If a WMD is deployed in the US, we can not respond in kind.  Not only can we not but we should not do such a thing.  Why because we would then be giving the terrorists just what they want us to do.  Any overreaction to a enemy strike is like throwing gas on a fire, in order to put it out.

In looking through the prisim of terrorism history, one finds that a terror attack is often followed by a knee jerk reaction of the enbattled government. This quick and hard response to the primary attack can often be used by the attacking terrorists as a propaganda horn of plenty, in which to stimulate new membership campaigns, show how harsh the government really is, and dont forget plaster the images of all those innocent women and children who are killed or injured in the response.

If we do get hit by a WMD, we need to take our time and think out our response. Avoid the blood rush for revenge. Taking the moral high ground after such an attack and keeping it, while very quietly in the cover of darkeness taking apart their infrastructure, sources of money and yes memebers.

Blackice is right on the money there.

Also might add who would you attack? The terrorists come from many countries spread all over the middle east... so who would you attack? The oppressed slums of Saudi Arabia? Backwater hovels and villiages full of rage but without running water, the rubble and ruins of other failed/failing middle eastern societies and cities?

Such heavy retaliation would not only fill the terror networks with sympathetic new recruits, it would also spark outrage and the spontanious growth of new (maybe even non-islamic) terror cells globally.

Its more important to understand why these people are so angry with the west and deal with that... otherwise we will have terrorists groups forming indefinetly.

A great book to read on this is: 'Future Tense' by Gwynne Dyer.

I agree wholeheartedly.  The only time, in my mind, that like measures in response to a WMD attack by terrorist would be justified would be if there is a solid connection between the group and a state sponsor.  However, in all actuality, the vast majority of the Islamic terrorists groups today (there are so many splinter groups, groups starting up etc, etc) that are not actually sponsored by a particular state.

The old way of thinking in regards to terrorist and their organizations all being supported and sponsored by a given state/government is no longer completely relevant or true.  Remember, Al-Qa'ida is basically an umbrella organization for many smaller Islamic terrorists organizations with the goal of pulling them all together and attempting to get them to work towards a common goal, they are not dependent upon any one state/government to support them.

So you all are absolutely correct.  If for example, Al-Qa'ida were to conduct an attack in the U.S. with WMDs, who would we strike?  We've already removed the one state that was providing support to them. 

Force 1

"Freedom is the sure possession only for those with the courage to defend it."

I respectfully disagree. 

If al qaeda or some such "non-state" entity were able to detonate a nuclear device in the U.S., it would be imperative to respond with overwhelming (read deterrent) response. 

First, a terrorist cannot just find the materials necessary.  The logistics will require even more assistance.  There will be a trail.  Who are the players?  Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Israel and the U.S..  IF the origination point can be determined and IF the players can be fingered, the targets can then be identified. 

Example:  If Iran is determined to be an aid or supplier to the terrorist attack, Rudan Nuclear Research Center, Esfahan, Natanz, Bushehr, et al then become targets.  These are all nuclear facilities, so the deterrent statement would be made with minimal collateral damage, hence maintaining the "moral high ground". 

Alkidakiller,

     It is way to easy to say there will be a trail leading back to those involved. It's completely another thing to actually track that information down in a timely mannor...Look all the time we had to determine that Iraq had a viable WMD program...and Our( the US Intelligence) Best and Brightest got it completely WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!.   If a tiny splinter cell off of one of the more well known terrorist groups lets a Nuke fly in one of our cities....PLease tell me how we will track that back to its source....Better still tell me what Intellignece organization has the ablitity to do such an endevour....If you say CIA think again...if you say FBI you better think again...If you say Mossad..think again....Do yourself a favor and read  THE WMD Mirage by Craig R. Whitney... its just out in the book stores now....It explains how the US go the Crucial Question of Arms in Iraq so Terribly wrong....and then get back to me with the answer to my reply...then you can talk about how capable our intellignece agencies are....

We need HUMANINT to win the fight against terrorists...Because of the the US's relyance on Technicial Means of gathering intelligence...ie..Signals Intellignece, MastInt. PhotIN, we have sapped away all the funding for HUMANINT and put all our eggs in the Technical Intellignece basket...and now we are reaping the rewards from our wayword actions....The time to start up a Humaint program was twenty years ago....not after the horse has already left the barn...People we are behind the eight ball and its not going to be easy.....

"Stay Alert, Stay Alive"

Blackice,  I completely agree with the problems that currently exist in the intelligence agencies world wide.  The industry will take quite a long time (generation or so) to get up to speed, and that's if we start yesterday.  Reliance on other intel agencies not only can be problematic, but can be a political nightmare as seen with the Bush SOTU with British intel on yellowcake.  But this does not address the core question and that was the use of WMD.

As I bolded above, "IF" is the key word.  That is, IF there is irrefutable evidence, then use of devastating response is called for.  The use must be restricted to military targets.

One problem with not considering this action could be a protracted engagement, with the total loss of life much higher than if the deterrent effect worked.  If you think a conventional war is any better, then consider what the Allies did to Dresden with fire bombing in WW2.

I guess my question would be, are there degrees of morality in war?  Does killing someone with a jdam or a big blue reduce the culpability, because we didn't use a "bigger" bomb???

Hey Alkidakiller,

 Why stop with Dresden, why not just jump to the Atomic Bombs themselves dropped on Japan....You know they say that those two bombs saved many americans lives if the war was to be left and drawn out....But Alki....The Japanese were almost finished anyway...we did not need to drop those bombs....Those bombs were one thing and one thing only.  The first one was the experiment and the second was the control....They ( meaning the scientists) had no idea what would really happen when the detonated those bombs...because they were so large...Some feared that a hole in the Ozone layer would be formed and all the air surrounding the planet sucked out to space....

Alki...history has shown that the Japanese were on their preverbal last legs when it came to the war effort...they were practically out of oil.....you cant run a Navy without oil...let alone a army....

What i am tryin to say in a long drawn out way is that.....maybe what you see is not really what you see....With help of history and 20/20 hindsight....the World looks completely different......

Do I think that AQ has help from State sponsers...yes.....States would be fools not to take advantage of such a crop of narrow minded individuals who are willing to kill themselves for a cause.....But responding in kind to a nuclear detionation is another thing completely....Using Nuclear weapons for retrubution is kind of like hunting for flies with a bazooka.......there is a great deal of collorateral damage....and you are not always sure the flies didnt just fly away before the bazooka shell hit....so you end up with just a big hole in the ground and a mission failure+ all that collorateral damage...which might just inclulde some innocents....You have to admit ....there were quite alot of innocent Japanese women and childern killed in those two atomic bombs......thats the problem with atomic bombs .....they dont descriminate who they killl........all is game....

Alki......terrorists use the fact that most states will execute a knee jerk reaction to any major terrorist attack....they use this reaction to justify their actions.........See the US doesnt care about innocent women and children....and it will only futher their cause....This is why we must think trough completely the impact of our reactions.....you only have to look at the war in Iraq and see what happens when you dont plan for the consequences of your medeling in another countries problems.....The US did not plan for an insurgency of this kind....If they did we would have entered the country with at least 350,000 troops of a true cooalition and prevented the insurgency from starting in the first place.......We would have seen the value in keeping the current military in place and building it up and just whitteling down any dead or rotten wood found....instead of making them all unemployed people with an axe to grind against the new regieme......

The reason I brought up Dresden is because terrible things can and do happen even without a nuke.  The point is, never take anything off the table, never show your hand. 

A perfect example is the bill that is going through congress now about "Americans can't torture".  Why tell everyone? 

There is no tactical advantage to saying what you will and won't do in any given situation.  There is no such thing as moral high-ground when somebody is trying to cut your head off!

BTW, you can call me Al.  :-)

they use this reaction to justify their actions.........See the US doesnt care about innocent women and children....and it will only futher their cause

Blackice the only problem i have with that is the fact that if you remember right, they didn't have to justify themselves in the first place.  During 1993 and on 9/11 they didn't really try to justify themselves, they just laughed and praised the fact that they got a hit on the US.