I'm putting this in the military forum because I don't
wanna be among the chorus of those who have called
for a complete pull out up until now.

I had hoped more than a year ago that a redeployment on
the western and northern borders could isolate the
civil war to the interior, without Syrian (Sunni) and
Iranian (Shia) resupply. It's just too late now.

The borders are leaking like a sieve, and the repeated
rotation of available troops has gone just too far.

Now I believe we could be more effective with elite units
in neighboring countries and a continued intelligence
(predator and human) presence to direct them in Iraqi
ops. I say that because surgical strikes on particular
persons and units are more important now than just
refereeing death squads and militias.

Those who want to fight for power will fight, and if we want to tip
the fray it can be done better by extreme power in isolated
instances. Besides we need to have reinforcements for Afghanistan
(IMO because we don't want to lose the real fight based on 9/11).
And, we need to be able to bolster the Kurds if and when
we need to come down like Thor's hammer.

And....sush...if we need to hit Iran, we'd be in better shape.

So, let's pull out and bring out the bad boys...they make such
better targets in the open...for a flight of Cobras...and company
units of Berets, Rangers, SEALS and Marine Recon.

From somewhere I remember something... I don't remember if it was
The Art of War, or another oriental disciplinary form...
if you are strong, look weak...if outnumbered, fall back, regroup
and harrass...out guerilla the guerillas.

I don't care about "looking strong".
I want to fight in the most efficient manner...
and if that "looks" weak, so be it.

"Good lookin'" armies never impressed me...
it is the grimey SOBs with the 1,000-yard stare
that get my attention.

I'll cover your "six" on this one!

You may well be right on this one Chuck.

I think this last leak to the NY Times may have corked the last chance we had of salvaging anything in Iraq.

I'd get the kids home as soon as posible, they've done a fine job and don't deserve to be done wrong. They can't fight the terrorist in Iraq along with all the people on the home front trying to manufacture a political gotcha.

Wow, it’s the people on the home fronts fault. I didn’t know that. Somehow I kept thinking it was a bad idea in the first place followed up with bad planning and handled by a bunch of fools. I’m pleased we don’t have to look back at bush, rummy or cheney for any culpability. It’s way better to blame the dissenters, then we don’t have to go into prosecuting mistakes. America will prove it’s resilience to the facts once again, gotcha!

Right on, VF:

And don't forget the queers and commies. They are just as much to blame. We'll be right back after these commercial messages. Fox News - - we report - -you decide.

Fair and balanced.

I concur.

Well Vaughn, a great deal of what was said about Iraq being a quagmire early on simply was not true. This time last year the commanders on the ground were planning a draw down in American troops and had in fact started delaying deployments to Iraq.

I don't blame the increase in the insurgency on Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. I blame it on people who want the United States to leave Iraq; be it Al Qaeda, Baathist, Saddam Loyalists, the Iraqi criminal element, Iran, or the anti-war movement.

Now, let's suppose during WW2 what the out come would have look like had the United States decided after the defeat at the Kasserine Pass it was to tough for us to win. It's a good example because in that one battle the USA lost about the same number of troops as the USA has lost in combat in Iraq. By using the standards the democrats are now applying we would have quit WW2 in 1943.

I do blame them, for any occurrence (good or bad) after an ill-conceived invasion can be laid at their feet.
If you light the fuse...expect an explosion.



The difference is that WWII was a justifiable war...This one ain't!

Don't get me wrong...

I don't think retreat from the theater is wise...
just strategic reassessment of location & tactics.
If folks want to see it as one way or the other, okay.

If the Kurds are seriously threatened...if the Iranians
establish a coalition...if a worthy ally on the ground
needs attention...well...suffice it to say...I ain't
a CO.

I think Murtha really lives on the same street...
just because media attention interprets his comments
as simple...that don't make it so.

I went to sleep last night watching one of my favorite movies...
"We Were Soldiers Once, and Young"...the story of Hal Moore.
The Lt. Col. Harold Moore who lead the Seventh Cav. in the
Na Drang Valley in '65...Gen. Hal Moore I met at Col. David
Hackworth's funeral in Arlington 2005. I've listened to/read their
comments on Vietnam...they apply to Iraq.

I just want clear minds to make decisions on military considerations.
I do not blame media or voters for the stumbling way
we tripped, stripping the military and bureaucrats in Iraq of status...
the way we were caught treating prisoners at Abu Grabe...or the way
we remained in a State of Denial as the occupation went to sh*t.

But, there are GIs trying to impliment this absurdity based on
politics - and they are bleeding, dying - when all they want is a mission
worthy of their service. Hell, blame me, I don't care.

I happened to TV surf through MTV this a.m. as I made coffee at the office at 7:15 a.m. before anyone else got there. There was a U2 + Green Day video playing (which I posted a link to in another thread: "The Saints are Coming") which had the magic of video showing troops recalled from Iraq saving the people of New Orleans from the flood of Katrina. It was inspiring...it was a mission. Let's find a mission for 'em and the courage of civilian leadership that considers them, our national rep and the people of nations we invade, as the causes we fight for.

Because I still believe...when the mission is right...GIs are still
the best on the field...anywhere...anytime.

(BTW: I'm down with the Frenchman)

great video, IH...
here is the link - U2 and Green Day "The Saints Are Coming"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGhTWE98DU

I had to find it elsewhere...when I tried
"you.tube" I got the screen:

"Your employer has decided this website
has nothing to do with public service, and is
therefore unavailable."

But Bono still has it going on...and Green Day
is a modern rock-and-roll band (hard for me to admit).

But, the work was inspirational...I actually teared up a bit.
Watchin' the stealth bombers dropping care packages
into the flood waters...we can dream...one day maybe...maybe...

I feel sure the La. National Guard had a lump in their throats
as they watched the flood of their premier city...wanting to help,
and instead riding up-armored Humvees in Iraq.

I cracked up in the final shot, as the armor drove past the
semi-submerged phone pole with the sign "Not as seen on TV".

alternate location -
http://www.videocodezone.com/videos/u/u2/t..._green_day.html

( we have our ways... )

and yet... another link... heee heee

http://www.chrismilk.com/saints/

(in quicktime... very good quality pix and sound)

(btw - I teared up, too)

When Johnny Came Marching Home (David Rovics)-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk2ycqbYPjs

I'll still stand by my country and the troops regardless of what the politics of the person who put them in the field is.

I heard a good deal of the same criticism when Clinton committed American troops in the Balkans; the only difference then was it was republicans porking the pooch on that occassion.

As far as justifiable I'm satisfied with the reasons given; considering the same reasons justifying it were cited by two different administration, one republican and one democrat.

Porking the pooch?

Poor pooch!

The bar cannot be set higher than when good men are put in harm's way.
The justification for this must be undeniable and absolute. This administration has failed miserably on these principals.
Yes…we have a volunteer force, but they serve at the whim of the president. It is incumbent on him to make sure that he lives up to that contract honorably.

From the point of the “statue” coming down forward they have been working without a plan. As has been discussed, they had a good plan up to that point. When bush stood under the banner on the aircraft carrier, “mission accomplished” he believed the war was all over. They had no plan because they foolishly believed they didn’t need one. They were convinced the Iraqi’s would fall in line and create a democracy because their oh so smart neocon think tanks told them that would be the outcome of Saddams being removed from power. They had no concept of the reality of the region and the multitude of conflicts going back generations had no impact on their decision making process. The increase in the insurgency was as natural an occurrence as water going down hill and you can blame your leaders for being deaf dumb and blind to reality.
If a major military force invaded Texas, they could probably drive their forces all the way to Waco. Then they could stand up and say they have won. What would happen then? I’ll bet you would see a strong insurgency begin, one that in time would win out over the strong military force. The VC over the American military, the Mexicans over the Spanish, The Afghans over the Soviets, it’s an old scenario that almost always ends the same way.
Rummy, cheney, bush and their ilk all thought they knew better, now we know they were far short sighted. They didn’t know history and they understood the region even less. We do not blame bush for the insurgency, we blame him for not seeing the inevitable, for which there is no excuse. At last count, 2885 Americans dead, over 20,000 wounded, over 10,000 of whom will not return to duty and this is the direct fault of this administration.
The reasoning for the war in Dec 1941 and the reasoning for going into Iraq are as different as night and day. We went into Iraq to find and destroy their WMD, many of us had doubts about the WMD at the time. Have you seen any nuclear weapons in Iraq? Once that didn’t pan out, the decider said we were there to convert them to liberals with democracy. It could happen, but not in our lifetimes. You recall December 7th 1941, Japan had an agreement with Hitler, Hitler was taking aim at us, we were confronted with two powerful nation states with extreme resources, how does that compare to Saddam and the resources of Iraq? Saddam had nothing to do our being hit on 9-11, and keep in mind that when this Iraq fiasco is done, we still have to confront those who did hit us on 9-11.

Flashback to May, 2003 - - -

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

Saw it myself.

We were seeing the TRUTH, but few of us realized it because it followed a different path than what we were seeing on TV, had been told, or thought for ourselves.

What was accomplished by the Iraq invasion?

1. To switch Iraq's Oil sales back from Euros to dollars.

2. To "capture" but not pump Iraq's oil reserves, for they are now de facto backing for the dollar.

3. To run up the cost of oil by creating chaos in Iraq, allowing "insurgents" to blow up pipelines, thus taking 7% of the world's oil off the market.

4. To build 14 "enduring bases" to insure permanent control of that oil.

5. To print extra US dollars needed by the world to buy the higher priced oil, thus allowing the US to continue consuming goods and re-financing real estate in this ponzi scheme that makes everybody happy.

Of course we will leave "advisors behind.

In those bases.

After they are finished.

In the meantime, all we can do is stay in the Green Zone, try to delay the inevitable tribal war kept in check only by a brutal dictator now on trial.


"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

True. If you understand what the "mission" was.

Vaughn, I'd be willing to bet the forces currently arrayed against the United States would make the power which Berlin and Tokyo possessed in WW2 look puny. Give the radical Islamist a bit more time and they'll show us what real hurt is.

They had a plan going when the combat mission was stated accomplished aboard that aircraft carrier. The Corps of Engineers was doing a bang up job rebuilding Iraq and not much of an insurgency existed for well over a year following the "Mission Accomplished" statement. Schools were being built, infrastructure being restored, hospitals and clinics rebuilt and restored, pretty much what was need to make Iraq a success was happening.

But unfortunately the forces who wanted the United States out of Iraq had a plan too. Iran wanted the United States to leave Iraq. The Baathist, both the domestic Iraqi version as well as the Syrian version, wanted the United States out of Iraq. Al Qaeda wanted the United States out of Iraq.

Each group had a self serving reason why they wanted the United States to fail in Iraq. Iran wants to revolutionize the world and establish fundamental Islamic regimes like it's own. The Baathist just wanted things back like it was before Saddam was kicked out. Al Qaeda wanted to prove to the Muslim world that the United States is a paper tiger and can be attacked at al Qaeda's will.

Now, you pick which one of those goals isn't bad for the United States and justify making Bush look bad was a good trade off for giving all three of those groups exactly what they wanted. The anti-war movement has allied it's self with and aided groups desiring to do the United States harm in that the same goals are a common objective. I can find no common ground with anyone who harms the United States.

Well that's a term we used to use when the puzzle palace would have us doing something we really didn't want to do. Fundamentally it boils down to screwing it up so bad no one can ever make any sense out of the exercise.

"porkin'" what a great term for the middle east sitrep

on the serious side...what if Lebanon goes to guns with Hezzbolah
and invites us in to help (then leave after calm restored)?

hummmmmm

Lebanon leaves a foul taste in some peoples mouths, some might say we are already stretched thin. I ask what interest is it to us? Have we become the worlds cops? I don’t remember signing on to a program where we involve ourselves in all the worlds conflicts. Isn’t that a function of the UN, why not prop it up to deal with such issues.
Why don’t we rid ourselves from middle east oil dependency, leave the region entirely and let the people in the region figure it out for themselves. Oh yeah, some will say we are targets, referring to terrorist. I say if we were to remove all our military from the middle east, quit buying oil from them, we will no longer be targets.
The question has been asked many times; If all the world oil reserves were under the US, what would our attitude be towards this backwards region?
Israel is a mistake we all took part in back in 48. Israel is grown up now, they have a fine military, including an arsenal of nukes. They should be our weapons customer not our step-child.

I agree with everthing you've stated here, vf...but I do believe that we would still be targets to some degree.

Because of the evolution in our culture, people question authority more than they did in WWII. In addition, the conduct and motivations of our leaders in getting us involved in conflicts since WWII most often has been deceitful and, in my view, at times criminal. Our soldiers may deserve our respect, but our leaders don't deserve our trust.

I agree with this also. However, I wish there was a much smaller weapons "market" in the world, including in Israel.

There is a movement in the U N to control the intl sales of weapons.

I give it a very small chance.

Too much $$$ in weapons.

BTW, 11th largest mfr is Carlyle Group.

Bin Laden wanted us to invade Iraq. Bush did just what our greatest enemy wanted us to do. Who has harmed the United States? Those who wish to keep her strong and go after those who attacked us, or those who divert us and do our enemy's bidding?

407,300 American military casualties, 11,200 American civilian casualties in WW2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
24,456,700, total military casualties, 32,326,700, total civilian casualties, yes gunny these numbers are in the millions, and you say the enemy at the time would be “puny” by comparison to the “ragheads” who are taking aim at us today? Germany was flying jets, shooting rockets and was not far from having the A-bomb with delivery systems, and you say they were “puny” by comparison. Japan lost the war at the battle of Midway, yet the kept killing Americans by the “thousands” for another three years. Your analogy does a great disservice to the people of this great nation who on every level of our society sacrificed to insure we were victorious. If casualties by the millions is not putting the “real hurt” on people then we don’t know what “hurt” is? Tell that to the few remaining WW2 veterans and their families.

Bush and his ilk failed to see the inevitable; no excuse will change that fact. Show me where all the anti-war movements are aiding the enemy? I am part of the anti-war movement, are you saying that I am aligned with the anti-American groups who “do” want to harm our nation? Just what aid are you saying I and others who are anti-war are providing to our nations foes? Please explain the “common objective” and “same goals” referred to? Are you confused about this so called alignment of anti-war supporters? Do you believe we are the same as the ideologists who “hate” our existence? You must have believed bush when he said we are either with him or against him, not even “fox” news is touting this line of crap any more. I know of no one who hopes to see us fail at anything, that’s just more right wing propaganda being perpetrated on the good citizens of our beloved nation.

I whole heartedly agree. I have the Roddenberry view, eventually we will grow out of the need to war with fellow earth residents. Looks like it might take a while though.

Vaughn, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) report for September of 2002 which detailed what the intelligence community believed we (the military) would be facing in a conflict with Iraq was recently declassified. I had a friend send me a hard copy which I just received yesterday. Before you start thinking Bush manipulated what the DIA estimate said I'll tell you politics don't make up any of the equation when it comes down to making our military ready for facing any adversary in this world. I had access to the classified version up through when I retired and the last estimate I read in 1999 was in complete agreement with the declassified one I just read for September of 2002.

After reading the September 2002 DIA estimate what I will say about the anti war movement is this. A great fraud has been perpetrated upon the citizens of the United States. I heard it touted long and loud by the anti war movement that Bush lied to get us involved in a war against Iraq; that he manipulated the intelligence information to get us into a war. The people espousing this position are one of two categories; either woefully misinformed or are the lowest scoundrels ever to utter a sound.

Now, people outside the military who have an appropriate security clearance and government would probably be of the former category, the woefully misinformed. There would be no reason for me to believe these people would have access to this formerly classified document. Now, for the other category, (the lowest scoundrels to ever utter a sound) any member of congress can obtain what was in the September 2002 DIA estimate. Now think back about which of our members of congress used the errors made in this estimate who are the lowest scoundrels who ever uttered a sound.

I will agree, the intelligence was wrong but to cast the war against Iraq as a personal vendetta or an oil grab adventure is a vile lie.

Now another part of the war I do not agree with is the letting of fat contracts. I take great exception to the commisary services for the Marine Corps in Iraq being granted to a French company as a plum to entice the French into the coalition of the willing. I've heard the chow these Frenchmen cook for the Marines described as swill. Our troops deserve better.

Now, if you want to read a condensed version the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) issued in October of 2002 declassified in 2003 will not dispute anything in the DIA estimate. http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html



I am adding this on edit. After reading the September 2002 DIA estimate I am so disgusted with some of the people on this forum I am taking a little time off to think about things. I had believed for a long time the estimates I remembered from the late 1990s detailing what the military would face from a conflict with Iraq would not have changed much. I read what the latest estimate of capabilities available to our military prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Chilling is the only word that comes to mind. Our troops which invaded Iraq have got to be the most heroic people on the face of the earth going up against what they believed those people had.

Marine - Thank you for posting the 2002 NIE. While I haven't kept track of the precise chronology of events, what strikes me as odd is the degree to which representatives of the DIA, CIA, DOD, David Kay, the IAEA inspectors, Hans Blix et al. subsequently discredited those estimates in Congressional hearings that were televised. So the ordinary Joe Blow listening to this testimony on CSpan had to wonder just what on earth was going on here. When elected representatives and government officials walk away from the very basis they used to justify a Congressional Resolution authorizing a preemptive war, its unfair to accuse the ordinary guy in the street of aiding and abetting the enemy, especially if he just happens to have a son in Iraq. David Kay did say "We" got it wrong - meaning "we" were seriously misinformed.

Lets put aside anti antiwar rhetoric for the moment. Where is the accountability here? The do nothing Congress shirked its oversight responsibilities and subsequently tabled its investigations. Retired military officers, generals, and a former Secretary of State and member of the Joint Chiefs publically denounced the intelligence. Tenet, Franks, and Bremer were awarded the highest medals in the land. Rumsfeld was fired, and Steve Carbone is leaving at the end of the month. I think a fair number of Americans exercised their right to vote in the midterm elections as a means of instilling some accountability in the process,. And I can assure you, were you to ask them, that they didn't view their exercising their right to vote as a means of giving comfort and aiding the enemy. People can be irked because there has been no accountability in the system.

Just as heads should have rolled over the gross malfeasance involved with 9-11, the same can be said with regard to the intelligence gathering operations that led up to the Iraq invasion. Or as Shakespeare intoned, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Marine, I hope you come to grips with whatever is bothering you and return with a fresh perspective.

But consider you what are saying here. You now admit the intelligence was wrong, yet you find it difficult to believe that anyone outside the military could actually tell that there was something wrong with it.

Isn't there a third category of people? A category you don't even believe exists - people who suspected the intelligence was wrong but were frustrated by Bush's failure to listen to them.

I want to know how Al Qaeda or Iraq or any combination there of, can muster up the potential to kill 56.8 million people in one conflict? 32.3 million of which would be civilians. When we nuked Japan, they lost what, between one and two hundred thousand. You must have this mindset many have, thinking that one home made nuke can kill everyone in Texas with one shot. Thats not possible,still that would fall short of what your saying wouldn’t it. I ask you, if Al Qaeda did come up with a nuke, and they figured out a way to deliver it here, what would be the “worst case scenario?”
Let us hear an explanation how the Iraq, Al Qaeda threat can possibly do more damage than what the free world experienced in WW2? Even if the intel was right, or underestimated, I don’t see anyone taking out that many people, short of a nuclear exchange with Russia. Maybe your thinking Iraq and Al Qaeda are better armed than the Soviet Pact, laughable as that is, throw in Iran and Pakistan and there still aren’t weapons enough to do the damage your saying is possible, and that’s if they could figure out how to deliver these WMD.
I would like to add that if bush wasn’t lying, then he was just plain stupid. To say we are either woefully misinformed or we are the lowest scoundrels ever sounds like you not only drank the cool-aid, you’ve lost your grip on reality, I am one or the other, you pick. One doesn’t need a security clearance to know that having the potential to create more damage than the accumulated damage of WW2 does not exist out side the top 5 nuclear nations, to say so is crazy. Not even China can muster that kind of an offensive, because they lack delivery systems.
If you really believe this nonsense, I feel for you gunny, having that kind of paranoia is unhealthy and sad. It’s good your taking a break, a little R&R away from thinking it’s doomsday will be good for the soul.

There is a valid concern that the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands, meaning those who haven't signed and agreed to abide by the nonproliferation treaties, are loose cannons. Marine is correct on this point, and its not a matter of paranoia. One cannot assume that the deterence that has been observed by the five super powers, would be similarly observed by those who randomly call for jihad, which is why the current nuclear race in the Middle East is of such great concern. Their interest in obtaining nuclear weapons is not only to counterbalance the Israeli nuclear arsenal, but to use them elsewhere.

The Genie being out of the Bottle, we can either track down and secure all of this material or we can live in the Police States generated by universal fear of our own Frankenstein monster. One thing is for sure, we can't bomb our way out of this.

It's more like fear-mongering because Marine acts like he is more worried about a nuclear attack on New York than most New Yorkers. Does he think that New Yorkers are more concerned about Texas twisters than he is?

[quote=Marine,Dec 1 2006, 09:00 PM]
Vaughn, I'd be willing to bet the forces currently arrayed against the United States would make the power which Berlin and Tokyo possessed in WW2 look puny. Give the radical Islamist a bit more time and they'll show us what real hurt is.

Puny is the term used here.
IMHO there is no compassion, between the powers faced in WW2 and the threat of these bad guys today. People are grossly over estimating the ability of the bad guys if they think for a moment they have the potential to bring about the death and destruction on the level of the WW2 axis.
The facts are out there, the largest of all nuke weapons belong to the Russians, at approx 45 megaton, our largest are not that big. The total destructive power of 45 megatons would be a fraction of the numbers posted earlier. I don’t have the time right now to find and post the facts, but I’ll be back tomorrow to do just that. A 45 megaton nuke set off in downtown Dallas, other than fallout, will not have a major impact on Waco. Somehow folks think these weapons effect a larger area, it’s just not true, fallout will effect a larger area, not the initial blast, and then the fallout will be relative to the wind and weather. It would take a quantity of these larger nukes to bring about the casualties referred to previously.
“Puny”
Lets prey we never see this kind of destruction, at the same time lets not fall for the propaganda that the threat is worse now than ever.

I agree with the proliferation problem, a small nuke in an American city is something I prey we never see. What I’m saying is that we need to keep this in perspective, to elevate the threat of potential casualties to the level of the WW2 axis is to grossly over estimate our foes abilities and creates un-necessary fear. Many of us here at CGCS grew up being told by our teachers to hide under our desks in the event of nuclear attack, our foe at that time had the weapons to justify such insanity, Cuba’s Russian nukes were in the 200 kiloton range. Our foes today just don’t posses the ability to create such weapons, much less in the megaton variety. I argue that we need to keep the real threat in perspective and that we need not overstate their potential.

I think also the logic of Mutually Assurred Destruction works as well with Muslims as with the Soviets.

Islamic radical leaders are not suicidal, they send other people to die. Israel has enough nukes and the delivery systems to hit every capital from Morocco to Pakistan, plus Mecca. The US has enough to permanently remove every Islamic nation from the planet.

Bin Laden doesn't want to meet Allah as the man who destroyed Islamic Civilization.

Besides they may start to run out of 72 Virgins each. Rationing in heaven? Osama may wind up as Osama non-Grata.

I flat out disagree. I do not believe the Islamic radical leaders support the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Russians weren't known for their 'suicide' bombers. The Japanese were. And that is one of the reasons that one of the conditions of peace and surrender after WWII with Japan was the proviso that they would not rebuild their military capability.

ISLAM AND VIOLENCE - DANIEL ALLOTT (WASHINGTON TIMES, DECEMBER 4): Sadly, with so many in the Islamic world agreeing that Westerners must "convert or die," all signs point to more violence ahead.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...03-100623-9818r

I think the radicals like Osama are like the radicals in this country...
they want to see the End Times in their lifetime to varify their
twisted faith...it's the moderates who hold the key.

Jesus, and to some extent Mohammed wanted peace and justice.
That's the common ground I pray for.

I wouldn't mind a little scrimish with Hezzbolah...sorry...but they deserve it,
they think they are too tough and they are f*ckin' with Lebanese peace...
I had a Lebanese friend in basic training...his is still my view on Cedarville.

They weren't so willing to commit suicide after two atom bombs.

I don't know the answer to this, but I don't think there are as many Osamas as we think, at least not yet.

I do know if you keep attacking even the most moderate human being, he will turn into a violent radical. If we keep attacking them, they will rise against us. And if they attack us, we will rise against them.

To a large degree I have to agree. It should be pointed out that many of our leading politicians have spoken to the lack of accountability. Many fear that x-soviet block nations have weapon stock piles and no accountability, a disastrous combination. The ability to make WMD is far removed from the capacity to steal them, many fear the latter more than the possibility of an enemy finding the means to manufacture such WMD.
Paranoia is also a tool used against a free people. Hyperbolic fear is being used by both, politicians and enemies who wish to control a free people who otherwise can not be manipulated. Overstating the reality is as dangerous as any weapon, as seen in the statement by “newt” this past week. When we see things like Habeas Corpus, the 1st Amendment, a free internet and more being discussed as part of the problem, the end game can be crippling for our democracy. Bomb an American city and we sadly lose the good people of that city, yet we will continue to be Americans. Use paranoia in place of said weapons and we can lose our democracy as we’ve known it.
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear its self” Is it not our job as citizens to understand the difference and not allow the BS to overwhelm the facts?

If you are not a nation state, the odds of creating a nuke weapon are extreme at best. Even if you are a nation state, the factors working against you are tremendous. It would behoove us to have a better understanding of these complexities. Fortunately wikipedia has a fairly thorough section on A and H bombs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bomb,
Over time I have learned that many Americans have an obscure idea of what all this means. My mom, an 80 year old liberal, believed that one nuclear detonation in Albuquerque would wipe out all of central New Mexico. So we did a little research and discovered that just isn’t the case. The impact of the largest of nuke weapons still have their limitations. The largest being Russian 50 megaton, almost impossible to deliver, still would impact only a portion of this area. IMHO we should fear bio and chemical weapons more than the potential nukes. As nasty as they are, they also have their limitations. To my limited knowledge there are very few laboratories capable of producing such weapons; Russia and America are the leaders in these fields. Very few others have such capabilities and resources, and let’s hope our spies know about them all. If they don’t they should.
My point here is to understand the worst case scenario and to discuss what our reaction should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_weapons,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons,

I don't really think it's hyperbolic fear at work Vaughn. Islamic extremist have tried to become nuclear for a while now.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Soviets tactical nuclear weapons. They had one roughly equivalent to the weapon used at Hiroshima componentized to be delivered by a three man team in backpacks. The Israelis intercepted one third of one of these tactical weapons which was in the possession of a Palestinian extremist in 1996.

And this was one of the older tactical nuclear weapons in the Soviets arsenal. Of the more sophisticated ones they are small and in some cases light enough for two people to carry, they are capable of delivering a charge up to 60 times more powerful than the atom bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The United States is working diligently with States of the old Soviet empire to account for these weapons. At last estimate there are about 3,500 of these nightmares in existence.

You want to read something really chilling?
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/package...adow/061802.htm