Next major conflict after the War on Terror?

[Mustang]

This.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIrdSVgi5vc[/youtube]

[Mustang]

  Just kidding. Won't have that kind of conflict for another few hundred years.

I have a feeling that the shit will hit the fan within the next 50 years. And I will be alive when it happens.

1. The war on terror could escalate to a full out war between Islam vs. Jews/Christians.
If terrorists detonated a nuke or a dirty bomb within America's borders, we would retaliate with nuking Mecca. Muslims unite under Jihad and our response would be a crusade.
 
2. Or, Muslims overpopulate Western countries and trigger a civil war within our own borders. I.E. Israel, UK, USA, etc.

3. Or 8 years of Obama (God help us) leads to succession of states, martial law ensues, followed by civil war.
 
4. A nuclear standoff between us and China leads to a nuclear apocalypse.  

5. Ethnic/Racial tensions in the United States can stir up to a full out police state or lawlessness.

6. A Third world war could happen.

The future does not look good.

[Mustang]

*bump*

would love to hear others thoughts on this.

[TheSarge]

Either Somalia or Pakistan.  We're gonna have to go into Waziristan if we want to put a stop to Taliban operations in Afghanistan once and for all.

Somalia...as much as I shiver when I think about that place...is becoming a big haven for al-Qeda.  I really have no desire to ever return to that particular piece of real estate.

[Mustang]

Either Somalia or Pakistan.  We're gonna have to go into Waziristan if we want to put a stop to Taliban operations in Afghanistan once and for all.

Somalia...as much as I shiver when I think about that place...is becoming a big haven for al-Qeda.  I really have no desire to ever return to that particular piece of real estate.

All of those places including Afghanistan are shit hole battlefields, that's why Al Quaida chose them. I don't think the American people would have the stomach for those conflicts unless we got attacked again AND had a Republican President.

If we get hit again, and worse than 9/11, Department of Defense has plans to nuke Mecca in retaliation. Then the shit hits the fan and we better man up for some serious conflict after that and so will Israel and our closest allies who are flooded with Muslim immigrants.

I gotta give props to W., at least he had the balls to hit Somalian targets with Spectre Gunships every once in a while. Good luck doing that again with our Muslim President.

[bkg]

All of those places including Afghanistan are shit hole battlefields, that's why Al Quaida chose them. I don't think the American people would have the stomach for those conflicts unless we got attacked again AND had a Republican President.

If we get hit again, and worse than 9/11, Department of Defense has plans to nuke Mecca in retaliation. Then the shit hits the fan and we better man up for some serious conflict after that and so will Israel and our closest allies who are flooded with Muslim immigrants.

I find this VERY hard to believe

[Mustang]

I find this VERY hard to believe

It was reported in major news sources during the early years of the War on Terror.
A reporter asked some DOD officials what would the retaliation would be if terrorists set off a nuke or biological bomb on American soil.
They said if it came to that, they would nuke Mecca. And then a whole bunch of Muslims got pissed off.

Does anyone remember that?? I think I saw it on CNN. It was a major story for a day or two.

[bkg]

It was reported in major news sources during the early years of the War on Terror.
A reporter asked some DOD officials what would the retaliation would be if terrorists set off a nuke or biological bomb on American soil.
They said if it came to that, they would nuke Mecca. And then a whole bunch of Muslims got pissed off.

Does anyone remember that?? I think I saw it on CNN. It was a major story for a day or two.

I never saw the report, but hilighted the key point. EARLY years. Different administration, different Congress, different frame of mind for 90% of Americans. Never happen now.

[Mustang]

I never saw the report, but hilighted the key point. EARLY years. Different administration, different Congress, different frame of mind for 90% of Americans. Never happen now.

If we had a Republican commander in chief with balls it would come to that.
It's a logical response, if I was president I would give the order in a nanosecond.

They nuke us, we nuke them and prove that their religion is false. But of course every single muslim in the world would call for a jihad.
But if we beat them back badly, we can prove to them that their religion is false and hence the death of islam.

[rich_t]

If terrorists detonated a nuke or a dirty bomb within America's borders, we would retaliate with nuking Mecca.

The current ***** in the Oval Office wouldn't.  He'd probably apologize to the terrorists for making them do it.

[bkg]

If we had a Republican commander in chief with balls it would come to that.
It's a logical response, if I was president I would give the order in a nanosecond.

They nuke us, we nuke them and prove that their religion is false. But of course every single muslim in the world would call for a jihad.
But if we beat them back badly, we can prove to them that their religion is false and hence the death of islam.

I disagree. We don't have anyone in the GOP with the balls to start WW3. Nor would Congress ever give the okay. It's not 2001 anymore.

[Crazy Horse]

It was reported in major news sources during the early years of the War on Terror.
A reporter asked some DOD officials what would the retaliation would be if terrorists set off a nuke or biological bomb on American soil.
They said if it came to that, they would nuke Mecca. And then a whole bunch of Muslims got pissed off.

Does anyone remember that?? I think I saw it on CNN. It was a major story for a day or two.

Post a fact of this or shut up

[Mustang]

Post a fact of this or shut up

Aren't you a friendly soul. Like I said, I saw it on CNN, and it was from either DOD or HLS officials.
Not very good at looking for old stories that I saw on TV...years ago... the closest I found was this:

Here

[Mustang]

I disagree. We don't have anyone in the GOP with the balls to start WW3. Nor would Congress ever give the okay. It's not 2001 anymore.

Am I mistaken, but I don't think it takes an act of congress to launch an ICBM. I think that's an executive decision, considering the whole idea behind nuclear deterrent is instant response.

W. would do it.

[bkg]

Am I mistaken, but I don't think it takes an act of congress to launch an ICBM. I think that's an executive decision, considering the whole idea behind nuclear deterrent is instant response.

W. would do it.

It takes an act of Congress to declare war. You honestly think that a president is going to do an end-around w/ Congress?

[Mustang]

It takes an act of Congress to declare war. You honestly think that a president is going to do an end-around w/ Congress?

It doesn't take an act of congress to strike Somalia with Specter Gunships like Bush did.
And the Marine Corp is under direct control of the President. He/she can do whatever they want with them.
The same with ICBM's.

I think that President would be under pressure to respond immedietly if it came to a nuclear or biological bomb.
That would be like 9/11 x 12

[Chris_]

If we get hit again, and worse than 9/11, Department of Defense has plans to nuke Mecca in retaliation. Then the shit hits the fan and we better man up for some serious conflict after that and so will Israel and our closest allies who are flooded with Muslim immigrants.

You may safely assume that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, there are plans for dropping warheads on every major city on earth - domestic cities included.  There's nothing unusual about that; it's what the folks at the Pentagon do, when they're not hamstringing the troops in the field.  You may also safely assume that Mecca will still be standing after another September 11th-esque attack with nary an additional tick on somebody's geiger counter.  Those plans will never be used by a CinC of either major party, unless one is dropped on us first - and you can damned sure bet that Congressional investigations will tie up any action of that magnitude for months after the attack, at the very least.

Nobody - in EITHER of the major parties - has the cojones to actually use nukes anymore.  They're all far too busy wringing their hands about what the world at large thinks of us.

[Mustang]

You may safely assume that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon, there are plans for dropping warheads on every major city on earth - domestic cities included.  There's nothing unusual about that; it's what the folks at the Pentagon do, when they're not hamstringing the troops in the field.  You may also safely assume that Mecca will still be standing after another September 11th-esque attack with nary an additional tick on somebody's geiger counter.  Those plans will never be used by a CinC of either major party, unless one is dropped on us first - and you can damned sure bet that Congressional investigations will tie up any action of that magnitude for months after the attack, at the very least.

Nobody - in EITHER of the major parties - has the cojones to actually use nukes anymore.  They're all far too busy wringing their hands about what the world at large thinks of us.

Another 9/11 esque attack, no. But leveling an entire city or two with nukes on American soil, is not 9/11 esque by any means.
Would our current President do it? No.
Would John McCain do it? I think so. (despite how I feel about him) He has the stomach for it.

[Chris_]

I should clarify:  when I say "September 11th-esque attack", I'm not being specific about flying planes into buildings.  I'm referring to any major, coordinated attack by an irregular opfor on US soil, C/B/R attacks included.  At the low end of the scale, it would include things like a lone wolf or single cell shooting up an LA area synogogue (just to cite a recent example), school or shopping mall at the peak of their respective seasons.  At the high end, is somebody setting off a nuclear weapon in the heart of a major US city.  Lots of room in between, within my definition of a "September 11th-esque attack", as you can see.

[Chris_]

Another 9/11 esque attack, no. But leveling an entire city or two with nukes on American soil, is not 9/11 esque by any means.
Would our current President do it? No.
Would John McCain do it? I think so. (despite how I feel about him) He has the stomach for it.

You're full of crap. And I speak from personal experience, having worked with the Arizona GOP on that asshat's re-election campaign.  Juan McLame was the one who was leading the charge on closing Gitmo down from the Dem-lite side.  Juan McLame likes and supports the war when it will be most beneficial to Juan McLame.  Don't think I haven't forgotten the time back in '05 when that asshat went over to some conference in Switzerland and was tripping people for the chance to get in fromnt of cameras and bad-mouth the Iraq campaign and the Surge - which was up for debate at the time he was doing this.  Juan McLame is just as much a hand-wringer as any other politician in Washington, Democrat OR Republican.

[Mustang]

You're full of crap. And I speak from personal experience, having worked with the Arizona GOP on that asshat's re-election campaign.  Juan McLame was the one who was leading the charge on closing Gitmo down from the Dem-lite side.  Juan McLame likes and supports the war when it will be most beneficial to Juan McLame.  Don't think I haven't forgotten the time back in '05 when that asshat went over to some conference in Switzerland and was tripping people for the chance to get in fromnt of cameras and bad-mouth the Iraq campaign and the Surge - which was up for debate at the time he was doing this.  Juan McLame is just as much a hand-wringer as any other politician in Washington, Democrat OR Republican.

I just have a bad feeling. I think if we don't bolster our efforts on the war on terror A LOT more soon, and when I say A LOT I mean more and diversified than just sending 40k troops to Afghanistan, I feel like we will surely be attacked again and worse than 9/11.
----------------

When I was thinking about John McCain, I was thinking about when he said "staying in Iraq for 100 years" and "Bomb Iran"--He immedietly came to mind as doing it. Then it slipped my mind that he wants to shutdown Gitmo. So, yeah your right.

Selective memory is a bitch.

[Mustang]

Anyone else have any speculations on what could happen within the next 50 years?

The War on Terror in Dick Cheney's words said it may take 20 or it may take 50 years to win it.
Is it a war that can be achieved effectively fast with the right procedures, tactics, and chosen targets by a competent administration like the cold war or will it get worse and lead to global instability leading to a greater conflict than the war on terror itself ? If we eventually win Afghanistan will that end the war on terrorism ? I don't think so at all, we have every other middle eastern country hell bent on destroying us or our allies, such as Israel...not including the horn of Africa and North Africa and Northern Central Asia, Pakistan+Indonesia+to a lesser extent India. Islam will be the dominant religion on the planet in 20 years or so...  

I factor all of this and I think of the possable scenarios that can happen in the next few decades, and it just doesn't seem good at all unless we take a serious global approach.

[Mustang]

*bump*