Speaking of Conspiracies

Tuesday, September 12, 2006
What do folks make of this. I admit that it is in the nature of things that atomic weapons are going to be used once they are available, history holds out little hope that things will be otherwise. The Tokugawa Shogunate managed to outlaw firearms after using them to come to power, but that didn't last much more than 250 years. That said, I would not want to put money on a date or city, Although LA or DC would be a good bet if I was in country with a nuke and an urge to detonate. The first because it is close to the border, the second for political reasons.

15 comments:

terrye said...

God, I hope its not true.

terrye said...

I thought that Jorge B ush crack was dumb as hell. I get the impression that if something like this was smuggled across the Mexican border the response should be mass lynchings of nannies or something. That kind of made me wonder about the whole thing.

Morgan said...

If they can get a suitcase nuke (which is what Mir once said they had), they can get it across the border. If they can get it across the border, they'll use it.

Gadahn has named Los Angeles as a target.

terrye said...

I guess we will find out, but I have my doubts. Sounds like someone looking for an excuse to bitch about the border.

CF said...

I live in DC and my son and his family in L.A. I don't want to think about this..(Should I send maps of Seattle?)

Luther McLeod said...

The report(s) may indeed be BS. But when I look up into that bright light, I will not be surprised.

I disagree as to the target. Why transport further than you need to, just to make a statement and injure. My city would be an ideal target, for a number of more rational reasons. We all (I think) know that there may be untraceable 'stuff' out there, and basically, against a determined ****, we have no way to stop it.

Just remember, ultimately, it will be just a sting, but we must respond. In force. Even if it is half the world. The message must be that we will not go down without a fight, a fight which we will win.

I may (as I have said before) be a nutter, but I am not dumb nor particularly paranoid. Just (I think) realistic.

I am sorry if I drag YARGB down with my comments, but I do think they are warranted, on the rare occasion. Please, someone send me an e-mail if otherwise. I care about all of you, I care about this country and I care about our way of life. I have few outlets for expressing same.

Morgan said...

Luther:

I, for one, appreciate your comments. If a nuke went off in the US, the question would be, "who do we go after to keep this from happening again". And you're right - the answer is likely to be "the lot of 'em". When push comes to shove, even the left will want us to shove harder. A lot harder.

CF: Southern Indiana is nice this time of year. And much hipper than you might think. Plus, they have delicious square donuts in Terre Haute.

Rick Ballard said...

I'll second Morgan, Luther. On this one I agree with Terrye. This is just an opportunity to drag the border into the conversation. Pure crap as far as an operation plan is concerned. There are much easier approaches than crossing two land borders.

Skookumchuk said...

The Mexicans have, and are getting more of, the same detection equipment that we have.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Luther,

Don't be silly. You don't drag us down at all.

I think it's unavoidable that we're going to be attacked again. I also think that it will be used as further evidence by the America-haters and the Bush-haters of yet another conspiracy committed by Bush against the Path of Righteousness. I think it's a fantasy of many of the pro-war folks like me that it will finally wake people up. It won't.

I think we will, going further out, be attacked several times. Eventually, something will flip, the whole country will wake up one day, quit wallowing in its conpiracy theories and its petty politics, and then we will have a lot of very sorry and very dead enemies.

I'm sorry that it will have to go that way, I wish it could be otherwise, but we will ultimately prevail.

terrye said...

Luther:

My God luther you don't drag anyone down ever. I like you very much and am glad you come here.

They put with me and I am a lot more trying than you are.

terrye said...

Yes, those square donuts are good and fattening. I had hoped that the sqaure ones would have fewer calories, but no such luck.

Luther McLeod said...

Thank you all. I did not wish to be maudlin or personal, it just came out. Perhaps it is the frustration of not being able to 'do' something physical and/or concrete about the situation we are in. It is the wait, not the action, that is worse.

Barry Dauphin said...

I essentially agree with MHA about the reactons to an attack. The current mindset of a substanital percent of our citizens is that the US deserves whatever it gets and that an attack on us is simply the logical reaction to our current policies. "We were attacked because of Bush" will be a rallying cry for some.

The qualifier I would introduce is that a particularly vicious attack would arouse the passions of some in a way even they can't anticipate. If a nuke were to go off, though, the internal blame game will start within a few days (Bush didn't upgrade border defense, Bush didn't X, Y & Z).

Skookumchuk said...

MHA:

I think we will, going further out, be attacked several times. Eventually, something will flip, the whole country will wake up one day, quit wallowing in its conpiracy theories and its petty politics ... but we will ultimately prevail.

A variation on your theme: We will be attacked several more times, something will flip, a large portion of the country will wake up one day, and we will ultimately prevail.

But the whole country won't flip en masse. For we have the kooks with us always. What will happen is that a significant fraction will in effect become a subtly new country, with different values. The imponderable is what happens to the rest.