[motexva]

What possible reason would we have to use tactical nuclear weapons? We have far more powerful conventional weapons, some of which I believe have already been used there. A poster above mentioned Fuel Air Explosives, these can be more powerful and more effective than nuclear weapons, if Gulf War lore serves me correctly. I understand using nukes as a verb, as in "Let's nuke 'em!" being used to describe the unleashing of general mayhem and destruction. But there's really no need to actually use nukes in this theater.

[Goatroper]

Do a search for B61-11, the nuke bunker buster. Made to order for what the Congressman is suggesting. I'd love it.

[boris]

"What possible reason would we have to use tactical nuclear weapons?"

Enhanced radiation weapons can cook anything alive in those caves. The radiation will penetrate and kill them before they know they are dead.

THAT's the reason.

--Boris

[RasterMaster]

Why have nukes if you are afraid to use them....I think five or 6 nukes could settle all disputes and render the middle east PEACEFUL. They cannot stir up trouble if they have been baked at 4500 degrees for 1000 years.

[FreeYourMind]

Good point...we do have far more powerful conventional weapons which won't have nearly as catastrophic an effect on the people who re-inhabit the area. All Buyer has done here is illustrate his extreme ignorance.

[ASA Vet]

But there's really no need to actually use nukes in this theater.

Except one.

Failure to respond to 9/11 in such an extreme manner
so as to cause future generations of these folks to lose bowel control,
at the mere mention of American, will insure continued attacks on America.