What if.

[Lazy Lob]

It being summer and having a bit of time on my hands my mind tends to wander.

Before last months terror attacks in London I had pondered the "what if” situation of a dirty bomb or bio/chem device going off in London. I live near Lewes in Sussex and can image the streams of people leaving London. The UK is a tiny place.

But mainly what would our government's reaction be on the international front if the perps and MO were the same as last month? The only difference being the devices used.

In fact what would the U.S. do if a dirty bomb went off in or near one of its cities? What SERIOUS options would we have to get back at the perps and their hosts? Would we be so sensitive about collateral damage?

[Ayura]

Probabley do what they did in Iraq...throw bombs at the country of origin the terrorst are.

[joe mama]

I think the more stuff happens in the US or UK, the lower the concern for collateral damage might become. Also, the will to hunt down terrorists, regardless of where they are, with or without outside help, would get stronger. I think that's the more likely scenario. The more people that get killed, the more people will realize that while we'd love to not offend some other nation by going into their territory to kill some bad guys, it's more important to stop these people. Offended people in (insert country here) are less important than dead people in (insert attacked country here).

[Ayura]

Offended people in (insert country here) are less important than dead people in (insert attacked country here).


How does that make any sense at all? So civilians on the offended list's nation have a lesser equality then those civilians in the attacked country? Hypocrisy.

[Baboonass]

Probabley do what they did in Iraq...throw bombs at the country of origin the terrorst are.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but I think you were just being sarcastic.



Anyway, probably the same thing that happened after 9-11. An investigation into the organisation that orchestrated the act, a plea from the U.S. to surrender the perps for the coutry of origen, military action if refusal to surrender the terrorist the country is harboring.


A dirty bomb is not an instant, flashy type of attack that terrorists like to use, it's a much longer term effect and not really all that effective for the cost and effort.

[Kristos]

Probabley do what they did in Iraq...throw bombs at the country of origin the terrorst are.

What are you talking about?

[joe mama]

Offended people in (insert country here) are less important than dead people in (insert attacked country here).


How does that make any sense at all? So civilians on the offended list's nation have a lesser equality then those civilians in the attacked country? Hypocrisy.

Offended is a little different from DEAD. Get it?

Try it this way: let's say the UK finds out there's a camp in country X, and the people in that camp are planning to send a dirty bomb to London, and country X is unwilling or incapable of doing something about that camp, and the options are: send the SAS to destroy the camp, killing some bad guys and offending (NOT KILLING) the government and/or people of country X OR don't offend those people, and possibly allow the dirty bomb to go off KILLING hundreds or thousands of UK subjects. Quite a few people today would see that's it's better to offend some people than let other people DIE.

If a person is about to hit you in the head with a bottle, and you could hit first and protect yourself, but you hitting first will offend his buddy sitting next to him, do you hit? Or do you allow yourself to be hit because it's better to not offend the other guy? (obviously a silly example just used to make a point)

[Ayura]

Offended people in (insert country here) are less important than dead people in (insert attacked country here).


How does that make any sense at all? So civilians on the offended list's nation have a lesser equality then those civilians in the attacked country? Hypocrisy.

Offended is a little different from DEAD. Get it?

Try it this way: let's say the UK finds out there's a camp in country X, and the people in that camp are planning to send a dirty bomb to London, and country X is unwilling or incapable of doing something about that camp, and the options are: send the SAS to destroy the camp, killing some bad guys and offending (NOT KILLING) the government and/or people of country X OR don't offend those people, and possibly allow the dirty bomb to go off KILLING hundreds or thousands of UK subjects. Quite a few people today would see that's it's better to offend some people than let other people DIE.

If a person is about to hit you in the head with a bottle, and you could hit first and protect yourself, but you hitting first will offend his buddy sitting next to him, do you hit? Or do you allow yourself to be hit because it's better to not offend the other guy? (obviously a silly example just used to make a point)


Forgive me. I thought by the word "offended" you was implying some kind of killing.

Salam.

[Ayura]

Probabley do what they did in Iraq...throw bombs at the country of origin the terrorst are.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but I think you were just being sarcastic.


Bingo!


Salam.