ABC's Ted Koppel "stunned" by Cohen's mention of "nuclear" as possible response to WTC attack

ABC News ^ | 9/12/01 | ABC Live Coverage

[ppaul]

About 5:50 am Pacific, ABC's Ted Koppel was being interviewed. He was in London. It was mentioned that before Koppel became famous for Nightline, he served as a correspondent covering the U.S. State Department. Koppel said he had been watching the ABC coverage this morning for a "couple of hours" and that he was "stunned" when he saw the interview early this morning of former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and Cohen mentioned the use of nuclear weapons among the list of possible responses to yesterday's terrorist attack. Koppel said it was the first time he ever recalls any high level person mentioning nuclear weapons as even a possibility.

[DallasDeb]

Woah! Woah! Woah! Wait a minute! The weapons we have now are tens to hundreds of times hotter than what we had back in WWII. There could be some serious repercussions to using these weapons now. Lets just think about this for a minute..

I agree that talk of nuclear weapons is unwarranted. But just to let you know, we do have smaller tactical nuclear weapons, meaning, weapons that can be used in a battle-field environment.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Nuclear is an option, but an unlikely one.

I would certainly consider the use of fuel-air bombs.

[DallasDeb]

#31: We'd probably have a civil war in this country: the environmental wackos against the rest of us.

[LibKill]

I own handguns from .22 caliber to .44 magnum.

It is the .44 that any evildoer who breaks into my home will face.

There is no way to shoot a person, or a country, "just a little bit".

The use of nuclear weapons is quite appropriate in this case.

[Celtic Conservative]

fuel air bombs would have a certain ironic twist: bombing them with their own oil!. nice touch, VERY devastating, and no radiation.Best of both worlds.

ochoin s' ocholu ("sorrow,so sorrowful" in gaelic)

CC

[jackbill]

Maybe Mr. Koppel should revisit the Korean War and how President Eisenhower got the Communists to the armistice table. He let it be known, covertly, that he was considering using nuclear artillery.

Day after day we saw the Long John artillery piece (possibly the only one we had) running up and down the roads of South Korea.

It worked.

I'm glad we had people like President Eisenhower and not people like President Koppel or President Jennings or President Rather or President Brokejaw.

[Protagoras]

We want the people who did this to pay.

So do I, the people who did this, and those who knowingly aided them.

A better way to explain it, is to find a village full of innocent people in Afghanistan, approximately 5000 people, and drop one big bomb on them.

Kinda funny that in one sentence you agree with me that we want to make the guilty people pay, then you suggest killing innocent people.

That should make things equal.

It makes you equal in evil to those who killed our innocent citizens.

Of course with the way things are escalating, and the more pieces of the puzzle we see, it becomes more complex, and therefore we have to shift gameplans.

Sounds like you are a little more confused with each new piece of information, maybe you should have thought of that before you advocated killing millions of innocents. ( before you scaled your death wish list to a mere 5000 innocents in a small villiage)

We don't know who to put blame on at this point, so all of this is nothing more than heresay and conjecture until we have hard answers and proof.

Thats what I have been advocating all along, but you and your ilk have demonized me and told me I was being morally superior for not stooping to your baser instincts.

I'm not in charge, and never would want to be in a time like this.

Thank God for that.

I do feel the same way as a lot of people do here in middle America, that our country has been attacked, and retribution is called for.

So do I, but I don't think a lot of people in middle America want to drop nuclear bombs on innocent people so they will feel better about the situation.

I think it would have been best to hand over Clinton, as he was the main person who ordered those attacks.

Thats funny, you don't advocate that for the perpetrators of this horrific act, you advocate killing innocents. You like the idea of handing over the guilty parties to save your own skin, but screw people in other counties who are saddled with leaders who they have had no say in selecting. The people in this country actually elected the likes of Clinton.

No, your thinking is evil, through and through. I can only hope that you aren't evil, just your ill thought out rage, which, if acted upon, would be unable to be rectified.

[Celtic Conservative]

re"how great clintoon was at times like this... andrea mitchell" what time ,exactly come close to what happened 09/11 during the clinton administration?. how about never! the lamestream media sucks A$$!

Slainte,

CC

[Magnum44]

"Woah! Woah! Woah! Wait a minute! The weapons we have now are tens to hundreds of times hotter than what we had back in WWII. There could be some serious repercussions to using these weapons now. Lets just think about this for a minute.."

The tactical weapons we have today can be dialed down or up in from a fractions of kilotons to the Mega-weapons you are concerned with. Unless we wanted to be involved in the full scale invasion of several sponser states, its very easy to draw the conclusion that nuclear weapons make the loudest and clearest message that we will not tolerate terrorism. Since most of the terrorist are in the Afgan country side (nothing but mountains, rocks, and mountains of rocks), tactical nukes offer te advantage of clearing large hiding areas without risk to our troops and aviators. I would not recommend nukes for Kabul (only for the humane issues, hard bombs are fine there), but for the terrorist hiding in the country side, nuke it until it glows.

[ppaul]

Eisenhower got the Communists to the armistice table. He let it be known, covertly, that he was considering using nuclear artillery. Day after day we saw the Long John artillery piece (possibly the only one we had) running up and down the roads of South Korea. It worked.

True.
Check out the Long John in action:
See reply #176 above.

[George W. Bush]

I expect that the Arab governments are being given the opportunity to clean their own houses. After all, they consider the violent rabble a threat to their own power. What comes next I haven't a clue. I think what comes next is more waiting than most FReepers are prepared for. Even with the Congress ready for a real declaration of war (a welcome return to constitutional practice) and NATO voting to defend us a NATO country, doing a professional military job like this is no quick thing. Especially if you're serious about cleaning out all the terrorist nests, financiers, and political connections. That takes time and some diplomacy.

I somehow get the feeling that most people just want some big retribution, preferably with mushroom clouds. Not going to happen so forget it.

I think the only way to actually read this is to take the political classes at their word: this is war and it is war on terrorists. I think we're going to see a concerted attempt by the First World and the leadership of the rest of the world to try to clean these terrorists out. Even in many of the moderate Arab countries, they're so afraid of them that they appease them and would prefer to be rid of them permanently.

This attack provides the political will and the best justification we'll probably ever have to clean out these terrorists. Before they get NBC weapons and start using them in the U.S. or Europe.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

I'm glad you think that there is some sort of moral equivalence between what was done in a declared war (which, as I recall, we did not start), and the actions of terrorists against thousands of innocent people.

I won't even try for my usual sarcasm here- your comment is just too stupid to bother.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

I have been persuaded that the unwritten rules of this forum do not allow the posting of the text of "private replies"- but if other posters could see the one you sent me, with the rage, the death threats, and the bragging about "the people you killed in 'Nam" (which makes me think you were never there, or you were some sort of REMF), they would see right through your pose of careful, thoughtful rectitude and moral superiority

What is your game, anyway? I expected to be called names- after all, I did that to you- but three death threats in one short reply seems excessive!

I can only conclude that you were under the influence of drugs. That's what you Libertarians are really all about, isn't it?

[The Black Douglas]

These RAGHEADS have had there fun with SYMBOLISM in these heinous acts in America

These RAGHEADS have had there fun with SYMBOLISM in these heinous acts in America.

Are you listening Joint Chiefs and President Bush?

Send a little SYBOLISM their way!!!!

NUKE MECCA!!

And let MUSLIMS world-wide have a WAIL!!!

Tell them in "NO UNCERTAIN TERMS", any, I repeat ANY TERRORIST ACT EVER COMMITTED AGAINT THE FREE PEOPLES OF THIS EARTH WILL BE MET WITH SIMULTANEOUS NUCLEAR ATTACKS ON EVERY COUNTRY KNOWN TO HARBOR THESE ISLAMIC BASTARDS……THAT INCLUDES FRANCE!!!

The Black Douglas (Borders Defender)

Let their wimmin call, "Leah, Leah, Leah", as they choke on nuclear dust!!!

[ppaul]

CLOSE TAGS!

[hugito]

Hallelujiah.

To borrow a phrase from the egg-sucking liberals who got us to this point in our history "if it saves just one american life."

[ppaul]

You cannot really make sense of what appear to be senseless acts unless, and until, you understand the mindset and beliefs of those who committed those heinous atrocities Tuesday morning. And, if Osama Bin Ladin is their behind-the-scenes commander, what are his purposes, and why?

To gain some understanding, here is a place to start: Al-Imam al-Mahdi, The Just Leader of Humanity</font size></font color>

</font size>

[ironwill]