Once again — your response was NOT to call the Comedian on the carpet for his desire to, as Kurtz would have put it, “exterminate the [Afghani] brutes.” As for The Comedian, yet another n00b, I saw no such desire to "exterminate" Afghan civilians, as you contend.
Thanks for the backhanded compliment, rabs.
Extermination of civilians is the farthest thing from my mind. I was proposing an immediate use of nuclear weapons in order to achieve 3 goals simultaneously:
1) Show the rest of the ideologically-aligned Muslim world that you do *not* strike America, because America will incinerate one of your cities for every attack you make. This is the only sort of demonstration that would make an impact on the 8th century mind.
2) Minimize casualties - Just as in the Japanese example, causing immediate capitulation via demonstration of atomic weaponry saves military lives on both sides, and civilian lives who would otherwise get caught up in conventional warfare.
3) Minimize financial and tactical disturbance to American infrastructure. No troops deployed overseas, no boots on foreign soil. No costly supply lines to maintain or political concessions made to marginally hostile governments for logistical necessity's sake.
I have nothing against the Afghan people, but my loyalty and concern is for Americans first and foremost. And frankly, which would the inhabitants of the world suffer more because of, the collapse of everything American, or the disappearance of Afghanistan from the world stage?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Apologies for not pinging you earlier when I responded to Rabscuttle’s “defense” of you. I see now that I was being rude.
>>> Extermination of civilians is the farthest thing from my mind. <<<
Nuclear weapons tend to kill lots of people, whether they be civilians, soldiers, or anyone else. That’s why they have been a weapon of last resort — or, better yet, no resort — since August 1945.
By the way, why the sudden use of the word “civilian” in relation to the Afghans?
In Post #47, in response to my attempt to remind you that the Afghans were people, you wrote:
“They are not men, they are Devo.”
You also seemed to be playing with Social Darwinist ideas when you wrote in the same post that:
“All cultures are not equally valid or destined for longevity.”
Could it be that you now see them as being more than Devo or grist for some Darwinian mill? You know, see them as fellow human beings? If so, good show!
Now, let’s look at your nuclear goals:
“1) Show the rest of the ideologically-aligned Muslim world that you do *not* strike America, because America will incinerate one of your cities for every attack you make. This is the only sort of demonstration that would make an impact on the 8th century mind.”
Read your Heinlein. If you want to send a message, use Western Union. For centuries, the “Western Union” of the US in conflicts overseas has been the Marines. Nuking Kabul or Kandahar would have impressed the Islamofascists — along with the Chinese, the Russkies, and everyone else — that America’s leadership had gone completely bonkers. The resulting international arms race/diplomatic disaster/cold to hot war would have been cold comfort to us Americans. Luckily, there was no President Comedian in 2001 and thus we avoided this strategic disaster.
“2) Minimize casualties - Just as in the Japanese example, causing immediate capitulation via demonstration of atomic weaponry saves military lives on both sides, and civilian lives who would otherwise get caught up in conventional warfare.”
Thanks once more for expressing some concern for casualties, although I don’t see how nuking, say, Kabul (pop. 2.5 million) would minimize casualties in relation to what would have been likely Afghan/Coalition deaths caused by Operation Enduring Freedom (so far — Coalition deaths, 1422; Afghan deaths, unclear; I’ve seen estimates ranging from 30-80 thousand). Nuking Kabul (or even Kandahar) would have been gratuitous and monstrous, and would have just embroiled us in the sort of international mess that would have gladdened the hearts of the jihadis.
>>> 3) Minimize financial and tactical disturbance to American infrastructure. No troops deployed overseas, no boots on foreign soil. No costly supply lines to maintain or political concessions made to marginally hostile governments for logistical necessity’s sake. <<<
Yup. But then you have to deal with the aftermath: trade sanctions, embargos, trade wars, proxy wars, renewed nuclear arms race, restless former allies, etc. Are you THAT nostalgic for the 70s? Your choice is a relatively cheap “quick fix” that would cause the US headaches, and then nightmares, not-so-far down the line.
>>> And frankly, which would the inhabitants of the world suffer more because of, the collapse of everything American, or the disappearance of Afghanistan from the world stage? <<<
So, “[you] have nothing against the Afghan people, but...” Nuclear annihilation or devastation — that’s quite a BUT! Your social darwinism is peeking out again. C’mon man, snap out of it!
You have proven no need to “disappear” Afghanistan in order to keep the US secure, or the Islamofascists at bay. Your continual toying with the idea of nuking the Afghans is at the very least gratuitous, and bespeaks an attitude that is at best juvenile, at worst depraved and evil. You can do better than this.