Could and should the USA creat such a kill zone and would it work?
138552
No, the would just find another way. The way to stop them is to take away their jobs here. Arrest those that hire them, they are scum bags any way, and put them in jail make them pay huge fines and that will stop the flow. NO JOBS = NO illegal immigration.
412817
i think the us would try to stay out of it but like in Afghanistan back in the 80s the US would help against the aggressors (china) and that help is what causes china to attack us and causes the conflict on the east shore.
619670
2nd amendment, baby!  In the 1950s, the USSR determined that a land invasion of the US would be impossible not because of the US Army, but because of armed citizens.  If you think the insurgency in Iraq is bad, you ain't seen nothing - 300 million armed Americans - look out!\n\nOf course, the US Navy would likely reap havoc on the invading forces - the Atlantic and Pacific fleets would intercept the invading fleets and destroy many of the forces before they arrived.  They can't handle aircraft carrier battle groups, and many of their capital ships and troop ships would be sunk, with tens of thousands of foreign soldiers drowning on the high seas.\n\nMeanwhile, US forces currently in Afghanistan and Iraq turn north and invade Kazhakhstan, easily overrunning local resistance and breaking into Russian territory in the Crimean penninsula.  America takes the Caucuses, cutting off 70% of Russia's oil supply and dealing a major blow to the invading nations.  At the same time, US Navy SEALs are dispatched to take over Britian's North Sea offshore oil platorms, cutting Western Europe's oil supply.\n\nBecause the world's internet is under US control, America immediately turns off servers supporting any web sites in the invading nations, dealing a major blow to foreign communication and propeganda efforts that could have been used to their advantage.  Additionally, US military intelligence flicks a switch, cutting off all satellite communications and disabling the operation of any US-made arms and aircraft used by the invading powers.  Suddenly the US manufactured missiles on the French jets can't track their targets, rendering them and countless other weapons useless\n\nBut these are the tactical responses.  The Strategic response is much more engaging.  As we hit DEF-CON 3 and DEF-CON 2 rather quickly, the TRIAD is put into motion - land, air, and sea based nuclear weapons, baby!  US nuclear bombers are airborne and circling over Alaska, waiting for orders to strike anywhere in the world.  Nuclear missile submarines are at launch depth, and the Intercontinental Balistic Missiles are ready for launch.  America assures Russia that it will not be nuked, and proceeds to demand the immediate surrender of all other invading powers under threat of nuclear war.  Countries like UK and France have about 5 nuclear weapons capable of hitting America - but they are likely powered by US manufactured rockets and guidance systems, again rendering them useless.  These countries capitulate almost immediately.  Russia, it's invading force nearly destroyed and it's allies surrendered and beaten, must decide whether to resort to nuclear war, or to call off the attack.  Russia knows that it has nothing to gain by using nukes, so it calls off the invasion.\n\nAmerica 1, Everyone Else 0.  Don't mess with the red, white, and blue.  And do stand as we play the Star Spangled Banner at the formal surrender ceremony.  God bless America!
223406
They knew SOMETHING was coming (remember that report they had in 8/2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the US"?), but not exactly what. \n\nI do think Bush & Co. would like a police state, and are trying to get one. Now they are saying that congress cannot investigate the NSA because they don't have the security clearance to do so. Sounds like a free ticket to do whatever they want to me.\n\nOne world government would not work, there are too many ideas of how things should be run. What kind of government would it be? Some group, somewhere, would hate it no matter who was running it. Also there is too much division between wealthy countries & poor ones, secular societies & religious ones. What would be the consensus on, let's say, guns? Most European countries ban them outright, and would not agree with a gov't that allowed them. The US would not agree with a gov't that banned them.
597453
US will never succeed. Like it`s needless saying that we can prevent the bad efffects of globalization. \n\nWorld terrorism is quite a complex problem nowadays. And of course it encompasses not only anti-US movements in the Third World Countries, but also the inner terrorism in developed ones.\nLet`s take Britain, for example. A lot have been said about the origin of the sucide bombers in London Underground. And very important point is that they were Britts. Immigrants, but brits.Brits in their style, manners,views.\n\nTerrorism is not just muslim affair t all.It`s wrong statement made up only to create an enemy,which will unite a nation. I think government easily uses this tactic:we need a "small victirious war".\n\nBut the origins of the terrorism lay deep inside the structure of the society. It is probably us, who create reall terrorists. Us and people we elect. You are absolutely right about iranian family hatred with America. I think you may be also interested in the book "Why world hates America?" (unfortunattely, I have forgotten the author). \n\nDo you remembtr Huntington`s "Clashes of civilizations"? Don`t you find it somehow coincides with today situation?
77612
Do you really think the US beaurocrats and politicians would allow that to happen?  We aren't a super power because we sit back and twiddle our thumbs while others beat us out on something.  We'd find some reason to sanction them long before they surpassed us.
209317
Wow i would never have thought someone would think that could be a good thing.\nThe USA CAN INDEED conqueur the world\nwho would stop them? they have the most efficient deadly military in the world... the most advanced weapons... they know all the secrets of the world and beyond our planet that we do not... their allies go far beyond what we think we know. World leaders are all of the same bread.. they dont care what the world is called all those power hungry assholes care about is having us all on a leash. Im happy that in the middle east at least SOME PEOPLE are fighting for freedom. \nIt fkn pisses me off to think that people encourage the war that is going to lead to our demise and continue to send their children and themselves to fight for a force that doesnt give a shit about you or anyone you know.\n\nWHY would you want to be slaves?\nThe day people everywhere begin to see that being a good thing is the exact same day we forfeit all our rights.... you might as well just kill urself if ur going to be that fkn stupid.. let the rest of us who want a decent world for the future of man take care of things
654428
If North Korea develops the technology to do this - we will simply accelerate the development of the THAAD missile system.\n\nOne thing you have to remember is that all US weapons get bad press and are denounced as 'failures' - until the are used in combat and demonstrate that they not only work, they are actually better than we were admitting.\n\nLook up the history of 'troubled' US weapons that everybody said were junk right until they stomped  the enemy flat.  (M1 tank, F15, F16, M2 Bradley, cruise missile, GPS bomb etc.)
676706
Okay first of all don;t worry there missiles are not that sophisticated to actually reach the US yet.  Yet even if they do fire a missile at the US that does have a nuclear war head we would be able to shoot it down before it gets to our shores.\n\nLet me explain there are two types of nuclear missiles \n\n1.  NK has just a regular missile, this will reach a certain altitude maintain that altitude until it reaches it's destination.\n\n2.  The US has are what are called ICBM, these missiles go into the subspace and then come down which make them almost impossible to shoot down.  This was the big scare during the Cold War.  \n\nSo I wouldn't worry about NK they are just looking for attention.
323542
WOW, your a smart one. I have to give it to you, you were really thinking when you posted that. Or is it that I'm In the Military..... I'm not sure. But that's the last thing that you want to do, sending gangs over there. For one, they couldn't hack it in the desert, and two, Most of the people were fighting over there right now have been fighting for years now. And as for just killing the presidents, well that's about as well thought out too, Just think what would happen to this country(USA) if some one just decided to kill our president and VP. there would be mass chaos. and it would flow into other countrys too.
635868
First of all, you have to make sure the people you're going to kill actually are terrorists. The War on Terror is a sham. The US isn't going after terrorism all over the world. If this was true then terrorist attacks wouldn't be at an all time high. Don't believe the hype of the talking head in Washington DC.
549036
There is only one good thing that would come from bombing a country that threatens to bomb you first, and that is to disable that country's ability to carry out its threat.  The strategy, by the way, is called a pre-emptive strike.  President Bush announced such a strategy to respond to terrorism back in 2002 (see 1st & 2nd links below) and he re-asserted this policy in March of this year (see 2nd link).\n\nThe bad thing that might result is if you overestimated the other country's willingness to carry out its threat.  In the example you give it sounds like the threat is real, but there are examples where a country's leader makes vague threatening statements he does not intend to carry out, or where you've gathered bad intelligence about a country's intentions.  So you'd better be sure the threat is real.  If you confirm it is, well you really don't have a choice, do you?  \n\nBut to further answer your question about what bad things could result, there are all kinds of potentially devastating scenarios.  For instance, other countries could come to the aid of that country, leading to another World War.  Or the country could get military assistance and supplies from other countries, which actually happens a lot in modern conflicts.  \n\nEven If we are successful at first, it could be like stirring up an ant colony.  If we try to occupy the country, guerilla warfare could ensue.  Just look what's happening in Iraq, what happened in Vietnam, and what happened to Russia when it tried to occupy Afghanistan to see how difficult it can be to hold a hostile enemy territory despite having a superior military force.  And in a democratic society, public opinion dictates resolve.\n\nBut the best positive thing that could happen is that all those scenarios were going to take place anyway because the other country was going to attack you in the first place.  The pre-emptive strike could disable much of their military means to carry out their attack.  That's why you would strike first.\n\nUnfortunately, with hindsight we've discovered that we went to War in Iraq on a pre-emptive strike strategy based on the belief that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," and with the administration apparently also believing they were involved in the 9/11 attacks and intended to attack us again.  Apparently none of that was substantiated.  So a pre-emptive strike can be a really bad idea if your intelligence isn't good.
604862
Regardless of the desirability of doing so, there are serious questions about whether the US is actually capable of successfully intercepting the missile.  Trying but failing to intercept the missile would diminish America's military prestige and may tempt the North Koreans into further adventures.  On the other hand, doing nothing leaves Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and so on to think about facing such a threat on their own.  Last time, it inspired Japan to join us in trying to develop missile defense.  We have more to lose than to gain by trying -- and more to gain than to lose by not trying.
449754
We tried that before with Iran under the Clinton administration. It didn't work. We need to let the world handle this. If the dictators of N.K. and Iran won't comply, it will be up to the world to take them out.
476101
It won't work.\nAnimal rights activists will shut you down before it begins.\nThis is why cockfighting and dog fights are also illegal in the United States.
82589
It would never work.  Why   casue we are a country that  wants a one world Goverment  but cannot resove the probems that we  do have  here in the US.   Sorry
537736
Considering that nations that officially have nuclear weapons have tested them within their own borders, and sometimes even deliberately on their own people... I see absolutely no reason why they couldn't use them internally in self defense.\n\nTo some extent, this goes back to the creation of the tactical nuclear strategy developed by the US, as a member of NATO, to defend Western Europe during the cold war.\n\nAs the Warsaw Pact (dominated by the Soviet Union, USSR) had overwhelming strength in troops, armor and aircraft, a nuclear counter strategy was developed.\n\nThis was dependent on tactical (rather than strategic) nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that could be fired out of howitzers were developed, the theory being that you could blast the bad guys, and the good guys would win.\n\nSo the use of nuclear weapons to stop an invasion not only has intrinsic logical precedent, any means necessary, as well as the technology to make it less than internally lethal.\n\n-dh\n\nScary thought though...