A Question to My Liberal Friends

[tabs]

Of course I am assuming I have friends....

Anyway here is the question: What would be the effect long term and short be on Las Vegas if a Terrorist Organization succfessfully set off a Dirty Bomb (Nuclear material wraped in conventional expolosives) in one of the Strip Hotels. Which made lets say a 10 square mile area uninhabital for a large number of years?

Corollary: What would the effect be on the economy of the USA if such a bomb were set off in any major city with similar results...thus underling the vunerability of the USA to such attacks...and finally what would the effect be on YOUR standard of living?

Simple question....

Now to what lengths would U go to, to prevent such an attack from taking place...

Torture, assination, violation of Civil Rights (Privacy laws in paticular), Invasion, covert operations, consfication of assets, etc?

Remember what the Shadow Minister of Defense for the UK said after 911. ..."The USA has been the provider of Global Security since WW2, and if the USA fails to act (in a decisive way) then Global Security will fail."

So there is no safe haven....

[CamB]

Such a dirty bomb would be plenty bad.

The lengths I would go to to prevent such an attack would be the same the world over, and would involve few of the items you say, mostly because they would be immoral, ill-advised and ultimately, I believe, unsuccessful.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by CamB
Such a dirty bomb would be plenty bad.

The lengths I would go to to prevent such an attack would be the same the world over, and would involve few of the items you say, mostly because they would be immoral, ill-advised and ultimately, I believe, unsuccessful.

Tabs,

Its funny that the people who have never been under attack feel this way. Just wait until you start taking incoming fire and your survival instincts become very focused and your values in life change.

I like the one where someone said if it would save one American solders life, "red is for positive, black is for negative and turn the volts and amps up"...

The bases I was stationed in Berlin always had a car right inside the main gate. It was changed ever few weeks when they had a fresh "speciman" available. The car was usually mangled and torn up in the center by the forces of the explosive. The blood and small bits were usually not removed, just to reinforce the fact that one or more of our mates died due to this terrorist action. This was done to make us realize that the minute you go out of the secure compound that there are people out there trying to kill us and to keep our guard up.

Fast forward to a dirty bomb in Vegas. The Minuteman action in the AZ desert would look like childs play after a "dirty bomb" was exploded in any of our cities, and the patriot act would be in force and stiffened.

Do I want to see it? Hell no, but feel fairly sure that it will happen someday somewhere in our country. It very well may happen in Europe as well. The Border patrol has found copies of the Koran in the desert where illegals cross. Doubt very much that many people of Hispanic orgins are converting to Islam, so the bad guys are getting in this way as well as through Canada. They are not coming like the Mormon Elders to spread religion to the masses.

Hope everyone is ready...

JoeA

PS You might have guessed I am not liberal. Was as a kid then grew up and realized it would not work in my world.

[tabs]

Originally posted by CamB

The lengths I would go to to prevent such an attack would be the same the world over, and would involve few of the items you say, mostly because they would be immoral, ill-advised and ultimately, I believe, unsuccessful.

An attack in the USA would be paticularily devastating...since Americans attitudes are that an attack on a wog or European country doesn't matter... it's our own safety that matters, the dastardilys would be bold enough to attack in our own backyards....what you mean Peoria isn't safe???? Oh my Gawd put the money in the matress...As the economy of the USA goes so goes the worlds economy.

Those "Lengths" seem to have worked so far.....and don't think the USA hasn't been using those tactics with tacit approval of the rest of the worlds security services if not governments......

I'll ask you what "Immoral" is when your in a breadline..waiting for todays ration of soup....

[jyl]

I'd say use those brutal tactics if and whenthey really work.

The first problem is, I think they are often applied when they don't work.

Abusing and killing prisoners in Iraqi prisons, quasi-torture in Guantanamo (sp) Bay - notice how many of those supposed dangerous terrorists have been released, and how there doesn't seem to be much evidence against others.

Going back in history, recall all the torture and killings that US agents committed, sometimes directly but more often by proxy (think CIA in South America) - did they really change history for the better?

Definitely, I think that assassination, sabotage. questioning through torture, etc can indeed work and should be used in some situations.

When the Israelis locate a terrorist bomb factory, sending a missile through the window makes sense to me. When we locate a terrorist training camp, we should do the same. If we manage to snatch, say, a North Korean weapons scientist, well, I'm not going to be too concerned about how we made him talk.

But it seems that those opportunities are going to be fairly limited. And thus the frequency with which you use brutal methods should also be pretty limited.

The second problem is that there is a practical cost to brutal tactics.

They do huge damage to our standing and image in the world. Okay, the macho American reaction is "F those [insert foreign nationality here], who cares what they think". So let's think about it.

Do you think whatever intelligence value we got out of abusing and killing prisoners in that Iraqi prison outweighed the boost that we gave to the recruiting efforts of the insurgency in Iraq and Islamic terroists all over the world?

Do you realize that one reason the so-called "coalition of the willing" is pulling their troops out of Iraq is because their citizens are deeply opposed to the war, and one reason for that deep opposition is the damage that the US has done to its own global image?

So you've got to balance the pros with the cons.

Put it another way, if we're covertly using brutal tactics on a small number of carefully targeted people, that probably makes sense. If we're publicly using brutal tactics on thousands and thousands of people who we picked up during sweeps in Afghanistan and Iraq, that is probably a sign that we are doing something wrong.

[CamB]

I'll put it another way - better to foster a world in which both the terrorist attacks and the methods tabs originally posted become considered to be globally unacceptable. We're not in this world now - I realise that - but I don't see why brutal tactics alone are going to solve that.

Maybe I'm too optimistic?

Either way, for you to consider it acceptable for any or all of "Torture, assination, violation of Civil Rights (Privacy laws in paticular), Invasion, covert operations, consfication of assets" either in the US or perpetrated against other nations, then you must consider it acceptable for other nations to act in the same way.

The potential end result of this is that only the biggest guy wins. Fine for you - you're the biggest guy. Total friggin crap for everyone else.

[Racerbvd]

The potential end result of this is that only the biggest guy wins. Fine for you - you're the biggest guy. Total friggin crap for everyone else.

When you are the biggest guy, you are also the biggest target.

[jyl]

Originally posted by CamB
I'll put it another way - better to foster a world in which both the terrorist attacks and the methods tabs originally posted become considered to be globally unacceptable. We're not in this world now - I realise that - but I don't see why brutal tactics alone are going to solve that.

Maybe I'm too optimistic?

Either way, for you to consider it acceptable for any or all of "Torture, assination, violation of Civil Rights (Privacy laws in paticular), Invasion, covert operations, consfication of assets" either in the US or perpetrated against other nations, then you must consider it acceptable for other nations to act in the same way.

The potential end result of this is that only the biggest guy wins. Fine for you - you're the biggest guy. Total friggin crap for everyone else.

The world you're describing would be nice, but is never going to happen.

If a US citizen was about to set off, say, a dirty bomb in Christchurch, then I wouldn't be terribly upset if the NZ authorities used brutal methods on him.

This all assumes there are no equally effective legal and humane alternatives.

I'm not sure I approach this issue as a moral question, or as a liberal-conservative question. I feel more pragmatic about this. Widespread use of "extralegal" methods is, I think, simply ineffective and counterproductive. Then again, absolutely ruling out any use of extralegal methods, ever, no matter what circumstances, seems unrealistic.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
When you are the biggest guy, you are also the biggest target.

I second this theory. My response to Tabs "The Orator" is that the effects of such a bomb, not just on Vegas or nationwide, but worldwide, would be catastrophic. Vegas can be catergoized as one of the most popular known entities on Earth. If it were bombed, I imagine we'd once again see a horrible drop in the global stock market and economy, and a fall out that could indeed be worse than 9/11. Why? Because Vegas another huge American economy, it is also a cultural icon endemic to the United States, and a cultural icon endemic worldwide to many foreign countries who know America for such icons.

Everyone's heard of Vegas. Everyone knows it. I'm surprised it hasn't yet been attacked. Maybe that's because everyone loves scantily-clad showgirls and acts where the trainer is nearly bitten in half by his tiger.

Now, at what lengths would I go to thwart this attack. Well, that depends on received information and its reliability. But potentially, one could lock down Vegas; have a big show of military force outside of Ceasars Palace, or nuke our adversaries. But therein lies the problem of terrorism. None of these actions would suffice. Vegas might still go sky high even if we blew up everyone but ourselves. Terrorism is far too large a presence to adequately prevent such an attack with any tangible means. And yet by acting with any ill-conceived tangible means, we could go after the wrong person or persons and pay huge worldwide consequences in addition to still being attacked. But then again, haven't we already done that? Haven't we approached what's intangible with ill-conceived tangible bombings and troop movements, only to suffer a loss of face not just worldwide, but among our own citizens?

[dd74]

Originally posted by jyl
I'm not sure I approach this issue as a moral question, or as a liberal-conservative question...

It's definitely not liberal-conservative, but the question to me is a moral landmine. It comes down to, really, asking other countries to put themselves in our shoes. Unfortunately, after what the administration has done since (and some say "before") 9/11, I can understand where other countries would simply laugh at our plea for understanding, and scoff at our actions to defend ourselves.

[M.D. Holloway]

no holds barred when in a fight for ones life - take your morels to the grave and have them put "what an honest moral fight he faught, too bad the winner didn't."

If your life is at stake - you do what EVER it takes - those who don't will perish. Better to live and be forgiven than die and be forgotten.

[dd74]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
If your life is at stake - you do what EVER it takes - those who don't will perish. Better to live and be forgiven than die and be forgotten.

And given Tabs' scenario of a Vegas terrorist attack, who are you going to fight? How will you fight them? How will you know they are the correct persons to fight?

[fintstone]

Kill em all...and let God sort them out.....

[M.D. Holloway]

I guess I put my hope and faith in the intel - if that fails, there is alkways forensics - They solve these things in 48 minutes on CSI, 24 and Alias!

[dd74]

Originally posted by fintstone
Kill em all...and let God sort them out.....

Uh-oh, I know where this thread is going. It's 11:03. Where's that damn Ann Coulter thread...

[dd74]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
I guess I put my hope and faith in the intel - if that fails, there is alkways forensics - They solve these things in 48 minutes on CSI, 24 and Alias!

LOL! Isn't CSI based in Vegas? If they bomb anything, let it be The Golden Nugget. That place needs to go...

[M.D. Holloway]

wheres the best buffets? Thats the obvious target

[fintstone]

I don't think any of the buffets have edible fare.

[dd74]

Originally posted by LubeMaster77
wheres the best buffets? Thats the obvious target

Are we talking Weapons of Mass Destruction, or Weapons of Mass Gullets?

[MikeCT]

A true American hero once said " Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I say we open the gates of this country to everybody and then execute them, good, bad, or indifferent, en masse on public display. That will let everyone know we mean business.