Posted on 03/01/2005 7:41:13 PM PST by MisterRepublican
NEW YORK More than one in four Americans would go so far as to utilize nuclear bombs if need be in the fight against terrorism, according to a national survey reported today by The Gallup Organization.
Gallup asked Americans whether they would be willing or not willing “to have the U.S. government do each of the following” and then listed an array of options.
For example, “assassinate known terrorists” drew the support of 65% of all adults. “Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.” won the backing of 39%.
Finally, the option of using “nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities” drew the support of 27% of adults, with 72% opposing, which would shatter the taboo on using these weapons militarily since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
Their poll is flawed.
"“Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.” won the backing of 39%."
The PC crowd has warped the thinking of this nation, 39% is far too low.
Only 1 in 4? Bad polling. (I hope.)
It's a meaningless poll. Obviously we aren't going to nuke anybody unless there's a very good reason to. So, what is the reason? I wouldn't have any idea how to answer such a dumb question.
Same with the torture question. What do they mean by torture? What is at stake? What kind of prisoner do we have here, and what crimes has he committed? Nobody likes the word "torture," but there are ways of questioning people that are not permanently damaging that might well be justified in given circumstances.
"If need be", should be over 85%.
Based on what I've read on FR, 1 in 4 favor nuking San Fransico.
I'd bet if the choice was between a draft or nukes, it'd be over 90%.
I just took a poll. My wife, myself and our 2 kids say nuke-'em. That's 100%. Seems pretty clear to me.
Well what's the point of our so called "torture"? Panties on the head and running half naked breasts on the terrorist. I wouldn't vote for that kind of treatment either seems more like a reward.
Don't worry. If terrorists ever do anything destructive enough to warrant nuclear retaliation, you can bet that the majority of Americans will consider such a response to be justified.
"Finally, the option of using “nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities”"
Why would you need a nuclear weapon to bomb a terrorist facility? Terrorist facilites are composed of what? A house with a small chem lab.... Or a guy making a car bomb...
I would say no to that. It would be a waste of a good nuclear weapon.
Stupid poll.......
No one polled me...I'd say torture them first, then nuke em.
LOL
Now thats what I want to hear.
Nukes against terrorist? Sounds rather inefficient to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.