I found this, interesting from the Paki's...

[cobber]

Dave, if it were just us versus the Pakis, your solution would probably work. Even if it were just us and our allies versus Pakistan it would probably work. However, we have Russia and China with nuclear weapons who are definitely adversarial to our interests and France, whose people like us, mostly, (except for their Muslim population and a few jerks in government in Paris) but will push a stick in our spokes just because they can. Any attempt to retaliate with nuclear weapons against a covert strike on us or our interests would bring us to verge of a nuclear confrontation in an arena in which, thanks to BHO, ODL, (MHNBSUE) we no longer have a strategic advantage.

I think if there were a nuclear strike on the US, we would have a lot of latitude in our retaliation from the rest of the nuclear club. As for the Lilliputians in the UN General Assembly, do we really care what they have to say, particularly if we were the target of nuclear weapons.?

Russia and China in particular are as vulnerable as we are, and you can bet that neither would hesitate to retaliate if they were attacked.

Re allies, our allies are only as strong as their perceived interest in supporting the US. History is full of broken or abrogated alliances. Ask the Poles, for instance, about their pre-war alliances with France and Britain.

Where national survival is concerned, we would be fools to trust any other nation to have our sixes.

Or to think that today's adversary could never have common cause with us in a future conflict.

Alliances aren't marriages, they are expedient associations of convenience.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think if there were a nuclear strike on the US, we would have a lot of latitude in our retaliation from the rest of the nuclear club. As for the Lilliputians in the UN General Assembly, do we really care what they have to say, particularly if we were the target of nuclear weapons.?

Russia and China in particular are as vulnerable as we are, and you can bet that neither would hesitate to retaliate if they were attacked.

Re allies, our allies are only as strong as their perceived interest in supporting the US. History is full of broken or abrogated alliances. Ask the Poles, for instance, about their pre-war alliances with France and Britain.

Where national survival is concerned, we would be fools to trust any other nation to have our sixes.

Or to think that today's adversary could never have common cause with us in a future conflict.

Alliances aren't marriages, they are expedient associations of convenience.

While Russia and China are vulnerable to similar acts of terror, they aren't anywhere near as vulnerable as we are with our open borders. And I don't doubt for a moment they would exert the threat of retaliation over us if they thought it would deter us from nuking a suspected bomb-supplier.

 

[jeremy]

While Russia and China are vulnerable to similar acts of terror, they aren't anywhere near as vulnerable as we are with our open borders. And I don't doubt for a moment they would exert the threat of retaliation over us if they thought it would deter us from nuking a suspected bomb-supplier.

Depends...

If we are talking about a pre strike type event, then I would expect China, Russia, etc, etc... To exert the threats of retaliation. However, I think if we were to experience a nuclear event of some type, I think you would find them, maybe not quite supportive, but at the least I think they would be silent towards are response...

 

[cobber]

While Russia and China are vulnerable to similar acts of terror, they aren't anywhere near as vulnerable as we are with our open borders. And I don't doubt for a moment they would exert the threat of retaliation over us if they thought it would deter us from nuking a suspected bomb-supplier.

They both have major Islamic populations, and no 'melting pot' philosophy. Both have also had repeated acts of domestic terror. Facebook was and is banned in China because of Islamic separatists in Xinjiang, and bombings and attacks on police are not unknown.
Russia? Think Beslan and Chechnyan bombings and attacks, some in Moscow.

The USSR used to have deterrence as an official policy, but I don't know whether Russia or China have ever made a linkage. And mind you, you're suggesting that not only would they use deterrence on their own behalf, but on behalf of a third-party engaging in terrorist acts. I don't see either risking a direct war with the US under this hypothetical.

If Kazakhstan attacked Russia with a nuke and Russia retaliated, would we plausibly threaten dropping the big one on Moscow? Really?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

They both have major Islamic populations, and no 'melting pot' philosophy. Both have also had repeated acts of domestic terror. Facebook was and is banned in China because of Islamic separatists in Xinjiang, and bombings and attacks on police are not unknown.
Russia? Think Beslan and Chechnyan bombings and attacks, some in Moscow.

The USSR used to have deterrence as an official policy, but I don't know whether Russia or China have ever made a linkage. And mind you, you're suggesting that not only would they use deterrence on their own behalf, but on behalf of a third-party engaging in terrorist acts. I don't see either risking a direct war with the US under this hypothetical.

If Kazakhstan attacked Russia with a nuke and Russia retaliated, would we plausibly threaten dropping the big one on Moscow? Really?

I'll grant most of your points and those of Jeremy, but I don't think either Russia or China would hesitate to be hypocritical about us responding to a terrorist nuclear device being detonated on our soil, especially if they could gain some political advantage from it. And, honestly, do you really think the current Administration would insist on retaliation if the source of the device couldn't be established precisely? Don't forget, we no longer have an advantage in throw weight or total weapons, thanks to ODL.

 

[cobber]

I'll grant most of your points and those of Jeremy, but I don't think either Russia or China would hesitate to be hypocritical about us responding to a terrorist nuclear device being detonated on our soil, especially if they could gain some political advantage from it. And, honestly, do you really think the current Administration would insist on retaliation if the source of the device couldn't be established precisely? Don't forget, we no longer have an advantage in throw weight or total weapons, thanks to ODL.

They might be hypocritical about it, but I don't see either of them threatening to retaliate on behalf of some jackwagon nation/group that attacked the US.

If we're talking current administration, we know the president likes to aim first and then shoot. I would not expect him to retaliate...

 

[cbseniour]

Weakness is provocative, Don Rumsffeldt

We have shown nothing but weakness since BHO was elected. We are now reaping the benefits of that tactic and will not regain any respect with the Arab world until we show some serious strengh.
Close the consulate and tell them no more foreign aid