Nuclear option in response to cyber-terrorism.

T

tainted

New member
Oct 3, 2008
1,179
22
0
Bachmann/Palin rally heavy on God, terrorism Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media.

Thousands of people streamed into the Minneapolis Convention Center to hear Sarah Palin, Rep. Michele Bachmann and a bevy of high-profile Republicans speak on Wednesday. Many who took the podium claimed Jesus as their own — even mocking Democrats as godless — before Bachmann chastised President Barack Obama for taking away the nuclear option in response to cyber-terrorism.
Click to expand...

dos5.png



political-pictures-sarah-palin-john.jpg



nuke.jpg



GG
 


What matters with Palin is not what she says, but how she looks; and as far as looks are concerned I would prefer her as VP, so I may watch some serious political news once in a while instead of never.
 
You know how many berries and bizops you could sell just by standing outside the door with a NRA shirt on to that group of collective fools?
 
What exactly is the point here? Obama already said they took the nuclear option off the table in response to bio, chem, and cyber attacks, as long as it was a non-nuclear signatory of the NPT. Or are you just a moron who parrots the lobotomized zombies at HuffPo?
 
Dear @hellblazer,

I am considering becoming a republican. However the republican party entirely changes positions on all their policies and beliefs every election. What are some tips you would suggest to keep up on it all so I won't be a bad republican by disagreeing with my party leaders?

Sincerely,
Wanna-Get-Learned
 
Michelle Bachman is a complete flake.

Not that both parties don't have them - but I used to live in MN and I routinely travel there for business. She's flakier than a corn flake factory come harvest time.
 
Deliguy said:
Dear @hellblazer,

I am considering becoming a republican. However the republican party entirely changes positions on all their policies and beliefs every election. What are some tips you would suggest to keep up on it all so I won't be a bad republican by disagreeing with my party leaders?

Sincerely,
Wanna-Get-Learned
Click to expand...

Dear Deliguy,

I'm a conservative/libertarian, not a Republican. As such, I support conservatives/independents/libertarians. However, I wish you good luck with your endeavors.

Sincerely,

HB
 
Dear everyone,

Cue flysarescary Samwell sig gif: "Im up in this thread, and I'm not reading shit. LOL"

Sincerely,

Ferris
 
papajohn56 said:
why would we ever nuke someone for 'cyber-terrorism', that's just fucking stupid
Click to expand...

You aren't thinking big enough. Do you know how much shit in this country runs on computers?

So you are saying if someone shut down all of the power, wiped the debt records, destroyed digital medical databases, hacked all the bill of lading docs for the shipping/trucking companies and zapped the major payroll firms so no one got paid that nuking those fuckers wouldn't be a valid response? :P
 
apexSEORM said:
You aren't thinking big enough. Do you know how much shit in this country runs on computers?

So you are saying if someone shut down all of the power, wiped the debt records, destroyed digital medical databases, hacked all the bill of lading docs for the shipping/trucking companies and zapped the major payroll firms so no one got paid that nuking those fuckers wouldn't be a valid response? :P
Click to expand...

hopefully said major firms would be smart enough to do major, secure, redundant backups
 
So you are saying if someone shut down all of the power, wiped the debt records, destroyed digital medical databases, hacked all the bill of lading docs for the shipping/trucking companies and zapped the major payroll firms so no one got paid that nuking those fuckers wouldn't be a valid response?
Click to expand...

That would be like planting a virus to format the hard drive of a person who is about to put in his cc number and order some berries from your site.

Why would anyone (with a capability to do what) would actually want than to ruin the infrastructure of the US?

China doesn't need it. Fucking over its biggest customer is not a good business model.

And the Taliban insurgents (and smaller entities that just don't give a fuck about commerce) simply couldn't pull something like that off.
 
papajohn56 said:
why would we ever nuke someone for 'cyber-terrorism', that's just fucking stupid
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily that we would, it's more the fact that we always intentionally had a vague ambiguity to when we would use them. We wanted to keep our enemies on their toes.

The really strange thing with Obama's decision is that he's almost spelling out exactly how to go about attacking America and not have to suffer devastating consequences. Whereas we had ambiguity before, now he's explicitly guaranteeing when he won't use them. I think it's a bad move.
 
just because BO said he's not gonna use the nukes in Scenario 1, 2 or 3... doesn't mean that the US couldn't just invade that respective country that acted as an offender, like it did with Afghanistan.

I'd be more scared about the Dollar losing its power. Because then, the US wouldn't be able to finance their conquests/revenge trips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom