I remember as a kid being taught to "Duck and cover" in the center hallway of the local elementary school.
I remember being told that if I were to see a mushroom cloud in the distance that my best chance of survival was to jump in a ditch and cover my head.
That was about thirty five years ago.
We all know now that that was an effort on the part of our elected leaders to make us all feel a little more secure, when in fact, there was not a thing we could have done to protect ourselves...We would have all been a bunch of fried ducks if the soviets had of launched an attack on us.
The only thing that made the soviet threat go away was to beat them.
Sure, it was not on a battlefield, but we beat them non-the-less. Can anyone here that is old enough not remember breathing a sigh of relief when the soviet union collapsed?
The point of this thread is not the demise of the soviet union, nor is it the lack of defense we had against an attack BY the soviet union.
The point of this thread is the SIMILARITIES that the war on terrorism has with the "Cold war".
I think it was somewhere during the state of the union speach that it all came together.,, Or maybe it was the liberal response to it...When that gumbie Pelosie (sp) started talking about inspecting 100% of shipping containers coming into the country that it hit me.
There is absolutely no way to be 100% certain about making us safe against anything. (I already knew this, but for whatever reason, it all came together).
The only defense the united states has against another event like sept.11 is to kill or capture all the bad guys BEFORE they do it again. Like I said, I already knew this, but I did'nt realize how many folks did'nt, and I did'nt put this "Homeland security" thing into perspective untill then.
A question for all the liberals out there...I know...You hate that "liberal" title...You're "Independant thinkers"...
Should America spend billions of dollars towards "First responders" that won't do anygood anyway in a nuclear, biological or chemical attack...Or spend billions killing the bad guys so the folks who live here won't have to live in constant worry.
Is there any chance that we can just take our first responders and turn the middle east into one huge sheet of glass, that would take care of 99% of our problems. No, didn't think so.
This is really a double edged sword. On one hand I believe that we are better off having our miltary on the offensive and rooting these terrorist bastards out and doing whatever the military does with them. On the other hand, I feel these actions help fill the ranks of the terrorists in the first place.
The war on terrorism is going to last until one side is no longer standing, that is for sure, and it sure as hell isn't going to the the US of A
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
The USA cannot be brought down by a car full of explosives, a woman with dynomite strap to her tummy, an airplaine crash, or a dirty bomb for that matter. It's like a 3rd grader trying to play king of the hill with a pro footabll team. A fleet load of nuclear weapons would even really only be a scratch on us.
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
Au-Contrair-Mon-a-me, The economical damage would be devastating. In a population of three hundred and sixty million, I agree, the loss of life would be minimal...Just like the loss of life (In a purely mathamatical sense) of september 11th.
But the economical damage would be beyond mere mathamatics.
Yep, there would be a huge economical price for some type of terrorist act (nuclear anyway), but this country would shake it right off, I have zero doubts about that. We would rebuild, create many jobs in the process and come out all the better. I'm sure our elected officials would figure out some great scheme to skim of off the top too
You know about a nuclear attack, I was really surprised watching some show on TLC about them and blast radiuses and fallout area and stuff like that. It wasn't really as much as I always thought it would be. Don't get me wrong, they are wicked nasty, but not like I was lead to believe when I was a kid.
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
nor is it the lack of defense we had against an attack BY the soviet union.
But we did beat them in many ways, including in battle(indrectly).
But things where simpleier then or so it seems too, best defense was
you try to kill me i will kill you- a stand off.( with nuks)
Now we have no easy targets to see- but many diffent enemys- who some dont mind at all being killed- to kill you. Human bombs& crazy crap.
The 50,s early 60,s i liked better.
Red commieS etc [:@] they still got im& i bet are intertwined with all the various terriosts& countrys that support them.
Before we become "too smug" in our invinsibility......a review of the Roman Empire might be in order.
We have within our capabilities, the ability to take the war to the terrorists.....and fight them in their homes....instead of ours. And I believe that to be much preferable. (But many Americans still don't recognize that there is a faction of the Muslim world bent....on our total destruction. They have declared a "holy war".......just because we don't recognize it....doesn't make it any less true!) The real question that needs answered.....Is do we have the will?
I am not sure in the long run which thought pattern is worse for us. Those that believe in pacifism....that the threat is overplayed....and we should spend less on defense. Or those that believe we are so superior militarily....that we have nothing to fear.....and therefore we limit our response. Both beliefs are extremely dangerous to our long term security.
I'll bet the "Romans weren't concerned about the barbarians.....either!"
__________________
You can live life, or simply grow old!
"Duck and cover" or "Spend and Kill"
lol- ya cant / shouldnt underestamate the unknowens.
