U.S. Can Expect 'Biological Weapons' Terror Attack By 2013: Report

[Fury]

Bio warfare is very hard to do....u have to weaponize it and deliver it in something that doesn't vaporize the shit ur trying to kill people with. Its much easier to do a Mumbai attack. Plus we have folks keeping an eye on who is doing what etc.

Ozmo makes a good point about the Middle East being a parking lot. We've let it be known that if we're hit by nukes...and its traced to muslim's...all bets are off. Its MAD for the Middle East.

If they launch an attack that, hypothetically, kills 100k or so people (i.e. a nuke in a city), then I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of Muslim holocaust. I'd give Pakistan 1 day until it's a smoldering wreck.

[OzmO]

I wouldn't do the same.  But i would kill foreign soldiers occupying my country.

[Fury]

I wouldn't do the same.  But i would kill foreign soldiers occupying my country.

Would that involve devoting 90% of your time to blowing up women and children at markets and torturing/beheading your fellow countrymen who happen to disagree with you and your plan of approach?

[OzmO]

Would that involve devoting 90% of your time to blowing up women and children at markets and torturing/beheading your fellow countrymen who happen to disagree with you and your plan of approach?

one thing i can never see myself doing is waging war by targeting innocent women and children.

[Soul Crusher]

one thing i can never see myself doing is waging war by targeting innocent women and children.

Sadly, its the only thing that ended WW2 once and for all.  Of course Japan was already losing, but our showing the world that we had the will to win by doing whatever possible is the only message that will work if we get hit and 100k people are killed.

[OzmO]

Sadly, its the only thing that ended WW2 once and for all.  Of course Japan was already losing, but our showing the world that we had the will to win by doing whatever possible is the only message that will work if we get hit and 100k people are killed.

I was talking about in the context of a foreign army occupying the United States. 

Dropping the A-bomb on Japan is a difficult thing.  I understand the reasons for doing and it makes sense, but in all honesty i could not be the one to decide to do it.

[headhuntersix]

And ur a better man for it. I wouldn't blink if that was the only concern....its not so I wouldn't, unless we were hit first in some suitcase attack that could be traced back. I mentioned before that we'd do the grand tour of the Middle East...I didn't come up with it, its sort of a DOD rumor thats been around for a few years. Its better nobody goes down that road.

[tonymctones]

hahaha ahhhhh charlie is one funny bastard.

[Slapper]

If they launch an attack that, hypothetically, kills 100k or so people (i.e. a nuke in a city), then I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of Muslim holocaust. I'd give Pakistan 1 day until it's a smoldering wreck.

I really think otherwise. I think this time around, with the president we have in power, we'd actually do some thinking and actually hit where it really hurts. Bombing Pakistan would only get an applause from the Indians, but it would put SERIOUS strains on the relations between the USA and China/Russia, who'd see an attack on Pakistan as a serious threat to their national security interests.

This time around, with the US being in such dire economic straits as we are now, if one of our cities gets attacked by WMD and we attack the first country that we think is harboring terrorists we can pretty much say NO ONE will help us at all. What will then take place is a HUGE military escalation against the US, which will bring the draft back in this country and as we all know, when the "ketchup gets squeezed out of the bottle, it ain't going back in the bottle" (a.k.a. war is assured). 

[Decker]

Sadly, its the only thing that ended WW2 once and for all.  Of course Japan was already losing, but our showing the world that we had the will to win by doing whatever possible is the only message that will work if we get hit and 100k people are killed.

You do realize that every major commander in WWII, outside of the president, was against dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?

I still haven't found an adequate rational for the massacre at Dresden.

[IFBBwannaB]

You do realize that every major commander in WWII, outside of the president, was against dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?

I still haven't found an adequate rational for the massacre at Dresden.

Japan should be thankful for the bomb, if land forces were to go into the mainland Japan would have turned into a kamikaze nation and half would kill themself and the other half would die from collateral damage.

[Soul Crusher]

You do realize that every major commander in WWII, outside of the president, was against dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?

I still haven't found an adequate rational for the massacre at Dresden.

Did it end the war or not?

Additionally, 100k of them is better than losing 100k of our soldiers.

Its war, you fight to win or dont fight at all.

[troponin]

19 guys with box cutters started all this.  Now with the 24 Jack Bauer-fed citizenry, every single terrorist worst-case-scenario is bandied about as if it is unavoidable.  I hate alarmists.  I like fried chickenwings (w/out that fucking buffalo sauce).  But I hate alarmists.

That's ridiculous.  Buffalo sauce is a fantastic option to have open. 

[Decker]

Japan should be thankful for the bomb, if land forces were to go into the mainland Japan would have turned into a kamikaze nation and half would kill themself and the other half would die from collateral damage.

That's not what the military braintrust thought would happen.  According to them, Japan was utterly defeated and trying to surrender.

[Soul Crusher]

That's not what the military braintrust thought would happen.  According to them, Japan was utterly defeated and trying to surrender.

Oh, so in your head, it is better to gamble with the lives of american soldiers, having already lost 240k between both fronts, than to put and end to it by dropping the bombs?

The generals are not always correct.  Does the name General McLellan mean anything to you???

And no, not your new favorite exspokeperson for the WH.

Truman did the right thing and saved many lives.

[IFBBwannaB]

That's not what the military braintrust thought would happen.  According to them, Japan was utterly defeated and trying to surrender.

You're pitiful, seriously.

[OzmO]

Japan didn't want to surrender unconditionally.  that was the issue.  The allies wanted to dispose the empire so it wouldn't happen again.

to say Japan wanted surrender isn't the whole story.

[tonymctones]

Japan didn't want to surrender unconditionally.  that was the issue.  The allies wanted to dispose the empire so it wouldn't happen again.

to say Japan wanted surrender isn't the whole story.

exactly and if we had to invade with ground troops we would have likely taken more than that in causalties and that just our side not including theirs...that must have been one of the most gut wrenching decisions to ok that but it achieved its goal.

Its war, you fight to win or dont fight at all.

wish we would always abide by this statement.

[Soul Crusher]

exactly and if we had to invade with ground troops we would have likely taken more than that in causalties and that just our side not including theirs...that must have been one of the most gut wrenching decisions to ok that but it achieved its goal.
wish we would always abide by this statement.

Im not kidding.  The liberal morons dont want to fight to win, and neither did we after the initial invasion of iraq. 

Patton had it right.  Initially, the more people you kill, the better, because it will end things sooner and less people will end up dying in the end.