good ol' USA?)
[edit on 14-9-2005 by TxSecret]
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:06 PM
You punch me in the face, I break a baseball bat over your head. If I break a baseball bat over your head, I guarentee that you will think twice before you approach me again! Even if you get a baseball bat and you see that I not only have more baseball bats put I have bigger bats, will you approach me again? Say you are thinking about getting me back. I tell you that if you break a baseball bat over my head then I am going to break one over your head, your families head and your neighbor down the street. Now, you have been warned of the consequences if you try to hit me with a bat. So, knowing the consequences of hitting me, you go ahead and do it anyway. Now you, your family and your neighbors are all staggering around with big knots on your heads. Wouldn't you think that after this one of your family members or neighbors would come forward and tell you to leave me alone?
Nazi? I've been called a hellava lot worse, particularly while swinging my big bat!
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:07 PM
You guys want to nuke Syria and Iran for a WMD attack on the USA? ROFLMAO!
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are harboring the real threat, it's a shame you guys cannot see that.
Gawd, the spin masters have done it again.
Fighting shadows while the real threat gains strength and popular support.
[edit on 14-9-2005 by sardion2000]
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:18 PM
I agree with the Saudi link, but Pakistan has been part of the solution so far, they have done more to fight terrorism than any other Muslim nation.
I think we should nuke Canada too...
make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
Very doubtful that this sort of tactic would actually work. The guys that are fighting the US in the the afghan mountains aren't going to be effected by these sort of things. Besides, its silly, the point of war is to kill the enemy, not civies. Its like saying to the soviets that you're going to execute some Poles everytime they support an insurgency. Not much leverage there. You make the costs of terrorism so horrific as to be not worth it by killing the terrorists, and only that.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:25 PM
If the nuclear weapon grade material was created in Iran or Syria and given or sold to a terrorist org. that used it in the US. Then yes I do
You dont think the USSR ever devised plans to use a third party to sneak Nuclear weapons into the US? They didnt develop man portable nukes for the heck of it.
Why send a ICBM with your address written on it when you can use a third party and deny all involvement? The states that supply terrorist with these weapons have to be held accountable. Theres always going to a nation involved if a nuclear weapon is used in a terrorist attack. Terrorist arent refining uranium I can assure you.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:26 PM
Pakistan's gov't is not in question, it's the people and the ideology being preached in the tribal area's.
Have fun with the fallout then
Terrorist arent refining uranium I can assure you.
And I can assure you that they don't need to. You do know that the USSR broke apart right? You also know that they are "missing" quite a few weapons don't you? All it would take is money to buy such a weapon, no Nation sponsorship needed as we all know where Al-Queda's resources are based
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:32 PM
Yorga, I like your baseball bat analogy but it really doesn't apply to this issue. A baseball bat is ALOT different than a nulclear bomb. I understand what you are saying but this is a different situation alltogether. Suppose a nuke does go off within our borders and we initiate our "contigency" plan, what do you think is going to happen? Do you not understand how many nukes are in the world today? When we first used nukes we were really the only ones who had them but now? Come on! Nuking back some country, especially one that we are not entirely sure had everything to do with the afformentioned attack will accomplish NOTHING except set into effect a chain of events that will I believe spell doom and gloom for a -majority- of mankind. Don't you get it? If nukes are used again it's OVER.. Period. We've had the doctrine of MAD (Mutually assured destruction) in place for quite some time now. Take a look at this:
This is nothing new so what's your point?
What's really disturbing is THIS:
sf.indymedia.org...
Preemptive nuclear strikes? YIKES.. Curious what you guys think about that.
But going back to what I was saying earlier, (You guys seem to be glossing ove this) I truly think our next great world conflagration is being "planned", will involve a nuke going off within our borders, involve a "retaliatory nuclear strike" and will set off a cascade chain of events unlike anything we have ever seen.
Again I quote scripture:
"And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days."
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:54 PM
Not trying to steer this thread away from it's intended course but I really don't think there is anything we can do to stop nuclear weapons falling into the "wrong" hands. Like I said earlier, this nuclear "contigency" plan or "USA's Nuclear ATTACK plan in the event of a terrorist WMD attack" Is really nothing new. The point I'm trying to make is people need to be more concerned about the "signs of the times", being spiritually ready and careful about who you support and vote for. Think about it... MAD is a great balance keeper but it is worthless if nukes get under the "control" of evil people and their "enablers".. (People who don't care if 2 thirds of mankind is wiped off the face of the earth and just plain ignorant/spiritually blind people in general) It's kind of a catch 22 if you will... (Damned if you do, damned if you don't) Suppose that we were 100% sure beating (nuking) Iran into submission was the only way to prevent a future nuclear conflagration but knowing if we tried we would have this nuclear conflagration anyways? What a conundrum. Doesn't Iran have nukes already? (Debatable I'm sure) Israel deffinitely does. So what now? Intersting times we live in.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:10 PM
Well somehow you missed my point...i was not saying it was the reason they lost, i was saying the killed at ratio 100:1 and still they lost...GIT IT
just saying this "might" not be a solution....
As for a baseball bat analogy, it just mightve worked when you were bullying the kids in you schoolyard, if they were wearing explosive vests and had no problem with dying you might rethink using that bat.
As for you people who think Saudis are "HARBOURING" terrorists, why dont you find out how and why this muslim radicalism started, then you might restrain yourself from posting such nonsense
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:22 PM
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:23 PM
Harbouring? More like incubating. How many 9/11 Hijackers were of Saudi Origin?
You do know what Sunni Wahhabism teaches right? It's the official religion of Saudi. If you don't know what Saudi is like I invite you to take a job over there. They still hire foreigners and they are not exactly secretive about thier religous laws. I've witnessed stonings in that country it's the penality for Adultry. Don't tell me I'm full of it when you don't know what you're talking about in this respect.
Ask anyone who's lived over there and they will tell you how it is.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:26 PM
Believe me when I say I know exactly what would be at stake. Nuclear attack is absolutely the worst case scenerio. But the thread is about what would be the USA's response to a nuclear attack. Let's say, LA or NY are wiped off the face of the earth, millions are dead and more are dying. The country is in total panic not knowing if there is another bomb. Al Quida sends a tape to Al Jazzera claiming responsiblity, what then? You are the Commander in Chief and the world holds it's collective breath waiting for your response! Bombers laden with nukes are already in the sky, subs with missles ready to launch are on standby and the security of 100's of millions of Americans rest in your decision. The Joint Chiefs have already picked out targets based on months and years of planning for just such a
contingency. Millions of innocents have already died and many more millions lives depend on the decision you make.
This is not a drama I ever wish to see played out in my life time. And because of that America has to make it known to the whole world that the consequences of attacking us with such a device will be so devasting that even the thought of doing it is ludicrous. Only then can we hope that somewhere, some terrorist will stop and think is the risk worth the cost! If they think for an instant that we will not respond then we are already doomed!
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:56 PM
So as long as Russia ''Lost'' them they shouldnt be held accountable for how they are used? If you sell them thats not sponsorship?
If some Russian nuclear weapons went missing I doubt they were good will gifts. They were sold to whatever group or country.
Opps our nuclear weapons ended up in NYC our bad
The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack, page 2
The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:14 AM
There are a couple of email addresses near the end, check them out:
This next site isn’t available for some reason:
nmcc20a.nmcc.smil.mil...
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:58 AM
i have 100$ saying craaaazy americans will nuke the wrong country
oh wait thats not funny...
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:12 AM
Maybe we should adopt a policy like Gabriel's from the fictional movie Sword Fish.
Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
What would be the point of killing infidels if your actions is going to result in the death of 10 times as many muslims? I wouldnt be pretty but you aint going to win a war on terroism in a convential way.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:24 AM
Whether it is implimented or not you have to realize that the Pentagon has an attack plan and a response plan for every contingency. We are not talking about flying jets into buildings, we are not talking about bombing subways or buses. We are talking about a nuke going off in a major US city with catastrophic death and destruction. Just look at the damage Katrina has done to the Gulf Coast in both human misery and loss of life and then realize that this would only be a drop in the bucket to a nuclear explosion.
Then tell me that we should just lick our wounds and pray for peace and do nothing for fear of creating more terrorist? Sorry, but I do not agree with that at all. So if America is nuked, hundred of thousands or a million are killed then that is acceptable to the world. But if America responds with nukes then that would just create more hatred and terrorist! Does anyone else see whats wrong with this picture or is it just me. That is the kind of thinking that created this mess in the first place. If the USA had defended it's Embassy against the Iranians and swatted the Ally-two-hah-hahs in the first place, that would have sent a message throughout the Arab world that we are not to be trifled with. It is because of passive response that the terrorist grew bolder and daring since they did not fear reprisal. Then you say we cannot take out a whole country because of the actions of a few radicals. But it is okay to take out America because you don't agree with America Policy? Again there seems to be a double standard. Damned if we do and damned if we don't, so if I am going to be damned anyway then I'm coming out fighting. Someone said they don't care if America survives, it is unimportant. Maybe to you, but to use a little school yard mentality, don't get even, get ahead. The war on terror will never be won, No matter what we do there will always be idiots willing to die for their cause, whether misguided or not. The best you can hope for is to make sure the other poor idiot does the dying. America doesn't matter? Hum, sorry but if it comes down between America and the rest of the world, I'll take the USA.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:15 PM
this NAZI mentality didnt work for nazis and it wont work for USA. They killed 100 or 1000 innocent people for one german soldier and still they lost the war.
Your overconfidence in american superiority will be your doom...eventually...but hey, i am not here to preach....im here to learn.
Personally i see USA is heading where the famous Atlantis went, to the bottom of the sea, and not by some muslim radical but by yourself and the decisions you make.....by supporting the murdering foreign policy.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 12:53 PM
That wasnt the reason that Germany lost the war. The reason they lost was because they had a moron as a military leader. Hitler had great skill as talker and politician but when it came to military tactics
Lets forget that non-agression with Russia and attack them
perhaps the worst military blunder of all time. Lets declare war on the US
Lets turn our new Jet fighter into a bomber thus losing any edge it had with the extra bomb weight
Personally, I think this issue goes far deeper than anyone could ever imagine and I think we are oversimplifying things. I have no problem with "contigency plans" for nuclear attacks within our borders and you would have to be a fool to think that those plans are not well under way by certain "terrorists". What I DO have a problem with however is WHO all is involved in these plans. Evil is everywhere folks (It always has been) like a cancer and has always been "gnawing" away and clawing for dominance over that which is good. I fear however that in the recent years evil has found it's way into certain levels in our government and in such a way, it would just blow your mind. (Our president anyone?)
Just like Jesus said in Luke 12:56:
"Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?"
Or from the english version:
"O false ones! the face of the earth and the heaven is clear to you; how is it that the signs of these times are not as clear to you?"
It's pretty clear to me... Jesus was calling people with "spiritual blinders" on false ones! You can't be true unless you can truly "see" and you can't do that until you can see with your heart (spirit).
And one more thing: JUST like hitler, the antichrist will not reveal his true colors or intentions UNTIL it is too late.
I pray that everyone who reads this will go to the Lord and pray that your blinders are removed so that you may see the truth.
Some other versers to ponder:
Lu 21:8
"And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them."
2 Ti 3:13 (One of my personal favorites)
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived"
Rev 18:23 (Babylon anyone? could it be us.. the good ol' USA?)
[edit on 14-9-2005 by TxSecret]
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:06 PM
You punch me in the face, I break a baseball bat over your head. If I break a baseball bat over your head, I guarentee that you will think twice before you approach me again! Even if you get a baseball bat and you see that I not only have more baseball bats put I have bigger bats, will you approach me again? Say you are thinking about getting me back. I tell you that if you break a baseball bat over my head then I am going to break one over your head, your families head and your neighbor down the street. Now, you have been warned of the consequences if you try to hit me with a bat. So, knowing the consequences of hitting me, you go ahead and do it anyway. Now you, your family and your neighbors are all staggering around with big knots on your heads. Wouldn't you think that after this one of your family members or neighbors would come forward and tell you to leave me alone?
Nazi? I've been called a hellava lot worse, particularly while swinging my big bat!
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:07 PM
You guys want to nuke Syria and Iran for a WMD attack on the USA? ROFLMAO!
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are harboring the real threat, it's a shame you guys cannot see that.
Gawd, the spin masters have done it again.
Fighting shadows while the real threat gains strength and popular support.
[edit on 14-9-2005 by sardion2000]
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:18 PM
I agree with the Saudi link, but Pakistan has been part of the solution so far, they have done more to figh
t terrorism than any other Muslim nation.
I think we should nuke Canada too...
make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
Very doubtful that this sort of tactic would actually work. The guys that are fighting the US in the the afghan mountains aren't going to be effected by these sort of things. Besides, its silly, the point of war is to kill the enemy, not civies. Its like saying to the soviets that you're going to execute some Poles everytime they support an insurgency. Not much leverage there. You make the costs of terrorism so horrific as to be not worth it by killing the terrorists, and only that.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:25 PM
If the nuclear weapon grade material was created in Iran or Syria and given or sold to a terrorist org. that used it in the US. Then yes I do
You dont think the USSR ever devised plans to use a third party to sneak Nuclear weapons into the US? They didnt develop man portable nukes for the heck of it.
Why send a ICBM with your address written on it when you can use a third party and deny all involvement? The states that supply terrorist with these weapons have to be held accountable. Theres always going to a nation involved if a nuclear weapon is used in a terrorist attack. Terrorist arent refining uranium I can assure you.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:26 PM
Pakistan's gov't is not in question, it's the people and the ideology being preached in the tribal area's.
Have fun with the fallout then
Terrorist arent refining uranium I can assure you.
And I can assure you that they don't need to. You do know that the USSR broke apart right? You also know that they are "missing" quite a few weapons don't you? All it would take is money to buy such a weapon, no Nation sponsorship needed as we all know where Al-Queda's resources are based
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:32 PM
Yorga, I like your baseball bat analogy but it really doesn't apply to this issue. A baseball bat is ALOT different than a nulclear bomb. I understand what you are saying but this is a different situation alltogether. Suppose a nuke does go off within our borders and we initiate our "contigency" plan, what do you think is going to happen? Do you not understand how many nukes are in the world today? When we first used nukes we were really the only ones who had them but now? Come on! Nuking back some country, especially one that we are not entirely sure had everything to do with the afformentioned attack will accomplish NOTHING except set into effect a chain of events that will I believe spell doom and gloom for a -majority- of mankind. Don't you get it? If nukes are used again it's OVER.. Period. We've had the doctrine of MAD (Mutually assured destruction) in place for quite some time now. Take a look at this:
This is nothing new so what's your point?
What's really disturbing is THIS:
sf.indymedia.org...
Preemptive nuclear strikes? YIKES.. Curious what you guys think about that.
But going back to what I was saying earlier, (You guys seem to be glossing ove this) I truly think our next great world conflagration is being "planned", will involve a nuke going off within our borders, involve a "retaliatory nuclear strike" and will set off a cascade chain of events unlike anything we have ever seen.
Again I quote scripture:
"And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days."
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 01:54 PM
Not trying to steer this thread away from it's intended course but I really don't think there is anything we can do to stop nuclear weapons falling into the "wrong" hands. Like I said earlier, this nuclear "contigency" plan or "USA's Nuclear ATTACK plan in the event of a terrorist WMD attack" Is really nothing new. The point I'm trying to make is people need to be more concerned about the "signs of the times", being spiritually ready and careful about who you support and vote for. Think about it... MAD is a great balance keeper but it is worthless if nukes get under the "control" of evil people and their "enablers".. (People who don't care if 2 thirds of mankind is wiped off the face of the earth and just plain ignorant/spiritually blind people in general) It's kind of a catch 22 if you will... (Damned if you do, damned if you don't) Suppose that we were 100% sure beating (nuking) Iran into submission was the only way to prevent a future nuclear conflagration but knowing if we tried we would have this nuclear conflagration anyways? What a conundrum. Doesn't Iran have nukes already? (Debatable I'm sure) Israel deffinitely does. So what now? Intersting times we live in.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:10 PM
Well somehow you missed my point...i was not saying it was the reason they lost, i was saying the killed at ratio 100:1 and still they lost...GIT IT
just saying this "might" not be a solution....
As for a baseball bat analogy, it just mightve worked when you were bullying the kids in you schoolyard, if they were wearing explosive vests and had no problem with dying you might rethink using that bat.
As for you people who think Saudis are "HARBOURING" terrorists, why dont you find out how and why this muslim radicalism started, then you might restrain yourself from posting such nonsense
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:22 PM
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:23 PM
Harbouring? More like incubating. How many 9/11 Hijackers were of Saudi Origin?
You do know what Sunni Wahhabism teaches right? It's the official religion of Saudi. If you don't know what Saudi is like I invite you to take a job over there. They still hire foreigners and they are not exactly secretive about thier religous laws. I've witnessed stonings in that country it's the penality for Adultry. Don't tell me I'm full of it when you don't know what you're talking about in this respect.
Ask anyone who's lived over there and they will tell you how it is.
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:26 PM
Believe me when I say I know exactly what would be at stake. Nuclear attack is absolutely the worst case scenerio. But the thread is about what would be the USA's response to a nuclear attack. Let's say, LA or NY are wiped off the face of the earth, millions are dead and more are dying. The country is in total panic not knowing if there is another bomb. Al Quida sends a tape to Al Jazzera claiming responsiblity, what then? You are the Commander in Chief and the world holds it's collective breath waiting for your response! Bombers laden with nukes are already in the sky, subs with missles ready to launch are on standby and the security of 100's of millions of Americans rest in your decision. The Joint Chiefs have already picked out targets based on months and years of planning for just such a
contingency. Millions of innocents have already died and many more millions lives depend on the decision you make.
This is not a drama I ever wish to see played out in my life time. And because of that America has to make it known to the whole world that the consequences of attacking us with such a device will be so devasting that even the thought of doing it is ludicrous. Only then can we hope that somewhere, some terrorist will stop and think is the risk worth the cost! If they think for an instant that we will not respond then we are already doomed!
posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:56 PM
So as long as Russia ''Lost'' them they shouldnt be held accountable for how they are used? If you sell them thats not sponsorship?
If some Russian nuclear weapons went missing I doubt they were good will gifts. They were sold to whatever group or country.
Opps our nuclear weapons ended up in NYC our bad