# What is more important in nuclear war?



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

If the United States were to get nuked by a foreign enemy, do you think civilian targets such as major cities would be nuked? Or would our attacker(s) go after military targets such as military bases and missile silos? Or maybe it would be a combination of the two? What I was thinking is no one would nuke us just to destroy us, they would want our resources and possible our manpower. So, that being said, if they attacked us they would only attack our military bases and missile silos and a few civilian targets like D.C. and New York...etc. This way they don't destroy our resources and could then invade at a later time. What do you all think, I am looking forward to reading your thoughts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Depends.
If it is a non-Muslim nation, military targets will be targeted.

Muslim nations or organizations will target populations centers.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Even with the Muslims, I believe it will be a combination of both. Military to try to reduce the retaliation and civilian for maximum body count effect. It would do to well for the attackers not to wipe out the entire country, the will have nothing to rule. Other countries would want the infrastructure and Muslims have stated they want to raise the Islamic flag over the White House. 

Does Islam itself actually have a flag?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Yup, it does


----------



## Verteidiger (Nov 16, 2012)

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

If Russia or China (or both combined) went for a preemptive first strike, if you live near a U.S. military base, it will be a smoking hole.

France, Britain, and Israel are allies. That leaves India, Pakistan, North Korea, and perhaps Syria and Iran. I would rule out India because of global business interests.

The other four have no ballistic missile delivery capability, and no air force capability strong or stealthy enough to penetrate American airspace. Submarines -- Russia, China, and later, Iran.

If you are worried about being nuked -- stay away from military bases and coastal population centers. And find some place with mountains, not flat prairieland or featureless coastal plains.


----------



## WoadWarrior (Oct 10, 2012)

I have to disagree on some of the above opinions... Russia thinks like us... and would try to hit military... then govt... then infrastructure with the end goal being occupation of the US. 

China has a limited number of nukes and would focus primarily on population centers with the goal of removing us from being a global power... and especially removing our influence from Asia. 

Non-State sponsored extremists (i.e., Muslim Jihadists) would focus on National icons like New York or D.C.

State sponsored extremists would go for maximum bang for their effort... a good example would be something like Cheyenne, Wyoming. It's small enough to be utterly destroyed (approx 50K people). It's a state capital. It's has a military base... that happens to have a WSA and manages 3 squadrons of nukes... and is 20AF HQ.


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

WoadWarrior said:


> I have to disagree on some of the above opinions... Russia thinks like us... and would try to hit military... then govt... then infrastructure with the end goal being occupation of the US.
> 
> China has a limited number of nukes and would focus primarily on population centers with the goal of removing us from being a global power... and especially removing our influence from Asia.
> 
> ...


I agree


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Governmental and military are prime targets, but our cities are home to a large amount our infrastructure of machining, manufacturing, management and distribution of resources with the companies in them. Plus most of the large cities have governmental buildings. It depends on what the attackers goal is, but if destruction of the country and it's people are it, that will do it. There will be lots of useable resources left over and if they can put the country in a stranglehold from outside help and relief. We'll starve to death in mass and kill each other off for survival in no time flat. We're a consumer based society now and without someone bringing of food to consume people will starve. Our country is fed by our transit systems. Once the trucks stop rolling we're in trouble. Then they'll can just clean up afterwards. I wouldn't want to be here afterwards either. Maybe through it, and I would either leave the country or head deep into the hills if I could. I'd say it's niave to think that because of how we treat a populance when invading and controlling a country, that someone else would do the same to us. Afterall billions of people have been murdered and executed by governments over the last century making them the greastest murderers of our time.


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

Fuzzee said:


> our cities are home to a large amount our infrastructure of machining, manufacturing, management and distribution of resources with the companies in them


Good point, I actually didn't think about this, maybe they would go after the civilian targets first like major cities, they would kill of massive amounts of our citizens, destroy government buildings, destroy our infrastructure...etc. So even if they didn't destroy our military targets we wouldn't be in a position to retaliate anyway, so as long as they hit the missile bases or kept their defense missile system with enough missiles to hold off a retaliation strike, they wouldn't have to worry about our air force or ground forces, we would have to keep everyone here to help rebuild and maintain order.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

You know, one of the things we are not taking into consideration is the objectives of those who are attacking us.

One more thing to consider. In the event of a nuclear attack or a nuclear exchange, is it really necessary to target industrial centers? Not that we are what we were back in the Cold War era.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Denton said:


> You know, one of the things we are not taking into consideration is the objectives of those who are attacking us.
> 
> One more thing to consider. In the event of a nuclear attack or a nuclear exchange, is it really necessary to target industrial centers? Not that we are what we were back in the Cold War era.


I agree and said above depending on what the attackers goal is. We're still a major weapons manufacturer and have a certain amount of manufacturing capability we coulld kick into gear if we wanted to. Most of our weapons are made here and every machine shop with a CNC machine is capable of turning out either complete rifles or parts. Plus weapon parts of other types like WMD parts. We may outsource things overseas, but we could make things here if we needed to and build on what we've got if we had too. If someone wanted to see we couldn't fight back as well they'd be targets. Then there's simply the mindset of better off without them. Seeing a place as a much nicer place if the inhabitants weren't there. I'm guilty of those thoughts myself about particular places in the US and the world as I think many of us probably are if we're honest about it. What the attackers goal is, is certainly a deciding factor in how they'd attack us I'd say. American's in large may be fat and lazy these days, but they'd still make a fair worker base with a whip at their backs and a gun to their heads. Cold to say I know, but it's a cold world and everyone doesn't want to sit around a campfire, share marshmellow treats and sing songs.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

If we get hit by a nuclear weapon it will probably be a single weapon like a small tactical nuclear war head, in the middle of a large city to bring us down financially. All the way back into the 1960 we had tactical weapons such as the M79 that weighed around 200lbs and could deliver a blast equal to 800 tons tnt. The worst thing would be we wouldn't have any ideal where it came from, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, There may have been some that got loose when the old Soviet Union collapsed. Many countries such as Russia have always believed that a nuclear war would be survivable, and have built shelter for a big portion of their population, They are now building them at a fantastic pace. At one time the US also had that philosophy and had shelters in building and a lot of designated areas which they kept stocked with food water bed and other necessary items. Take for instance Louisville Ky. there is a rock quarry that goes under the Louisville zoo that most people in Louisville don't even know exist, but at one time it was stocked to support 50,000 people for several months. Our politicians across the country thought it just to costly and the only people that needs to be saved is the politicians themselves. Most people don't realize in a nuclear blast if you can get cover for 1-week the radiation level would be reduced 1/100. So if you prepped for any other reason you probably have what you need to survive except for proper shelter. So you may want to just look around close to your home and see what would give you the radiation protection you need for 1-week, just about any thing under ground or maybe the basement of a large building (don't worry about building security they will be heading home to take care of their own families) , I could think of lot of places, If you see the blast you have between 1/2 to 1 hours before the radiation starts to fall.
I posted this before but just in case some missed it her is a great site with a lot of information.
WHAT TO DO IF A NUCLEAR DISASTER IS IMMINENT!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Darned thing about nuclear weapons, even the hand carriable ones, is that they require maintenance. You can't build them and then store them indefinitely. The ones that were reported to have gone missing at the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, would no longer be a reliable weapon against a U.S. city block. On the other hand, they would have been very beneficial to those "rogue" nations wanting to use them for reverse engineering.

That makes me think, by the way. Yes, sometimes I bother doing that. Try not to make it a habit. Can get me in trouble, you understand.

Anyway, if you wanted to make a mess of things, and you are sponsored by a "rogue nation" *Denton cuts eyes toward the map on the wall, glaring specifically at Iran* and you had a group like, say Hezbollah, to use for the purpose of smuggling in reverse engineered tactical weapons, and you wanted to make a mess of the U.S., where would you deploy those weapons?

I'm thinking maybe if the NYSE and the CBOE were targeted, it'd make a mess of the financial system. On top of that, if an item were deployed at major transportation hubs, the nation would be severely hobbled. Everything from groceries to hardware (think old fashioned and not computer) would be strangled. Sure, the yield and radius of "backpack nukes isn't impressive and would bring down not much more than a city block, you aren't going to get a truck driver in the country to charge into a terminal that is near where such an item was deployed.

These "rogue" nations have buds. For example, China and Russia, a couple of commie countries that seem to be getting really chummy with each other, seem to also favor Iran. What if Hezbollah's physical attacks were accompanied by network attacks? What if they were successful enough to bring down power grids?

There are a lot more things to fear, today, than there were back during the so-called Cold War.

Hey, but anyway, how's mommern'em?


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I believe a first strike would be EMP impacting civilians more than military...


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

Seneca said:


> I believe a first strike would be EMP impacting civilians more than military...


True, but if a country were to EMP us, then we would almost certainly retaliate, so out attacker(s) would have to destroy at least a few of our major military bases. But in my opinion detonating an EMP and then sitting back and destroying any retaliatory missiles, they could simply sit back and watch out country destroy itself within weeks of the grid being down.


----------



## jgriner (Nov 27, 2012)

I believe out greatest threat comes from North Korea/Iran, not directly from them but them selling briefcase nukes to terrorist, in that case large cities will be the target. The most dead.


----------



## jgriner (Nov 27, 2012)

Seneca said:


> I believe a first strike would be EMP impacting civilians more than military...


The other day I was looking at gun safes, saw one that had 2 locks one electronic the other mechanical, the reason being is during an emp attack the electronic version won't work.

Never would have thought of that. All my guns and won't be able to get to them.

Just some food for thought.


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

jgriner said:


> The other day I was looking at gun safes, saw one that had 2 locks one electronic the other mechanical, the reason being is during an emp attack the electronic version won't work.
> 
> Never would have thought of that. All my guns and won't be able to get to them.
> 
> Just some food for thought.


Good point, any essentials like weapons, food, water...etc. should be protected from EMPs. It wouldn't be very hard or expensive, and could save your life in the event an EMP does occur.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

The first strike against us from a nation would be, an irbm from a sub or surface non warship to take out washington.
Followed up immediately with an irbm strike on military command and control centers.
The ability of commanders in the field have had the authority to launch without presidential approval has been removed.
Before the strategic forces could react the bomber airfields and missile launch facilities would be destroyed by the following icbm's.
This would all happen within a half an hour.
Even if there was launch detection by satellite, there would be no one to take charge before it was to late.
The only things that could possibly escape would be the missile boats , then the problem would be no washington launch codes by satcom or elf for them.


----------



## jgriner (Nov 27, 2012)

SOCOM42 said:


> The first strike against us from a nation would be, an irbm from a sub or surface non warship to take out washington.
> Followed up immediately with an irbm strike on military command and control centers.
> The ability of commanders in the field have had the authority to launch without presidential approval has been removed.
> Before the strategic forces could react the bomber airfields and missile launch facilities would be destroyed by the following icbm's.
> ...


You are talking about full fledged nuclear war, I don't believe that would ever have the slightest chance of happening.

I don't believe there is any change of disabling the united states from being able to wage nuclear war, just maybe delaying it a little, by disrupting lines of communication, but once the launch codes came out of the bunker underneath the white house, there would be no way of stopping it. All missile sites will be still intact, and anyway there's always the subs.

mutually assured destruction, has, and will keep most of our enemies at bay, only the crazy, would wage nuclear war. That's mostly Iran and north Korea. north Korea doesn't have a long range missile that can reach the united states, and there navy is a joke. (few years ago they had some rusty old fishing boat do a lap around a destroyer as a show of force, the destroyer basically had to stop and reverse for the rust boat to catch up.) Iran is the only real threat to all out nuclear war, but i still dont think they have a long range missile capable of reaching us.

our greatest threat is backpack/briefcase/dirty bomb/emp, by terrorist, in which case populated/monuments(anything that says america) is the target.


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

jgriner said:


> our greatest threat is backpack/briefcase/dirty bomb/emp, by terrorist


I agree, I don't think that any country would be stupid enough to attack us, because if they don't completely destroy us on the fist strike (which they won't) then they will be taken out afterwards. Countries like North Korea, Iran, maybe even China and Russia may be crazy and pose a possible threat to us, but they aren't complete idiots, they know if they attack they're done, and if there's one more thing that they love more than destroying America, it's power, and they want to hold on to that power as long as possible. So, something smaller scale like a terrorist plot or an inside job would be much more plausible, in this situation we could see maybe one city taken out, possibly more. It all depends on how skilled the terrorist organization is, and how far their web of contacts spreads through the government, because in any situation like this they would have to have government contacts in order to pull it off without showing any red flags. This is one of the reasons I want to move out to the Midwest, targets like D.C., New York, L.A., Atlanta...etc. are much higher up on the priority list than a city out there. Maybe Denver, but I doubt it because the key for a terrorist group like this is to get the biggest bang for their buck, so not only would there have to be a high civilian population, but it would have to be a symbolic city such as New York or D.C. They would need to destroy something that would really rattle America, so what it really comes down to is how many are they going to detonate? If it's just one and it's in New York say, then as far as a complete collapse of our country, I don't see it happening. It will certainly hurt the economy, but a complete collapse wouldn't happen in my opinion. It would have to be D.C. and then various cities spread about the country, some on the west coast, east coast, and then some in the south or Midwest. If multiple cities are destroyed like this, the government will have a hard time trying to keep order, which I believe will lead to the collapse of the nation. People will panic, they'll be scared, and the hundreds of millions of these people will be too much for law enforcement and the military/national guard to handle. This is just my opinion though, what do you all think?


----------



## jgriner (Nov 27, 2012)

Not Crazy Yet said:


> maybe even China and Russia may be crazy and pose a possible threat to us
> 
> but a complete collapse wouldn't happen in my opinion. It would have to be D.C. and then various cities spread about the country,


China and Russia hate us, they wouldn't mind seeing a collapse of the United States, but I don't believe they want to vaporize us, so them going all out nuclear war is off the table.

D.C. would have the greatest chance of collapsing our country, not by the terrorist but by the replacements politicians. Our countries NEW politicians would have made so many promises about safety, all would be to the left of Hitler. Their first measure would be overthrowing the Constitution, transforming the US into a police state. There would be check points everywhere, not be able to move around the country freely. We would lose our 2nd amendment right, and thus loosing a 1st. our freedom from search and seizure, to a trial, all gone..... would lead to civil war. Where China/Russia would be happy to move in. 
,
,
.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Benjamin Franklin
,
,
,
On another note Obama has said in the past that under no circumstance would he ever consider using nuclear weapons. Which is the most horrible, dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say. Hasn't he ever played poker? Doesn't he know what a bluff is? If that's your opinion then fine, but keep it to yourself. So if there was ever an ideal time to wage nuclear war, the time would before the next election, but I still don't think that it will still happen.


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

jgriner said:


> Their first measure would be overthrowing the Constitution, transforming the US into a police state


This is very true, and honestly I think it's going to happen in the next 4 years anyway without replacement politicians. This administration is so far from the ideals of the constitution it's scary.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

To add to my previous post, a nuclear strike on us becomes more likely as obummer cuts our nukes down to his stated 500. Are they strategic or tactical weapons? Big, big difference.
We had 25,000 at one time. 
Now with no bombers loaded with them and no staff officers able to launch without political approval, someone like russia or china or both together will figure they can absorb the hits from that few weapons. Hell china would like to get rid of a few hundred million people. 
This clown in office could not even react to the attack in libya properly. How long would he ponder a decision to launch a counterstrike. 
What if he allowed us to get hit??? Muzzies have died for a lot less.
If an outside force would launch a short range missile from 100 miles out in the ocean to hit washington, there would be no warning time for them rats to hide in a bunker. Command and control would be gone.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Denton said:


> You know, one of the things we are not taking into consideration is the objectives of those who are attacking us.
> 
> One more thing to consider. In the event of a nuclear attack or a nuclear exchange, is it really necessary to target industrial centers? Not that we are what we were back in the Cold War era.


Industry in this country is not as concentrated as it once was, and would be much harder to target. If I personally were devising a strategy I would go after the military, and the population centers. The land and resources could be harvested with a much smaller population than we have now.


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

SOCOM42 said:


> obummer cuts our nukes down to his stated 500


It annoys me to no end how Obama touts his nuclear disarmament deal with Russia, and how we are heading towards peace, because Vladimir is _definitely _ keeping his word and getting rid of his nukes (sarcasm). I guess this is what happens though when you have more "flexibility" and make back door deals with the Russians.


----------



## jgriner (Nov 27, 2012)

Not Crazy Yet said:


> This is very true, and honestly I think it's going to happen in the next 4 years anyway without replacement politicians. This administration is so far from the ideals of the constitution it's scary.


It's because we don't teach freedom any more to our kids. Our kids only learn (from school) how horrible capitalism is, how bad the United States is, how constitution is so outdated. It is never explained how the constitution grants freedom, and that freedom should never be outdated.

We must begin teaching our children our founding principles, our one day we will wakeup to find that we have socialism, and we will tell our children what it was like in America when we were free. 
. 
. 
. 
.

Something I posted in my Facebook page the day after Obama got reelected.

"We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well thought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.

And if you and I don't do this, THEN YOU AND I MAY WELL SPEND OUR SUNSET YEARS TELLING OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN WHAT IT ONCE WAS LIKE IN AMERICA WHEN MEN WERE FREE." President Ronald Reagan


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

jgriner said:


> It's because we don't teach freedom any more to our kids. Our kids only learn (from school) how horrible capitalism is, how bad the United States is, how constitution is so outdated. It is never explained how the constitution grants freedom, and that freedom should never be outdated.


As a recent high school grad I can support this statement. On top of my socialist progressive teachers (one of whom had a history professor in college....who was one of the sons of the Rosenberg's, this explained a lot after she told us). Anyway, I still remember like it was yesterday, Junior year History class we watched a video, the entire point of it was trying to portray to the viewer that the founding fathers were a bunch of schizophrenic recluses who were anarchists and had an idea and just turned out to be lucky. On top of that, there was always the classic argument that the Constitution is outdated like you said, and that we needed to change it. Well we have been drifting from our original ideals set in place by our founding fathers, and that is why our country is collapsing. And yes, in my high school, capitalism was bad, socialism was good, I couldn't stand it, so glad to be out of there.



jgriner said:


> We must begin teaching our children our founding principles, our one day we will wakeup to find that we have socialism, and we will tell our children what it was like in America when we were free.


I agree, however, unfortunately with the recent election results, teaching out children out founding principles may soon be illegal. And yes, I will tell my grandchildren about how great America was before the progressives took over, how freedom actually did exist in America a long time ago.


----------



## Southern Dad (Nov 26, 2012)

I believe the target would be New York, New York. Just as on 9-11 the number one target was the biggest city. Terrorist or foreign governments get the most bang for the bomb by taking out New York City. More people killed, more Choas to our financial backbone... Think of the number of millionaires and other high profile people at one location. Targeting DC would be a blessing to most Americans. Talk about a way to get rid of all the incumbents. 

If the nuke went off in a small town in Kansas the initial outrage would be but it would quickly fade as we went about our daily lives. Just my opinion.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

SOCOM42 said:


> To add to my previous post, a nuclear strike on us becomes more likely as obummer cuts our nukes down to his stated 500. Are they strategic or tactical weapons? Big, big difference.
> We had 25,000 at one time.
> Now with no bombers loaded with them and no staff officers able to launch without political approval, someone like russia or china or both together will figure they can absorb the hits from that few weapons. Hell china would like to get rid of a few hundred million people.
> This clown in office could not even react to the attack in libya properly. How long would he ponder a decision to launch a counterstrike.
> ...


Obama wouldn't sign anything unless the US gets the short end of the stick. Tactical Nuclear weapons were taken off the START treaty and Obama has been busy destroying our remaining stock pile in 2010 we were down to 500 and Russian has increased their stock pile to 3,800 I am sure there is a bigger disparity now.

Russian tactical nuclear weapons still an issue after START treaty ratification

I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion. Alexander the Great


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

The next 4 years are going to be some of the worst years this country has ever seen. WW3 is already on the verge of blowing up in the middle east, our economy is in the toilet, and our basic liberties granted to us in the constitution are being taken away. Thankfully since I'm a prepper, I'm not as worried as others because I know I'm prepared. Although, most people don't even realize that their freedom is being ripped right from under them, I guess they'll find out though once the government comes knocking on their door.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

I don't think the russkis want to nuke America or anybody else.
And even when Islamic extremists get nukes, they'll be more interested in wiping out Israel than America.


----------



## Southern Dad (Nov 26, 2012)

Jim - I wish I could believe that. In the Middle East the USA is often referred to as the Big Satan with Israel being the Little Satan. I think if given a choice of of New York or Tel Aviv as the place to remove from the map it would be New York. Hitting New York takes out more Jews than hitting Tel Aviv, cripples the USA and would be a huge feather in any terrorists cap. Just look at how many terrorist plots have involved NYC. Another factor, is that the Muslims know that Israel would strike back. They aren't too sure about the USA.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Muslims hate Israel with a passion and dream of wiping it out; even the Koran puts Jews top of their hate list-
_[Koran 5.82]- "Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity to be *the Jews*"_

And this verse gives muslims the go-ahead to clobber their next-door neighbours Israel-
_[Koran 9.123] "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers *who are near to you *and let them find in you hardness"_

So when they get nukes I doubt they'd "waste" them on America before taking out Israel first.
As for Israeli nuclear retaliation, that's a price muslims are fanatical enough to be willing to pay.
Anyway, with Israel wiped out, muslims will have no real beef with America, they only hate America at the moment for her long-running support for Israel.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Anyway, with Israel wiped out, muslims will have no real beef with America, they only hate America at the moment for her long-running support for Israel.


That's not quite true Jim, muslims believe that the west is the cause of all corruption and decadence in the world.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Muslims hate Western decadence and corruption, but they could no doubt overlook it if it STAYED in the West.
But when they see western troops on muslim land (Iraq, Afgh) they understandably go bananas and CAN'T overlook it.
To add fuel to the fire, America goes on supporting Israel which sends muslims absolutely ballistic!
9/11 was the price America paid, and when muslims get nukes America will be hit again.
Bin Laden summed it up and all muslims share his views-

_"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or *through its support of the Israeli occupation*." - Bin Laden to CNN in March 1997_

Responding to the question "are you trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons?"-
_"Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims." Bin Laden, Time Magazine Dec 1998_


----------



## Southern Dad (Nov 26, 2012)

But Bin Laden didn't attack Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. He attacked New York and Washington DC. The muslims regard the land that Israel is on as sacred. I can't see them hitting land that they want to live on with nuclear weapons making some of their holiest cities glowing rubble. And as I mentioned, you'd kill more Jews wiping out New York than Tel Aviv.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Southern Dad said:


> But Bin Laden didn't attack Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. He attacked New York and Washington DC. The muslims regard the land that Israel is on as sacred. I can't see them hitting land that they want to live on with nuclear weapons making some of their holiest cities glowing rubble. And as I mentioned, you'd kill more Jews wiping out New York than Tel Aviv.


They did not attack Israel because Israel would have responded immediately, and gained a great deal of international support at the same time. They may be living in the 6th cetury, but they are not ignorant of politics and propaganda.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Not Crazy Yet said:


> True, but if a country were to EMP us, then we would almost certainly retaliate, so out attacker(s) would have to destroy at least a few of our major military bases. But in my opinion detonating an EMP and then sitting back and destroying any retaliatory missiles, they could simply sit back and watch out country destroy itself within weeks of the grid being down.


Thing is we may never know who to retaliate against...It may not be a country, it could be an extremist group with the wherewithall to come up with a working nuke a delivery system and a grudge against the US. I sure hope that we wouldn't tear ourselves to pieces in the absence of technology and finish the job for them...I like to think we are better than that....yet I sometimes wonder.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

jimb1972 said:


> They did not attack Israel because Israel would have responded immediately, and gained a great deal of international support at the same time. They may be living in the 6th cetury, but they are not ignorant of politics and propaganda.


9/11 didn't do the muslim world a blind bit of good, it just fed their desire to kill Israel's American friends.
In fact they've come off worse because it gave America the excuse to occupy Iraq/Afgh.
I think muslims realise now that 9/11 was a mistake which is why there haven't been any more attacks on the US homeland since then.
It'd be easy enough to do, for example Iran could sail one of its subs submerged to within a few miles of the US coast then briefly surface at night to disembark a few suicide squads in rubber boats to plant bombs in US coastal cities, or hop on Greyhound buses to hit cities a thousand miles inland.
They haven't done that yet because they're biding their time waiting to get suitcase-nukes, then it'll really hit the fan.
Beats me why the American people let the US Govt go on supporting Israel and making themselves a terror target as 'Israel's friend'.
Maybe one day the great US people will wake up and start asking "why are we supporting Israel? What has Israel ever done for us?"

One of at least two Iranian Kilo-class subs, they could sail undetected to the US coast and listen to rock n' roll radio broadcasts..


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Southern Dad said:


> But Bin Laden didn't attack Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. He attacked New York and Washington DC. The muslims regard the land that Israel is on as sacred. I can't see them hitting land that they want to live on with nuclear weapons making some of their holiest cities glowing rubble. And as I mentioned, you'd kill more Jews wiping out New York than Tel Aviv.


Good point, America is supplying Israel with cash and super-duper weaponry, and as one of the major strategies of warfare is to attack the enemies supply lines, muslim nuke blasts will probably happen in American cities, plus a few token blasts in Israel.
The best counter-strategy would therefore be for America to stop supporting Israel NOW, before muslims get nukes, then they'll have no reason to nuke America. Heck, Israel is a nuclear power so doesn't need any help to defend herself anyway!


----------



## rob (Dec 5, 2012)

It doesn't violate a treaty to distroy a civilian target that supports a war effort. Even we bomb power plants shipping harbors, factories that produce supplies (even non weapons) etc. That said a civilized attacker will likely target areas where the most support can be eliminated, while rogue forces, such as Islamic Jihadist, will seek to show a quick large body count that will impress their supporters. Now military forces select targets with a primary target, a secondary target and targets of opportunity. Imagine an enemy choices Washington DC as a primary target, Hampton Roads, VA as their secondary target and launch with 5 bombs. They hit both the primary and secondary targets and destroy them with the first two bombs. They have three more bombs and if they see anything that appears to have any value, they will bomb it. They have excess bombs, and they are going to use them. BTW, if an enemy destroys Washington DC and Hampton Roads VA, we are going to miss Hampton Roads and the fine military presonnel stationed throughout the area. I use these as examples. The same applies on the west coast. The point is that the enemy will launch with a primary and secondary target, yet they will hit whatever they can hit, ultimately. While neither the civiled (if an enemy could be called such) nor the Jihadist has a goal of taking out some Iowa corn field, everything that is not a primary target or a secondary target is a target of opportunity.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I disagree with you Jim...Whether we support Israel or not is a moot point...I tend to think the view of a Muslim extremist is that if you are not muslim you are an infidel...In which case what you are suggesting is simpy to what degree are we viewed by extremist as infidels...I don't think an extremists makes that distinction.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Seneca said:


> I disagree with you Jim...Whether we support Israel or not is a moot point...I tend to think the view of a Muslim extremist is that if you are not muslim you are an infidel...In which case what you are suggesting is simpy to what degree are we viewed by extremist as infidels...I don't think an extremists makes that distinction.


 Agree And I have been over there that is just how they think.


----------



## Omega Man (Sep 5, 2012)

Go to the resource page of yearzerosurvival.com. Click on the FEMA link for nuclear targets and type in your state. You will be shocked by what you see!!
The link was down the other day..hopefully they got it fixed..its amazingly scary!


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Seneca said:


> I disagree with you Jim...Whether we support Israel or not is a moot point...I tend to think the view of a Muslim extremist is that if you are not muslim you are an infidel...In which case what you are suggesting is simpy to what degree are we viewed by extremist as infidels...I don't think an extremists makes that distinction.


Sure, muslims don't like non-muslims, but they put America and other Israel-supporting countries top of their hate list, Bin Laden said so himself-
_"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or *through its support of the Israeli occupation*." - Osama bin Laden to CNN in March 1997_

Also America's military presence in Iraq/Afgh makes extremists hate the US even more, that's why they leave countries such as neutral harmless Switzerland alone.

Extremists dream of getting their hands on nukes one day-
_"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by Allah...*I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America*"- Bin Laden to Time Magazine _

At least some US politicians can foresee that day coming and are saying so-










'It will lead to war' - Ron Paul fights to end military aid for Israel - RT


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Jim,
We could bend over backwards in trying to appease these extremists and they's still hate us. It has nothing to do with us and everything to do with them. Without someone to hate their reason to exist quickly evaporates. 

Paul is a non interventonist, he, also advocates shutting down our bases around the globe. I'm not sure thats in our best interests right at the moment.


----------



## nadja (May 1, 2012)

Actually, I think if we were to be hit, it would be from an islamic rogue type group like alcaida. They get their bomb from iran, drive it over here in a cargo ship and detonate it in a harbor, l.A. , D.C., NYC, or Miami. 
They don't have the capability to send it over, so in the boat it would go. They also wouldn't know beans about our military base's or how to find them let alone transport them to their front porches, but do know how to put them in a shipping container. So, I would assume that they would hit a major city and D.C. would be my first bet. Good riddence to dc anyway, it's time to give it a wash.


----------



## Southern Dad (Nov 26, 2012)

It's probably a good idea not to live too near a large military base or a large city. Especially somewhere that has both. Virginia, for example would be a really bad idea with all the military bases and the close proximity to Washington DC.


----------



## beach23bum (Jan 27, 2015)

Watch the tv show jericho. very well done


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

to do as much damage as possible to end the war.
other than that what I think is more important is nuclear wear :satellite: 
het moon drive on.


----------



## Quip (Nov 8, 2012)

I'm thinking they hit the power grids along with military targets. Instant panic among civilians while the military is occupied. Puts the military on reserve power/fuels almost immediately.


----------



## OctopusPrime (Dec 2, 2014)

Would you rather suffer incineration or radiation poisoning?...I think everyone will suffer..directly the focus will be industry so mainly civilian areas will be targeted. A army cannot move on a empty stomach.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

I think the Muslims will hit NYC.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Neither, that's why I prepare and have a bit of faith in the odds. Two of three will probably survive, if they are prepared, in a nuclear exchange.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

You are trying to rationalize what a possible I rational person or persons might do.

Good luck.

I can not make sense of my wife of 23 years.

You are going to make sense of ISIS leadership from your living room?


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Get 40 years under you belt and you will finally understand there is now understanding.
I'm almost to 47 years, and I have learned to just say, "Yes, Dear."


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

If a country is going to go to all of the effort to acquire a nuke, and get it to detonate inside the US, they are not going to waste it. The target will be Washington DC. If they manage to get multiple nukes, NYC, LA, San Diego. They wont bother targeting military bases, there will be no leadership left to order the military into action, and no enemy to retaliate against. Every nation will deny involvement, and every terrorist organization will claim responsibility.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

One would ask,what is the objective of the strike.

Is it a tactical strike?
Is it a limited strike (targetting military, a disease outbreak that must be stopped etc..)
Is it intended to create EMP damage.

Does infratcuture want to be maintained for takeover?

I can only see two "likely uses of nuclear weapons"

Tactical to stop an invading force or take out some "key defence or other leverage that a conventional strike will not work on, - bear in mind even NORAD is designed to withstand a nuclear attack. 

Nuclear weapons are a deterent, if that deterent is not respected I would guess it would be a last ditch strike.

The idea of first strike is really hard to imagine. There are more than enough to target everything, its more a question of what is defended.. critical infrastcuture will likely be a priority over population centers with no strategic value in event of counterattack plans. What is the US stopping?

The main problem is a return strike would be expected, and the fewer weapons (missiles bombers, subs etc..) used the less chance of success. If you are taking that option only onne scenario islikely with dealing with Russia, I am not sure you can entice China to do a firt stike, too much to loose. Funny while typing I lost poewer for an instant - due to lightiening I geussing.. went out again weird.. spooky.


----------



## trips-man (Apr 26, 2015)

Why do they even need to attack us when they can simply sit back and watch us self-destruct.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

What is more important in nuclear war?

Not to be there when it goes off.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Let's see, this is a difficult question.
For the attacker the military target is likely most important.
For the people at ground zero, I don't think they are going to be asking that particular question...
For surviving friends and family I think it would be their friends and family - the civilians and soldiers.
For the military I think it would be a toss up between civilians and their soldiers.

So I suppose the average or mean curve best answer would be a mixture - possibly a mixture primarily civilian.

Still the most important thing - well Sidekahr said it best...


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

Jakthesoldier said:


> If a country is going to go to all of the effort to acquire a nuke, and get it to detonate inside the US, they are not going to waste it. The target will be Washington DC. If they manage to get multiple nukes, NYC, LA, San Diego. They wont bother targeting military bases, *there will be no leadership left to order the military into action*, and no enemy to retaliate against. Every nation will deny involvement, and every terrorist organization will claim responsibility.


jak, jak, jak, my dear boy of all the time in spent in the military , and you still have not learned what makes our military stand out amongst others-this is why -from day one you have been trained to know your chain of command- so when shit happens you know how the structure works even if it is down to an E1.


----------



## Disturbed12404 (Apr 23, 2015)

I would think it would be primarily civilian targets. They would have to launch several warheads to have the equivalent death tolls compared to taking out Philly or LA and cause mass destruction. Either way they couldn't launch enough. Plus with all the military bases we have worldwide + subs and carries rolling around, there isn't much they could do to stop a QRF.


----------

