RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 9:05pm

Link

Edit

Imagine this scenario:

A nuclear device (dirty bomb or otherwise) is detonated in a densely populated area of a major US city. 100,000 people are killed, nuclear fallout contaminates the area, and the nation goes into panic. It is not clear who specifically carried out the attack, but all indications point to Islamic terrorists.

What then should the US government do?

Post 1

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 10:52pm

Link

Edit

My opinion:

Not just the US government- everybody should find out who did it. After they are identified, take everything they own. The money would have to go toward rebuilding and defense technology. Surely they can never pay off the value of the lives of the people they killed, so the killers are permanently in debt.

There is no way they can afford to support themselves in jail or any other form of reduction in freedom. Their families cannot afford it either. If the families wanted to pay for them to live in jail, their money would have to go toward paying the infinite debt first.

Since they cannot pay their debt, and cannot pay to live with limited freedom, there are two options:
They can choose instant death, and administer a drug to themselves.
They can choose to go to an enclosed wilderness where they will have to hunt, gather, and fight off other murderers.

Post 2

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 1:13am

Link

Edit

What?

Find out whatever godforsaken country did it and turn it into glass. I don't care if it was a group that did it, any country that allowed them to operate is guilty.

Then I would give every country a week to find another members of that group or supporters and hand them over to the use (or kill them themselves). If we find the equivilent of a training camp in their territory, screw invading, bring democracy and all that bullshit, you're getting nuked too. And anyone who bitches about it is officially boycotted and if they are a 3rd world crackpot dictatorship, they are subject to being overthrown.

Thats a minimum, personally I'd give the UN an ultimatium; help us or we're out. Then again, if I was in a position to say that I would have already left.

Post 3

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 9:39am

Link

Edit

There's a problem in asking questions like this. If we'd properly responded to threats, attacks, kidnappings, etc. in the past, we wouldn't be asking today how we should respond to a nuclear attack.

Our problem is not merely in any one of our particular responses to particular events, it's our whole approach to foreign policy. If you respond "correctly" to one of the events, and yet leave the foreign policy unchanged, you're just asking for more trouble, and perhaps even worse trouble than what you started with (what could have been right in the context of a good foreign policy could be wrong if you have a bad one - the "right" actions might imply commitments to future actions that won't be taken for instance).

There is only one fix for this mess. The culture has to change.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 7:13pm

Link

Edit

Shayne,

I'm reminded of an old expression:

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

The United States did embark on a risky foreign policy in the Middle East by staying there after the fall of communism. We can't change what has already happened.

The fact is that a nuclear terrorist attack is a possibility that we must live with at the moment. True, it is a remote possibility according to most experts, and a dirty bomb would be the most likely manifestation of this sort of thing were it to happen, but it's certainly not to be dismissed out of hand. I think you'd agree.

A rational approach to foreign policy would involve a contingency response plan for a nuclear terrorist attack. The US did not have such a plan in place for a 9-11 type of event, and it was by no means for a lack of warning signs that such an event was possible. The US would have stood a much better chance of getting Bin Laden had it had its ducks in a row for an immediate full scale invasion of Afghanistan in the first days after 9-11. Instead, prior to rolling in, the US took several weeks to cut deals with anti-Taliban warlords to handle the majority of the ground war functions. This gave al Quaeda and the Taliban plenty of time to disperse.

The point is that the US should learn from its mistakes. Hopefully it has...

(Edited by Pete on 4/05, 7:47pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 8:30pm

Link

Edit

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Interesting comment from someone posing questions about "what if a nuke were dropped" and who has absolutely no control over US foreign policy. Pragmatism and Objectivism don't mix.

Post 6

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 6:01pm

Link

Edit

Shayne,
May I ask what changes you would recommend in our foreign policy to reduce our external risk? Also, do you think the creation of our new National Director of Intelligence will improve our security?
(Edited by Randy Mahoney
on 4/07, 9:03pm)

Post 7

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 9:09pm

Link

Edit

�Shayne,

May I ask what changes you would recommend in our foreign policy to reduce our external risk? Also, do you think the creation of our new National Director of Intelligence will improve our security?�

Alright, so I�m not Shayne, but�

How about not having a foreign policy? How about getting our noses out of everyone else�s business? How about a full investigation of the CFR by a grand jury (instead of some whitewashing Senate committee)?

Now THAT would really be �one� small step for man� one GIANT leap for mankind.

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 8

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:47am

Link

Edit

nice site.

I'd have to disagree with not having a foreign policy. Even if our goal was to put our nose elsewhere, with some countries we'd have to sometimes 'remind' them to do the same. If there is a threat to America, we can't wait until that treat materializes, we have to act on it beforehand. Sometimes that means actual diplomacy and getting involved. Even if it is just limited to deterence, thats a start. Having troops in S. Korea, having a fleet pass by Taiwan every few months, thats good foreign policy. Bad foreign policy like saying "screw the world and its problems" would eventually finish us either economically or being surrounded by enemies.

Post 9

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 7:58am

Link

Edit

�I'd have to disagree with not having a foreign policy. Even if our goal was to put our nose elsewhere, with some countries we'd have to sometimes 'remind' them to do the same. If there is a threat to America, we can't wait until that treat materializes, we have to act on it beforehand.�

In response, I�ve got one word for you: Switzerland.

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 10

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:43am

Link

Edit

Thats hardly a good example, even Hitler didn't want Swizerland or at least he knew they would stay out of the way until he was finished with the major powers. And thats my point, when you're surrounded you don't have a choice. And the US doesn't have to be invaded for us to be harmed, America basically runs a good portion of the global economy and how much of our wealth comes from overseas? If we're not out there fighting for our rights outside of our borders, we can lose it all.

We do not live in a vacuum, our country is the wealthest and most resource rich in the world and we still need the rest of the world to thrive. And it is not a nice world, there are countries that would like nothing better then to sieze all of our assets over there and the only thing stopping them is...say it with me...our foreign policy. And the US military of course but you don't use a hammer to squish a paper cup. I don't see a contradiction, having a good foreign policy is just as essencial as having a good military, and they do much of the same job. Like clauswitz said, "war is just diplomacy by other means." I think it was him who said that?

Anyway, basically this isn't the 18th century, we need other countries to surive economically and when war comes, it isn't declared and we don't have six months to prepare.

Post 11

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:49am

Link

Edit

Oh and I read your profile, I can't imagine going through that but then again, I don't have a child. But I can imagine having a court telling me that I couldn't see a family member and I sympathize. I can understand them if you were a nut (hypothetically) but telling a good rational man that he can't see his child, that's nuts and the fact that there are so many other fathers like you is insane. Gook Luck.

Post 12

Friday, April 8, 2005 - 9:53am

Link

Edit

We do not live in a vacuum, our country is the wealthest and most resource rich in the world and we still need the rest of the world to thrive. And it is not a nice world, there are countries that would like nothing better then to sieze all of our assets over there and the only thing stopping them is...say it with me...our foreign policy.

Well said, Clarence. To not have a foreign policy is to fire our heads down into the sand.

Proper response to a nuclear terrorist attack