[kristinn]

I think if the plane that was meant for D.C. on 9/11 had taken off on time and hit when and where it was supposed to, either the White House or Capitol, that President Bush would have been urged by the American people to use tactical nukes against al Qaeda and the Taliban as a warning to any state or group to not even think about trying to attack us again.

I think he would have done so.

[Star Traveler]

Well, there’s a “line” that I know if you cross, a nuclear response at the perpetrating government would be considered justified. The question here is how far “back” from that line can you go and perhaps expect a nuclear response. And also, can you even identify a “perpetrating government” to do so for that kind of response?

While I can say I am assured that “nuke for nuke” response would happen (with some perpetrating government), I don’t know how far “back” and “before” that line — that you would get “nuke for something else”.

AND, if it did happen (let’s say for that plane in DC, you get a nuclear response) — it wouldn’t be Mecca, which is what the poster was saying. If such a nuclear response were to be considered justified in that hypothetical example — it would be something directed at the Taliban and their government and whatever power base that they had.

The more you get into something like these “hypotheticals” and “pushing the line back” further away from “nuke for nuke” response — the nuttier the whole thing becomes in a discussion anyway...

[happygrl]

Well, the Pentagon was hit, and we didn’t nuke them...

I think, if the CONGRESS, many of whom see themselves as our betters, were decapitated, the survivors would push for vengeance.

So I agree with you, but for different reasons.

BTW, I am one who believes that a demonstration project was overdue, after 55+ years, to show what power we can exert, and ARE CRAZY ENOUGH TO USE.