Under Pres. Obama, what is the over/under that a city gets nuked by terrorists
- Thread starter Mercor
- Start date
Here are some interesting stories. I don't believe we are any more or less vulnerable regardless of who wins the election. With open borders, airspace, and ports anything is possible. I think their is more concern over dirty bombs.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9549/
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/LooseNukes/
I think JFK, as compared to todays Democrats, was a great President. But he gets way too much credit for the missle crisis. There was no way in hell the Soviets were going to risk nuclear annihilation over Cuba.
Here's some tidbits: We had three ways to deliver nukes at the time. The Soviets had 2. We used solid propellant boosters in our rockets (both land based and submarine). The Soviets used liquid fuel for their land based missles. What this means is, we would have detected them fueling their missles prior to launch. It was a bluff on their part, and they blinked first.
Here's some tidbits: We had three ways to deliver nukes at the time. The Soviets had 2. We used solid propellant boosters in our rockets (both land based and submarine). The Soviets used liquid fuel for their land based missles. What this means is, we would have detected them fueling their missles prior to launch. It was a bluff on their part, and they blinked first.
It's never safe to assume a perfectly rational opponent. Believe it or not, during the Cuban Missile Crisis the soviet submarine captains were authorized to use nuclear torpedoes (which we didn't realize they had) in self-defense, without contacting anyone higher up for approval.
Supposely, one of the captains did indeed arm his nuke, but was talked out of actually using it by his officers. Had he used it, there's a good chance nuclear war would have ensued.
If JFK hadn't been willing and able to work out a deal (you know, the secret one involving us withdrawing our missiles from Turkey), the standoff would have been prolonged, increasing the chances of an altercation.
It's true that Russia would have suffered worse in a nuclear war (especially due to our superior SLBMs), but I think you overestimate our chances of a successful decapitation strike. Even if we had enough missiles to neutralize all of their silos (we didn't), the soviets had at least a few hundred SLBMs and those couldn't be reliably neutralized.
On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.
That about sums up everything we need to know to answer your stupid question.
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.
That about sums up everything we need to know to answer your stupid question.
We'll only get nuked by terrorists if the powers that be want it to happen.
Seriously now... are you OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!!!!!!!!!!!?
You have yet to post ONE single credible relevant thing ! What the flying FUCK is wrong with guys lke you??????.Did you forget to join the human race at birth or did you just drop out a long time ago!
Have you lost all semblance of honor and sold your soul just because you dislike Obama?!
You ought to be ashamed of yourself... but you're probably too ignorant to know what "shame" is! Borderline personalities, some of you right-wing losers on this board!