Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What would be the response if....

Options
  • 23-05-2010 4:01pm
    #1
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭


    a terrorist nuclear bomb went off in a Western city? Lets assume the terrorist is an Islamic fundamentalist - I cant see it being any other group at the moment.

    I am not interested in should. just would.


    My take:

    Lets say a bomb goes off in Paris. So Paris is destroyed. Result

    1) France is obviously going to lose most of it's policital, civil service and a lot of it's entrepeneurial classes. And a good percentage of it's liberals, paradoxically.
    2) The result would be anarchy unless the army steps in.
    3) The Army will , therefore, step in.
    4) The result is therefore a fascist state.
    5) They will respond with an attack on muslim countries - possibly Mecca - pour discourager les Autres

    I think that the resultant move to the right across America, Europe, even Russia would possibly start a world war against Islamic countries.

    It's possible that this should be conveyed to Osama, the Taleban etc. Osama thinks that the mujaheeden defeated the Soviet Union with Allah's help. False. They did so with the help of the US, and because the Soviet Union did not fight with all arms in the arsenal i.e. nukes. That would be like the British Empire not using the Gatling gun.

    I think this kind of logic should be conveyed to the terrorists and client States somehow - a modern version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Call it Muslim Assured Destruction.

    And sure it is appalling to the liberal mind that we could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Mecca, but there wont be any liberals left. Certainly not in France. Not in this scenario.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    One of the more amusing loaded arguments I've seen, combining hilarious presumptions with "liberal bashing" abu.
    1) France is obviously going to lose most of it's policital, civil service and a lot of it's entrepeneurial classes. And a good percentage of it's liberals, paradoxically.
    2) The result would be anarchy unless the army steps in.
    3) The Army will , therefore, step in.
    4) The result is therefore a fascist state.

    There's a presumption of "anarchy" unless the military steps in, with no possible alternative, of course. Even funnier is that the French Army taking some form of authority would equate to a "facist state".
    I think that the resultant move to the right across America, Europe, even Russia would possibly start a world war against Islamic countries.

    Would somebody push the "Yeehaaa!" button to signal its open season on "Islamic countries" regardless of their involvment?
    I think this kind of logic should be conveyed to the terrorists and client States somehow - a modern version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Call it Muslim Assured Destruction.

    Lovely
    And sure it is appalling to the liberal mind that we could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Mecca, but there wont be any liberals left. Certainly not in France. Not in this scenario.

    Yes, all "Liberals" in France are found within 1km of a cafe on the West Bank of the Seine.


  • Options
    #3
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I doubt very much if there would be "anarchy" as such, because most western countries would have an emergency plan in place for such an occurance.

    There would be a state of emergency giving the army certain powers, but the army's first objective would be to establish some form of government to give direction.

    A state under a state of emergency would not necessarily be a fascist state, you are presuming that all military leaders are chomping at the bit to declare all out war on Islam, I doubt very much if this would be the case.


  • Options
    #4
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    I am assuming that attitudes would change overnight. The jibe about French liberalism in the Seine was tongue in cheek but there would be no liberals in France. The State would be an authoritarian State. If not fascist.

    Nodin. Nice if you actually answered the thread title where I specifically said that people answer to would, nnot should.

    You may believe the French State should do nothing. That wasn't the question. The question us what would it do.


  • Options
    #5
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,278 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Oh, first off, how big a bomb? 15kt or 15Mt. Big difference in damage, casualties, fallout and overall manageability of the situation. So you will need to clarify what size / type of bomb and where. A 15kt bomb at the Louvre would leave La Defence essentially untouched.
    Pittens wrote: »
    1) France is obviously going to lose most of it's policital, civil service and a lot of it's entrepeneurial classes.
    Not quite. While the central government and Parisian & Ile de France local / regional governments might be severely harmed, France is big enough and diverse enough to be resilient.
    And a good percentage of it's liberals, paradoxically.
    Why do you say this? If half of a population is liberal and half conservative, that would leave tens of millions of liberals.
    2) The result would be anarchy unless the army steps in.
    While I imagine the military would have an increased input, I don't see anarchy. Sure, people might be less willing to live in the cities, but that doesn't equate to anarchy. A programme of dispersal would be eminently possible. Did you seeing serious rioting/looting in London in 1944-45 during the V-1 and V-2 campaigns when a million people were "de-homed"? Likewise in Germany and Japan.
    3) The Army will , therefore, step in.
    Surely, the military will be dealing with more strategic issues of security?
    4) The result is therefore a fascist state.
    Jokes about it being a fascist state already / previously aside, I have to say no. French democracy is more resilient than that.
    5) They will respond with an attack on muslim countries
    Why? Surely the have learned the Bush lesson and would engage in a more deliberate, thought out strategy.
    - possibly Mecca - pour discourager les Autres
    Since when has attacking cultural icons discouraged anyone?
    I think that the resultant move to the right across America, Europe, even Russia would possibly start a world war against Islamic countries.
    Why?
    It's possible that this should be conveyed to Osama, the Taleban etc.
    Why?
    Osama thinks that the mujaheeden defeated the Soviet Union with Allah's help. False. They did so with the help of the US, and because the Soviet Union did not fight with all arms in the arsenal i.e. nukes. That would be like the British Empire not using the Gatling gun.
    What would the USSR have used nuclear weapons against? Afghanistan in the 1980s was a busy, but essentially low-intensity war, there were no suitable targets.
    I think this kind of logic should be conveyed to the terrorists and client States somehow - a modern version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Call it Muslim Assured Destruction.
    Do you plan the genocide of a billion people often?
    And sure it is appalling to the liberal mind that we could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Mecca, but there wont be any liberals left. Certainly not in France. Not in this scenario.
    And then you woke up? :pec:


  • Options
    #6
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    I don't plan the "genocide" of anything. This ia a thought experiment. Nor am I planning the destruction if Paris, or hoping for it, quite the reverse. I asked the question about France for a reason. It has nukes. The answer for Ireland - what would Ireland - do is nothing.

    The loss of Paris would change the world. It won't be coming back, it will be gone in 2210. Sometime in that time a French person would take revenge. I suspect the government will. Maybe a rogue nuclear submarine. Something.

    What isn't going to happen is nothing. Or diplomacy. Or strongly worded debate in the UN. If a nuclear State is hit with a nuclear bomb it will retaliate against something or other. Now the point about MAD us that it worked. The modern equivalent: for every Paris a Mecca would work. Let's articulate. Not to threaten Mecca but to save Paris. Send a missive to the Taleban, through whatever underground channels exist, saying what I have said. If that has not been done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Is this the plotline of a new movie?


  • Options
    #8
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pittens wrote: »
    The loss of Paris would change the world. It won't be coming back, it will be gone in 2210. Sometime in that time a French person would take revenge. I suspect the government will. Maybe a rogue nuclear submarine. Something.
    .

    Speculative fiction. We might as well have a thread about first contact with brain eating aliens who happen to consider themselves fundamentalist christians.
    Pittens wrote: »
    What isn't going to happen is nothing. Or diplomacy. Or strongly worded debate in the UN. If a nuclear State is hit with a nuclear bomb it will retaliate against something or other.
    .

    ...but not nessecarily with a nuclear weapon.


  • Options
    #9
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    Is this AH? The question is a serious one and all I am getting are smart answers or multi -quote answers arguing against the premise.

    Which is nit what I asked. What I asked was what would happen in the case of a nuclear attack on Paris by a Stateless terrorist.

    I haven't got an answer I could infer nothing but just come and say it?


  • Options
    #10
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pittens wrote: »
    Is this AH? The question is a serious one

    No, it wasn't.
    Pittens wrote: »
    Which is nit what I asked. What I asked was what would happen in the case of a nuclear attack on Paris by a Stateless terrorist.

    Some form of military action, I'd imagine.


  • Options
    #11
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,278 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Pittens wrote: »
    The answer for Ireland - what would Ireland - do is nothing.
    I'm not sure what would happen in an Irish situation. The precedent with the IRA, etc. has always been a criminal justice one. Irish participation in the arrest of the likes of Charles Taylor might alternatively suggest a war crimes routes.
    The loss of Paris would change the world. It won't be coming back, it will be gone in 2210. Sometime in that time a French person would take revenge. I suspect the government will. Maybe a rogue nuclear submarine. Something.
    The one thing since 1945 is that nuclear weapns have always been controlled by a chain of command. While you can have one deranged person or several deranged persons, they tend to be spotted before they start a nuclear war. Even if you take the eccentric ones like Reagan or Kim Jong-il, there is enough people arround them to (if necessary) say "this guy is over-reacting and will precipitate MAD, we must remove them".
    What isn't going to happen is nothing.
    Sure.
    Or diplomacy. Or strongly worded debate in the UN.
    On the contrary, I think you would have both. While the Genie would be out of the bottle, neither do you want a series of precedents.
    If a nuclear State is hit with a nuclear bomb it will retaliate against something or other.
    Sure, but they are going to retaliate in a deliberate and thought out way. Sure, France could nuke pretty much anything it wanted, but it isn't just going to lash out wildly with a few hundred nuclear weapons.
    Now the point about MAD us that it worked. The modern equivalent: for every Paris a Mecca would work.
    While ther eis only one Paris, there is also only one Mecca.
    Let's articulate. Not to threaten Mecca but to save Paris. Send a missive to the Taleban, through whatever underground channels exist, saying what I have said. If that has not been done.
    But you can't meaningfully threaten Mecca. Mecca is of this world, not the next. you would only give Islamic fundamentaists a group of martyrs and a rallying cry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    amen
    Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    What I asked was what would happen in the case of a nuclear attack on Paris by a Stateless terrorist
    prob what happened after 09/11. Find a state that is harbouring the leader of the group responsible and declare war yet ignore the country that the group members and leader came from, and on whos pasport they were travelling.

    When the IRA bombed London there was no major retaliation against Ireland or Rome(!) so why would a muslim attack on Paris result in the destruction of a Muslim holy site?


  • Options
    #13
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    The French wouldn't attack somewhere without proof. The response would be a two pronged one. The first tracking down the source of the weapon and responding as appropriate.

    The second is find who planted the bombs and take care of them ie if they are terrorists deploy their special forces and intelligence assets against them.

    Also remember the percentage of Muslims in France they will not target Mecca or any other delicate sites.

    Finally a nuclear bomb is unlikely to happen ever. A dirty bomb or bio-weapon is far more likely scenario.


  • Options
    #14
    halkar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭halkar


    Pittens wrote: »
    5) They will respond with an attack on muslim countries - possibly Mecca - pour discourager les Autres

    I don't know about Paris but after an attack on Mecca the world you are living now would never be same again.


  • Options
    #15
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    amen wrote: »
    When the IRA bombed London there was no major retaliation against Ireland or Rome(!) so why would a muslim attack on Paris result in the destruction of a Muslim holy site?
    Dugh. Because the IRA didn't use nukes!


  • Options
    #16
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,278 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Dugh. Because the IRA didn't use nukes!
    Sure, but the campaign against the City of London and the Docklands was considerable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bishopsgate_bombing
    The Bishopsgate bombing occurred on 24 April 1993, when the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) detonated a truck bomb in London's financial district in Bishopsgate, City of London, England. One person was killed in the explosion and 44 injured, and damage initially estimated at £1 billion was caused.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Exchange#The_former_Baltic_Exchange_building
    The bomb also caused damage to surrounding buildings, many of which were also badly damaged by the Bishopsgate bombing the following year. The bomb caused £800 million worth of damage, £200 million more than the total damaged caused by the 10,000 explosions that had occurred during the Troubles in Northern Ireland up to that point.[4]

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/27/article-0-087FDC40000005DC-134_468x421.jpg

    http://jondearsley.managemyservices.com/policehistory/19501999_files/image010.jpg

    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/200344463-001/Photographers-Choice

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRA_Bishopsgate.JPG


  • Options
    #17
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Victor wrote: »
    The one thing since 1945 is that nuclear weapns have always been controlled by a chain of command. While you can have one deranged person or several deranged persons, they tend to be spotted before they start a nuclear war. Even if you take the eccentric ones like Reagan or Kim Jong-il, there is enough people arround them to (if necessary) say "this guy is over-reacting and will precipitate MAD, we must remove them".

    Was agreeing with you until this bit. Reagan and Kim: peas from the same pod! (he was -like- a Republican, must have been mad. + He got Altzimers. Case closed) Self preservation, Chinese pressure, and an absolutely crap nuclear arsenal (without ICBMS!) are the factors that stay Kim's hand.

    Was hoping for an interesting thread assessment of global thermonuclear war. Instead I got a silly thread which attempts to extrapolate bi-polar global warfare arising from a terrorist attack. And why Paris anyway? Choose Moscow, New York, Tel Aviv, Seoul, Beijing, New Delhi if you want serious fireworks. Even then the USSR and USA have tended to respond with surprising composure when dealing with terrorist attacks... seeing that both have enough nukes to level every major city in the world.

    I think someone has been playing too much of Modern Warfare II... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #18
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    If it happened in Ireland, the response would be lengthy INM articles by Brendan O'Connor, and the usual assorted hacks ; "Why you all Deserved to Be Nuked"


  • Options
    #19
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,576 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    most countries have a politlcal line of succession for this eventuality. the army would be mobalized but would in no way "take over"
    there would probably be widespread panic across France and western europe to a lesser extent
    there would be near universal aid to help the victims.
    there would be a thorough investigation to determine who the attackers were
    there would be an extremely motivated plan to hunt down and bring to justice(kill) those involved.

    there would not be a millitary coup
    there would not be a fascist state.
    there would not be a retaliatory attack against a random muslim city
    there would not be a headlong rush to wipe out every muslim country on earth.


  • Options
    #20
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Team America would sort it out.


  • Options
    #21
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Victor wrote: »
    Sure, but the campaign against the City of London and the Docklands was considerable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bishopsgate_bombing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Exchange#The_former_Baltic_Exchange_building

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/27/article-0-087FDC40000005DC-134_468x421.jpg

    http://jondearsley.managemyservices.com/policehistory/19501999_files/image010.jpg

    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/200344463-001/Photographers-Choice

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IRA_Bishopsgate.JPG
    Your entire arguement is irrelevant because the IRA didn't use nukes.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement