Nuclear option

[ralphmtsu]

Should we go nuclear with our response against terrorists? For one, I think we should. The coordinated suicide airline crashes were Weapons of Mass Destruction attacks against the United States. It is standing U.S. policy to reply in kind when faced with such devastation. Back in the Gulf War, we warned Saddam not to use chemical or biological weapons. We told him if he did, Baghdad would be nuked. We need to send a loud and swift message. Terrorism will be dealt with decisively. For too long, we have pussy-footed around with terrorism. These rag-heads only understand terror. I can't think of anything more full of terror than to see Tehran, Kabul, Baghdad and Damasucus under a mushroom cloud. Now that is real terror. We need to do it.

[Clinton's a rapist]

Tactical nukes should definitely be on the table. During the eighties, our plan for countering a conventional invasion of Europe by the Soviets relied heavily on battlefield nuclear weapons. That's what the neutron bomb was developed for. If they make sense militarily, then I'm all in favor of using them. I could certainly see how small nukes could be used with great efficacy against Bin Laden's camps, against Saddam's bunker, his command and control facilities, and his military installations. I think using nukes would send the right message, psychologically, too. The last time we had an enemy that was fanatical enough to use kamikaze attacks, we used nukes for attitude adjustment, and it worked like magic. Think how nice those folks are now.

[JohnBovenmyer]

I saw somewhere that "US officials" were asking airlines for more data so they could quantify the crashes in units of kilotons so they can call this an attack with Weapons of Mass Destruction. I just heard a talking head on TV repeat the same. Longstanding US policy is clear what to do in that case...

[Centurion2000]

Absolutely ... and if they cant get the message with little tacnukes ... break out the ICBMs ... the time for peace and restraint is GONE.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

We should deliberately take out civilians since they reacted sadistically to the attack. I say this with sadness. I am also sad because I might have to personally trigger the destruction of the business of an American-hating citizen who lives in this area. It's not easy to jin yourself up for such a thing when its in your hands.

However, nuclear is politically radioactive. Therefore, we exterminate an entire country conventionally, mostly from bombing. Too bad we didn't develop the neutron bomb yet.

[Neanderthal]

"These rag-heads only understand terror. I can't think of anything more full of terror than to see Tehran, Kabul, Baghdad and Damasucus under a mushroom cloud. Now that is real terror. We need to do it."

We just better be sure they don't have any nukes themselves, especially the suitcase variety . . .

[ralphmtsu]

I feel for you if you have to trigger such an attack. I get to defend our skies. I would have no guilt in directing one of our fighters to down an airliner inbound for the U.S. with a kamikazee terrorist onboard. My heart would go out to the passengers, but they are dead already. Better save those on the ground.

[UCANSEE2]

I say we make sure we know WHO did it, then confiscate ALL THEIR FUNDS, PROPERTY, ETC.

Then arrange for our allies to aid in punishing them by embargoes, cutting aid.

We stop sending these people $75 billion a year in aid !

Then we put them in prison for the rest of their lifes.

TO BOMB THEM, makes them MARTYRS! This is what they want. Take away their money, and power, and they are just another nobody, rotting away in prison.

I was led to understand that one of the largest stashes of GOLD was in vaults under the WTC and belongs to the foreign countries.

TAKE AWAY THEIR MONEY, that's how to hurt them.

KILLING THEM is not the way, we are no better than them if we do.

REVENGE IS MINE, SAITH THE LORD !

[UCANSEE2]

But , if you are going to nuke , say, AFGHANISTAN, then maybe we should send Clinton over as an emissary to meet with BIN LADEN first.

[Clinton's a rapist]

We just better be sure they don't have any nukes themselves, especially the suitcase variety . . .

Right now, that's probably a good bet. If we do not eradicate this threat now, as thoroughly as we eradicated the threat of Japanese militarism in 1945, that will change very soon. And when they have them, they will use them. Yesterday was a mere pin-prick compared to what will happen in a few years if we go with half-measures now.