Author Topic: The Nukular Scenario  (Read 4040 times)

  • Guest
The Nukular Scenario
« on: September 16, 2004, 10:12:00 am »
By happenstance I was watching a CNN special report the other night, "Nuclear Terrorism," or some such was the title.
 
 Some old cold war guy said that current times are less dangerous because we no longer have the 40 megaton atomic sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. M.A.D. is no more.  The Soviets are no more.  Our only real worry now is rogue states like N.Korea and, of course, the terrorist dangers posed by shadowy groups like "Radical Islam".
 
 According to various non-partisan TV pundits, a major U.S. city or two might eventually have to deal with the after effects of a 10 kiloton "Hiroshima" explosion.
 
 My question to the bboard is:  What social changes are likely to occur as a result of this?   For example, martial law?  Will Americans suddenly get less touchy-feely with the oppressed Moslem peoples around the world?  And who are Americans anyway?  Are they the legal ones only?  What would happen to the millions of "grey area" illegals floating about?  Issues like these...
 
 Your comments/flames please, are welcome.

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2004, 10:35:00 am »
You might want to read this.  You're focusing in on an Us vs Them scenario that is far too broad in scope. Are those North Koreans my enemy?  Fuck if I know, I take people on a one to one basis.

  • Guest
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2004, 10:38:00 am »
Register now - It's FREE! <img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_4/6.gif" alt=" - " />
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  You might want to read this.  

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2004, 10:42:00 am »
From the Sydney Morning Herald.  For all of you registration haters, check out bugmenot.
 
 Foundations are in place for martial law in the US
 
 By Ritt Goldstein
 
 July 27 2002
 
 Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.
 
 When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with broad powers in the event of a "crisis" such as "violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad". They were never used.
 
 But with the looming possibility of a US invasion of Iraq, recent pronouncements by President George Bush's domestic security chief, Tom Ridge, and an official with the US Civil Rights Commission should fire concerns that these powers could be employed or a de facto drift into their deployment could occur.
 
 On July 20 the Detroit Free Press ran a story entitled "Arabs in US could be held, official warns". The story referred to a member of the US Civil Rights Commission who foresaw the possibility of internment camps for Arab Americans. FEMA has practised for such an occasion.
 
 FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is also responsible for handling US domestic unrest.
 
 From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal.
 
 They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.
 
 A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps".
 
 Today Mr Brinkerhoff is with the highly influential Anser Institute for Homeland Security. Following a request by the Pentagon in January that the US military be allowed the option of deploying troops on American streets, the institute in February published a paper by Mr Brinkerhoff arguing the legality of this.
 
 He alleged that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long been accepted as prohibiting such deployments, had simply been misunderstood and misapplied.
 
 The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr Giuffrida, was "approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it".
 
 By April, the US military had created a Northern Command to aid Homeland defence. Reuters reported that the command is "mainly expected to play a supporting role to local authorities".
 
 However, Mr Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, has just advocated a review of US law regarding the use of the military for law enforcement duties.
 
 Disturbingly, the full facts and final contents of Mr Reagan's national plan remain uncertain. This is in part because President Bush took the unusual step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers last November. However, many of the key figures of the Reagan era are part of the present administration, including John Poindexter, to whom Oliver North later reported.
 
 At the time of the Reagan initiatives, the then attorney-general, William French Smith, wrote to the national security adviser, Robert McFarlane: "I believe that the role assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the revised Executive Order exceeds its proper function as a co-ordinating agency for emergency preparedness ... this department and others have repeatedly raised serious policy and legal objections to an 'emergency czar' role for FEMA."
 
 Criticism of the Bush Administration's response to September11 echoes Mr Smith's warning. On June 7 the former presidential counsel John Dean spoke of America's sliding into a "constitutional dictatorship" and martial law.
 
 Ritt Goldstein is an investigative journalist and a former leader in the movement for US law enforcement accountability. He revealed exclusively in the Herald last week the Bush Administration's plans for a domestic spying system more pervasive than the Stasi network in East Germany.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2004, 10:50:00 am »
I've spent some time on this subject, but more in context of the effect on capital markets and financial risk.
 
 Socially, it's harder to pinpoint what would happen if a major urban center got levelled by a nuclear bomb.  I don't think there would be pandemonium, nor do I think we would revert to a point where "the only currency is ammo."  It's hard to guage, as we haven't had anything comparable.  Maybe the Loma Prieta earthquake is the closest.  I don't recall a lot of looting or anarchy.  Likewise, the blackout last (?) summer in New York and the Northeast seemed to go pretty well.
 
 Martial law is doubtful in my opinion.  Certainly border closings and, if the bomb or its materials were brought in by ship, some port closures.  These would be disruptive to the flow of goods (particularly oil), so fuel shortages would likely result.  I wouldn't expect vast shortages of necessary goods though.
 
 Assuming this is a terrorist act, revenge attacks against Arabs/Muslims living in the US would be commonplace, unfortunately.  I don't think we would ship off every alien resident, but I assume we would try to keep closer tabs on them.

  • Guest
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2004, 11:03:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Certainly border closings ?
And how would this most likely be implemented, for example, at the southernmost border?

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2004, 11:05:00 am »
They would put up signs on 95 saying South of the Border is closed.  Pedro would be wearing a frown under his sombrero.

nkotb

  • Member
  • Posts: 6169
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2004, 11:17:00 am »
I, for one, am sickened by your blatant anti-Mexicanism.  For shame, Thirsty.  For shame...
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  They would put up signs on 95 saying South of the Border is closed.  Pedro would be wearing a frown under his sombrero.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2004, 11:17:00 am »
I don't think they could keep every fence jumper out, but they could certainly stop vehicle traffic at the official crossings.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by Mr.Shagslikeadonkey:
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Certainly border closings ?
And how would this most likely be implemented, for example, at the southernmost border? [/b]

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2004, 11:21:00 am »
Ay... dios mio.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by nkotbie:
  I, for one, am sickened by your blatant anti-Mexicanism.  For shame, Thirsty.  For shame...

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2004, 11:21:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Socially, it's harder to pinpoint what would happen if a major urban center got levelled by a nuclear bomb.  I don't think there would be pandemonium, nor do I think we would revert to a point where "the only currency is ammo."  It's hard to guage, as we haven't had anything comparable.  Maybe the Loma Prieta earthquake is the closest.  I don't recall a lot of looting or anarchy.  Likewise, the blackout last (?) summer in New York and the Northeast seemed to go pretty well.
But a nuclear attack, like a terrorist attack, is not a one off natural disaster/act of god or technical breakdown.  I think the pandemonium comes with the fear that 'this is just the beginning,' and so I think the response would be more drastic.  Like 9/11, many were waiting for the next hit, and we passed very broad federal laws, instituted a new federal govt department and threw quite a bit of our security and governmental infrastructure in to some pretty big changes and upheaval.
 
 I haven't spent time on this issue, and would prefer to bury my head in the sand, to tell the truth....It's so difficult, and a reason I don't look at terrorism or the response to it as the underpinning to my political preferences.  I can't imagine being tasked with the nation's security...[okay, head in sand now].

  • Guest
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2004, 11:26:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
  I[...]would prefer to bury my head in the sand, to tell the truth....It's so difficult, ...[okay, head in sand now].
Well, then DC is the perfect place for you.  It's extra-sandy.  Pay absolutely no mind to the effin'-huge, red bullseye painted squarely in the center.

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2004, 11:29:00 am »
I totally mixed 3 parts hatorade and one part tequila on that one didn't I?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by nkotbie:
  I, for one, am sickened by your blatant anti-Mexicanism.  For shame, Thirsty.  For shame...

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2004, 11:29:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Mr.Shagslikeadonkey:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
  I[...]would prefer to bury my head in the sand, to tell the truth....It's so difficult, ...[okay, head in sand now].
Well, then DC is the perfect place for you.  It's extra-sandy.  Pay absolutely no mind to the effin'-huge, red bullseye painted in the center. [/b]
At least if I get blowed up here, I enjoyed where I lived to that point!    :D   And hell, my office is two entire blocks from the White House....

  • Guest
Re: The Nukular Scenario
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2004, 11:31:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Bags:
  At least if I get blowed up here, I enjoyed where I lived to that point!       :D      And hell, my office is two entire blocks from the White House....
Many of the Hiroshima victims lived for a few days after the fireball before their skin liquefied.