sincere question about national security vs. terrorism

[steve2470]

Let's say we withdraw completely, over time in a responsible orderly way, from Iraq and Afghanistan. All the troops are sent to the US mainland to defend us from any possible terrorist attacks. Yes, it's a completely defensive strategy.

What's wrong with that strategy ? I'm no military expert or terrorism expert, but I'm definitely not sold on the "stop them over there before they get here" strategy. Thanks for your time and input. I"m going to sit back, read the responses and be educated.

[Turbineguy]

1. National security for fun and profit.

[Gman]

2. We know "fight them there or fight them here" is a lie

We know the whole thing is a farce. It woulnd' make a bit of difference if the troops were here. In fact, we could just send 'em all home and do it the proper way through law enforcement. And law enforcement doesn't consume near the tax dollars the military does.

[Warpy]

3. Well, the military has proved largely useless against terorism

Bin Laden's physical operation was wiped out in the first few weeks of the Afghan war nearly nine years ago, yet the organization has still been able to mount attacks around the world since then.

The only things that will slow them down are meticulous police work and international cooperation combined with vigilant populations and a degree of luck. Nothing will stop twisted men hell bent on killing themselves and taking a chunk of us with them but we can slow them down considerably.

Retreating back within our borders militarily while concentrating on diplomacy is not only the prudent strategy, it might be the only strategy which will save us long term, as we're in much greater danger from financial collapse due to military overspending in the absence of industrial production than we are from gangs of terrorists planting bombs here and there.

Every empire, whether or conquered lands or simple defense of trade routes, has collapsed from within when its expenses exceeded its production. Ours is no different and we're on the edge of that collapse right now. Limiting our military to a defensive one and ceding our empire gracefully will save us as a country. Continuing down the destructive road of empire will doom us.

[msongs]

6. yes but it has proven highly effective at promoting terrorism nt

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Invading Iraq was certainly NEVER about some bullshit war on terror.

So we can just get rid of that part of the equation. Next stop Afghanistan - this war was sold as an attack on the two organizations identified as directly responsible for the second WTC bombing, and yet there was no serious effort to actual destroy al qaeda and we are now in behind the scenes negotiations with the Taliban. So it appears that both of these wars are something else, and what they appear to be most obviously is wars of conquest and occupation.

[steve2470]

5. agreed, I want info to refute the RW/MIC framing, thanks nt

[Warren Stupidity]

7. re RW framing: where in the world is OBL?

We are not remotely interested in capturing him.

[steve2470]

9. again the truth is spoken ! nt

[Ohio Joe]

8. Terrorism is not a military matter

It is a police/FBI matter.

[steve2470]

10. a Marine told me one time to justify this, the suitcase nuke thing..

It's been almost 9 years since 9/11, no nuclear explosions yet. *shakes head*

[Warren Stupidity]

12. there are no suitcase nukes.

Both the US and Russia played around with miniature devices and abandoned their programs. The smallest nuke artillery shells are not really very small. And al qaeda doesn't have any, probably because the Saudis have been told in no uncertain terms that mecca will go.

[steve2470]

13. ty again :) nt

[old mark]

11. The terrorist tactic that scares me is simple - smuggle a large bomb, even a stolen

nuclear device from the cold war (there are a lot of them out there) say in a cargo container on a ship and detonate it in NYC or Washington or somewhere else they consider significant...There were a lot of concerns about this after 9/11 and there was a lot of noise and publicity about how we have increased our security, but most of that has been just show business...The bomb threat is still quite feasable, and there is not much we can do for anyone in the terrible event it should actually be done. It would be an overwhelming and paralyzing catastrophe and I have NO doubt that there are people attempting to got it done. We need to put forth the effort to secure our country while getting back our rights that were taken by the Patriot Act.

mark

[Warren Stupidity]

14. "there are a lot of them out there""

If there are so many stolen nuclear devices out there, then like the mythical space aliens who are also claimed to be quite abundant here, then where are they?

Huh?

[Warpy]

15. Couple of things wrong with that

First, those "suitcase" nukes might have been small in size, but there is no way they could be put into the baggage compartment of a jetliner. They require forklifts to shift them, those suckers are heavy.

While they might have been brought in by container ship, it is unlikely the triggers will still work after all these years. Nuclear weapons need fairly frequent maintenance if you want them to work when the time comes and I sincerely doubt your average terrorist is up to the job, not even the e-school dropouts.

Since the same effect can be accomplished by bathtub chemistry and a lot of smaller conventionally assembled bombs, it seems like a waste of time and effort to concentrate on a big, scary nuke. Their resources are still limited and they have to allocate them just like everybody else.

Besides, why bother to do it when you can scare the hell out of the target population just by talking about it?

[lib2DaBone]

16. It's not the terrorists in the mideast who scare me...

Cheney implicated in Rogue Nuke Incident

Between August 24 and September 6, 2007, the U.S. Air Force's nuclear chain-of-command was severely compromised by a rival chain established out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office and extending through the offices of the Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, the Air Force's Cyber-Warfare element, and into the strategic bombing commands located at Minot and Barksdale Air Force Bases. In the weeks before and after this time period, there is ample evidence to suggest that the security of nuclear weapons, particularly at Minot, was placed in severe jeopardy by the rival chain-of-command.
------------------------------------------------------

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10776



According to the Air Force report, some Air Force personnel mounted the warheads on the missiles (which are obsolete and slated for destruction), and another ground crew, allegedly not aware that the missiles were armed with nukes, moved them out and mounted them on a launch pylon on the B-52's wing for a flight to Barksdale and eventual dismantling. Only on the ground at Barksdale did ground crew personnel spot the nukes according to the report. (Six other missiles with dummy warheads were mounted on a pylon on the other wing of the plane.)

The problem with this explanation for the first reported case of nukes being removed from a weapons bunker without authorization in 50 years of nuclear weapons, is that those warheads, and all nuclear warheads in the US stockpile, are supposedly protected against unauthorized transport or removal from bunkers by electronic antitheft systems--automated alarms similar to those used by department stores to prevent theft, and even anti-motion sensors that go off if a weapon is touched or approached without authorization.

[Time for change]

17. The best way to combat terrorism

would be to cease our imperial wars. That would erase the major motivation for anti-American terrorism. It would also provide us with hundreds of billions of dollars that we could put to much better use, putting people to work, erasing the excuse for privatizing Social Security, and providing health care or at least health insurance to all Americans, like all the other industrialized nations of the world do.