“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas


Friday, September 28, 2007

Huntsvegas....leading the way

I'm sure elitist liberals all over the country are getting a chuckle from this story while they sip their $9 Starbucks double, half/half, de-caff lattes this morning, but they were the same people who, during the Clinton years, were chuckling at the idea that Al-Qaeda might successfully fly airplanes into national landmarks...

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - In an age of al-Qaida, sleeper cells and the threat of nuclear terrorism, Huntsville is dusting off its Cold War manual to create the nation's most ambitious fallout-shelter plan, featuring an abandoned mine big enough for 20,000 people to take cover underground.
Others would hunker down in college dorms, churches, libraries and research halls that planners hope will bring the community's shelter capacity to 300,000, or space for every man, woman and child in Huntsville and the surrounding county.
Emergency planners in Huntsville - an out-of-the-way city best known as the home of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center - say the idea makes sense because radioactive fallout could be scattered for hundreds of miles if terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb.


I don't think this is a bad idea. I'm not sure pouring millions of tax dollars into new construction is money well-spent but if they can make existing shelters operational, why not? We know the terrorists will eventually get a nuclear weapon of some sort. It's not a matter of if, but of when. The guy is right too, Huntsville might not be the target but fallout will involve thousands of downwind square miles.

15 comments:

Kevin said...

Can we please obliterate the Middle East with nuclear missiles? I mean it solves two problems for us:
1. It gets rid of our nuclear missiles, so people stop complaining about the U.S. having them.
2. We chop the head off of all the terrorist cells located throughout the world.

I know its kind of radical and we will destroy a lot of ancient history and kill many innocent civilians, but we've done it before, and look at Japan now. They are a thriving country that we depend on for many products.

Capt. America said...

A brilliant idea.

Israel - as I guess you don't wanna nuke (I mean, it's just arab country they're occupying, right?) - could just put up a big umbrella.

And hey, why not nuke ourselves while we're at it - so we can start building your dream society from scratch!

(You're trying a little too hard to get Coulter's attention, dude)

Kevin said...

It was just a modest proposal dude. (Google Jonathan Swift if you don't understand what I mean by this.)

I don't actually think we should obliterate the Middle East, but can you think of a better, more practical solution.

Take this hypothetical question:

Which situation would you rather have?
a) They detonate a nuclear weapon on our soil, and in turn we fight back with our own nuclear weapons(think 9/11 on a MUCH larger scale), or
b) We take action into our hands first and bomb them.

I think option b sounds better. If you think a is better please explain your reasoning.

Capt. America said...

I'm familiar with the modest proposal, thank you. Based on your history of comments on TRR, I don't believe I would have mistaken you for Mr. Swift, though.

Take this hypothetical question:

What if there were a few more alternatives than your a and b?

PS: Thank you for pointing out that a nuclear attack would be more dramatic than 9/11.

David said...

Please, reveal the alternatives.
thanks.

Anonymous said...

the main alternative (C) happens to be the one which is the most likely...the US pre-emptively strikes Iran's nuclear assets with conventional bombs, not nukes.

option (D) is a naval blockade shutting Iran off from 40% of her petroleum. this is probably the least effective because Syria and other "friendly" arab states would circumvent it.

option (I) is the Israel option. We sit back and let Israel take out Iran's weapons, which they certainly will if we don't get there first. There are huge long-term problems with this option which is why it is the least likely to occur.

George said...

Anonymous

I disagree that the Israel option is least likely. If they feel threathen enough, they will go for it. The whole histrory of Israel shows they won't let possible long-term effect stand in the way.

Anonymous said...

george, I agree in principle, however; if Israel attacks the most militarily powerful Arab state(Iran), it will initiate an all out regional war. ne of which we do not wish to be a part. I think the U.S. will pull out all the stops to prevent this.

Kevin said...

So is everyone in agreement that Military action on Middle Eastern States, specifically Iran, and with exception to Israel, is the best course of action?

Anonymous said...

barring a voluntary cessation of nuclear weapons development, the short answer for me is yes.

George said...

Anonymous. I think we speak the same language, but
I doubt an Israeli attack would result in a regional war. Who would attack who (except the few obvious toy-rockets from Hamas)?

If the day comes that Israel sees the Iranian threat as real (meaning really real), I'm pretty sure they'll ignore even the US. It won't be the first time.

Capt. America said...

Kevin

When we present the same solid evidence as we did for the existence of Saddam's WMD (who, as we must remember had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11!) - I'm in.

Anonymous said...

@george,

i think Iran's arsenal is large enough and modern enough at this point that even the mighty Israeli air force cannot stifle them entirely. Iran could mount a formidable response to a preimptory strike. moreover, the Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and other sympathetic Arab states would assist, or at least not stop, an Iranian response. hopefully it would be a limited conventional battle and level heads would resist the use of nukes, but who knows?

Kevin said...

That is specifically the reason to attack now, before they develop into a military powerhouse who will be able to do serious damage to the U.S.

ed said...

Iran will never directly threaten the US militarily. They very well may threaten our assets and allies in the region but the US is the only country capable of projecting force beyond a few hundred miles from it's homeland. It is Iran's right to build up it's military and we cannot and should not do anything until they pose a clear and present danger to our ally...namely Israel. If they inject themselves overtly into Iraq and directly engage our troops there, then all bets are off and we would be within our rights to drop a few daisy-cutters in and around Ahmadinnerjacket's Tehran residence.