0 votes

Bachmann Can't Be Right, Can She?

For the first time this entire election cycle, I actually felt like this was a pretty fair debate, giving adequate time to every candidate. One thing that I've been thinking about alot since then is a comment Michelle Bachmann made that no one seems to be talking about.

She said something like "Pakistan hitting New York or Washington DC with a Nuclear Bomb is a very real threat"

Now, I don't believe anything that Bachmann says because she has lied and been mistaken too many times to count but I am curious about if anyone knows if this is a possibility based on real fact? How far can a nuclear bomb actually be launched? Would it be possible to reach one of our cities from Pakistan. Does it have to be dropped from a plane and is it actually possible for one to be hijacked by terrorists and set off or is this all complete fear-mongering like I imagine?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pakistan does have a fleet of submarines, that

could possible be armed with nuclear missles. They would probable need help from an advanced country to meet this feat. I seriously doubt they would attack us, even if they had the technology, unless we made an all out assault, ie Iraq, Afghanistan time senario. This is all fearmongering, because those at the top, aren't stupid, as they get the uneducated dupes to do the suicide bombings. Saddam, for instance, was bluffing about his strengths, as most 3rd world leader do, to keep their enemies from thinking about attack. He ended up becoming the dupe in the end, for allowing Daddy Bush and the neoCon's to sucker him into attacking Iran. They gave him WMD's to use, and then used them for the Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom attacks. They got Iraq in debt by waring with Iran, to force Saddam to give up his oil. When Saddam refuse, they used the bogus Kuwait scheme (GHWB, Baker, et all got Kuwait to angle drill into Iraq, to force Saddam's hand in invading Kuwait and the US ambassador to Iraq, told him the US had no quary in the matter), and used it for invasion, to hopefully force Saddam to reliquish his oil. These wars are all about greedy corporations desire to control these nations resources.
If you know some foolish warmonger, tell them to read Gen Smedley Butler's 'War is a Racket'. The most decorated Marine in US history, realized after retirement, he fought wars for the Corporation, not for the security of America. http://warisaracket.org/ It's only gotten worse since his time. Also, tell your (anti) Christian Zionist's to listen to Benjamin Freedman's speeches. He was a former cabinet privey Zionist Jew, who converted to Christianity, and revealed what the world wars were really about. (Note: Rothschild agent Untermeyer, was behind Cyrus Scofield's reference Bible {Christian Zionism}, and wrote the laws for the Fed in 1910) http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Since we have missile defense systems in Europe (invented by us)

...wouldn't it make sense to have our OWN missile defense system???

There's no way to un-invent the nuke.

There's no way to track and keep up with every country or organization having access to nukes.

All we can do is prepare the best defensive system to intervene in the most unlikely event of a nuclear strike from afar.

One thing's for sure - if we insist on a foreign policy which needles countries or groups of people. we will continue to radicalize them into wanting to harm us.

The way I see it, a foreign policy based on Ron Paul's ideas is absolutely the only way we as Americans can stay safe.

But one of occupation, sanctions, tough talk, foreign interventionism and militarism (like we have now) has guaranteed to make us less save as Americans.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

It was complete fear-mongering

at its finest. Any observant critical-thinker recognized it early on. The state must create and employ a boogie-man in order to carry out its scheme(s).....otherwise people would instantly recognize how useless the state truly is....Think about it.....

Having said that, let's assume for the sake of argument she is correct, then what?

I'm certainly no expert here, but it seems to me that the U.S. government would launch one or more of its own and obliterate whomever sent it. Period.

Now, what person or persons would launch one at us facing that spectre? Seriously. Who wants to be obliterated?

Sure, the U.S. would suffer losses, but they would be relatively small by way of comparison to what the offending country would suffer. Look at the size and scope of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal and the locations. The U.S. can sustain what many countries cannot.

I think the important question in a hypothetical scenario such as this is to ask the "then what?" question.

Anyway, one can turn this question around in their favor as a pretext for why peace and free-trade (properly understood) is best for all of society, not just Americans.

I mean, if a country's citizens are prospering due to mutually beneficial transactions and they're able to feed and clothe and house their families, who's going to want to knock off their bread and butter so to speak?

For example, my hypothetical neighbors may not adhere to the same religion or believe in any of the same things I do and I may not with them, but if we are both prospering we're not going to really care much about our differences. Peace and prosperity have a way of keeping the darker side of human nature in check....listen to RP allude to this principle when he speaks, he gets it.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

All of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is reserved for India

All of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is reserved for India, period. India and Pakistan were in a nuclear arms race in the 1990s. Amazingly, BOTH countries' programmes sailed clear under our intelligence radar.

Until both detonated test bombs within hours of one another.

At the time, India conducted large-scale army manoeuvres near Burmah, to distract our spy satellites while they prepared the test ground in the western desert. Concurrently, and within seismographic range of the Indian test site, the Pakistanis were doing the same thing.

When the Pakistanis learned the Indians were preparing to explode a weapon near their frontier, there was a genuine discussion as to whether Pakistan should preemptively attack India with their already prepared arsenal. In the end, they cooled down and chose to respond to the Indians with a test of their own.

People seriously misunderstand the Pakistan situation. They are a military state. The military controls the arsenal. And the state. And the Taleban.

The Pakistani military created the Taleban shortly after their nuclear program in order to take over chaotic Afghanistan. And they did. Pakistan was one of only two states to recognize Mullah Omar as Emir of Afghanistan.

Pakistan is nowhere near becoming an Islamic terrorist state. And they need all the nukes they can to have detente with India.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Only a single, all powerful global government...

In sole possession of nuclear weapons could guarantee that there would never be any possibility of a nuclear attack on a U.S. City.
And to do so it would have to have tyrannical powers over the entire population of the planet.

The Untied States, no matter how powerful it's military nor how willing it is to use military force, could never completely eliminate that threat.

The Virtual Conspiracy


Pakistan has no long range ICBMs, just intermediate range ballistic missiles (range about 1,000 miles).

However, maybe if we would stop killing Pakistani citizens with pilotless drones, no one in Pakistan would be THINKING about smuggling a nuke through our harbors and taking out Wall Street or Washington.

She just doesn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

Oh my!


Look up suitcase and backpack nukes.

Wrote a paper on the subject a while back. This is why I am more worried about our own nuclear arsenal than another countries.

You are worried about a plane or missile delivering a bomb. It would be a small bomb, maybe one or two kilotons, weighing less than a hundred pounds delivered by hand to someones front door.

this debate was

a contest of fear-mongering. Each president was aware of some enemy somewhere that they were going to protect us from. We get to choose which enemy is the most scary by voting. I say our CIA is the scariest enemy so I'll vote for Ron Paul lol.

"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."

CNN's Tom Foreman tried to

CNN's Tom Foreman tried to answer this after the debate in his 'Keeping Them Honest' segment. He characterized it as 'misleading' because the materials are stored in different parts of the country, they are not assembled. They would have to be stolen, assembled, transported out of Pak,transported onto American soil and deployed.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

tasmlab's picture

Somebody saying that out loud certainly sounds scary

The Pakinstanians or Iranians don't have ICBMs like Russia does which can be launched from thousands of miles away.

and/but we're supposed to imagine all sorts of nasty scenarios where a suitcase bomb is used, or a hijacked plane. Or maybe the Iranians pretend they are US workers and point one of our own at NYC, sort of Alias/24 style. Or they could buy one from one of the former Soviet block countries.

It was much the same ruse that Bush used to start Iraq with the scare of WMDs.

All sorts of people could make this attack on NYC:


If the Iranian govt itself decided to use a bomb anywhere, I presume their country would be turned into a sheet of glass through nuclear retaliation.

A terrorist organization or group of rogue actors, if they could pull it off, could still do it while we spend our blood and treasure in an invasion/occupation.

None of it, IMO, makes a great case to instigate war with them.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

I don't think it is probable.

I don't think it is probable. I am sure there is technology that could allow a nuclear bomb to be launched from afar and hit us...but every country knows that the retaliation would be so severe, it wouldn't be worth it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a