The Adventures of Roberta X: Because You Don't Have Nightmares Enough

Monday, January 16, 2017

Because You Don't Have Nightmares Enough

Here's a golden oldie from 2003, in which the Brookings Institute hypothetically nukes D.C. on Inauguration Day and then examines the consequences and alternatives. It makes for chilling reading.

14 comments:

Countglockula said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; January 16, 2017 at 12:04 PM
Countglockula said...: I've often wondered if the various authors and publishers of these demonic scenarios haven't actually given the idea to the musloids and others of their ilk.

'Gee, I never would have thought of that Abdul, call the team together'.

Raz; January 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM
azmountaintroll said...: Maybe there's a reason other than sheer spite why so many Democrats are staying clear of DC on Friday.; January 16, 2017 at 1:16 PM
Paul said...: Well, we shall see. There are many scenario's that are best frightening when considered. I wonder from time to time if the leadership of the Jihad actually nixes these kinds of attacks. They must surely be aware if the great Satan is slain they will have a harder time keeping their own populations in check.; January 16, 2017 at 3:00 PM
Tam said...: The last time a mass casualty attack happened on US soil, we toppled two governments (one for harboring the perpetrator and one...well, more or less just because they were standing there looking kinda terrorist-y) hounded the mastermind into hermit-like seclusion, and eventually shot him down like a dog in his bedroom in front of his family. It doesn't seem like a real high-reward thing to do.

A nuke or even a dirty bomb in DC at the inauguration? I give fifty-fifty odds that cities would burn in retaliation and we'd worry later about assuaging our national guilt for incinerating women and children in their sleep.; January 16, 2017 at 3:47 PM
Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...: What Tamara said.; January 16, 2017 at 7:10 PM
pigpen51 said...: I thought that 17 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia, but I might be wrong. So of course, we take out Iraq and Afghanistan. Makes perfect sense. But I agree, it is a no win plan to try and hit the U.S. with anything like the mass attack we had on 9-11. Everyone that was an adult back then will remember how it pulled our country together like nothing else did. Oh, crap. False flag event, conspiracy theorists?; January 16, 2017 at 8:37 PM
rickn8or said...: Except for the loss of the museums and other historic artifacts, I'd file such an event under "Civic Improvements."; January 17, 2017 at 1:59 AM
Roberta X said...: Pigpen52: a false flag attack on the Inauguration? Cui bono, the governors of the fifty states?; January 17, 2017 at 6:10 AM
fillyjonk said...: It's enough to make me hope my relative who works in DC gets to stay home that day (In other words: it's not just loss of museums that would upset me)

Also, I would very slightly fear the possibility of some kind of coup situation that would lead to something nearly everyone would regret. This is the US, we get people out of office by voting them out (or, I suppose, impeaching them, though that's never shoehorned anyone out in the highest level).; January 17, 2017 at 7:01 AM
Roberta X said...: Again: Who benefits from a decapitating strike on D.C.? It takes out command, control and the diplomatic corps, but leaves the military intact. Say I'm Evil Senator J. P. Coupworthy, or the high and mighty mullah of the Faith of Burning All Unbelievers: what do I get out of it, other than incoming fire and plenty of it?

No. It's unsound to the point that even addled, sheep-buggering cave-dwellers can see it. ...I hope.; January 17, 2017 at 8:07 AM
Comrade Misfit said...: A nuclear or dirty-bomb attack would require a nuclear response. I'd put the chances of somebody getting nuked in the middle 80 percentile range.

Strategic deterrence relies on "if you nuke us, we will nuke you." If a nuclear response is not forthcoming, it calls into question the validity of the nuclear triad.; January 17, 2017 at 10:23 AM
Roberta X said...: "...[W]ould require a nuclear response." Really? Require? And if it's ISIS, or the Daughters of the SLA, some nut-cult from the backwoods of Idaho or a deranged billionaire with a mad crush on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, where exactly is the U.S. gonna plant that big ol' thermonuclear kiss -- and what happens when Russia or China (I know they claim they don't have much nuclear capability, but...) reacts to it?

I think that would be exactly the wrong response; USAF can drop bunker-busters all day, even on southern Indiana,* but even one Official Nuke is likely to be too many.
______________________
* The U. S. Air Force does bomb Indiana and has been for some time, though IIRC, not with very big stuff.; January 18, 2017 at 7:29 AM
Tam said...: "I thought that 17 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia, but I might be wrong."

"...but I might be wrong..."

Aren't you just too precious by half? Too bad you're not near clever enough to realize how dumb you sound to actual smart people. Go choke yourself.; January 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM