Rep. Steve Buyer, IN-R on Fox Demands use of nuclear weapons if Anthrax traced to Terrorists

I'll admit that we have a hell of a mess on our hands I admit that I get a little excited over some of this stuff. I really don't want to Nuke anybody but an attack with WMD's deserves an attack in kind. So if we find out that they are responsible for this, well then The Sons of Bitch's must pay!

I would do the targeting this way: Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad, and two areas in the mountains where bin Laden probably is. I would use 1.2 MT B-83's. If we can show Iraq was involved, add Baghdad to the list.

And kill how many innocent people? ALL the residents of those citites are 'terrorists'?

I don't really care what China thinks. Waitaminute, actually, I do. I don't want them to get any big ideas about bio warfare, either.

I tend to think the Chinese, Russians and the rest of the neighborhood over there might get a bit upset if we used nukes on their immediate neighbor. I don't think the Chinese would be particularly impressed with us. I don't fear them, but I do have a healthy respect for them.

This is not about who loves us. It is about survival. Bugs are way worse than nukes any day.

I'm not as convinced as you are that bugs are way worse than nukes. That is contrary to what I learned in NBC school when on active duty. Our survival, as a nation and as individuals, would be threatened far more by us launching a nuke strike than by any bug attack by terrorists.

It appears that critical thinking is not your strong point. You seem to be really interested in revenge. That's understandable. That you aren't in the decision making chain is a comfort to me. Have a nice life.

How does your colon look? Pull your head out long enough to realize these facts:

1) WE ARE NOT AT WAR!
2) NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS (YET!!!)
3) NUKES ARE WEAPONS TO BE USED AS A LAST RESORT

You might read my last response to blaster88, the last paragraph applies to you as well.

Ditto

And kill how many innocent people? ALL the residents of those citites are 'terrorists'?

Nope. But they live in places that harbor terrorists. They should have thought of that before. Sucks to be them, I guess.

I tend to think the Chinese, Russians and the rest of the neighborhood over there might get a bit upset if we used nukes on their immediate neighbor. I don't think the Chinese would be particularly impressed with us. I don't fear them, but I do have a healthy respect for them.

We did not pick this war, it picked us. Therefore, we did not pick the geography. The place where bin Laden chose to hole up happens to be next to Russia and China. That should not afford any special protection. Russia and China need to understand that the US will act in its own defense and interests. They can carp all they want, but if you think either country would nuke us because we nuked one of their neighbors (a neighbor which is dangerous to BOTH of those countries, as the Taliban supports Islamic terrorists in Russia and China), then it is you who is lacking in the critical thinking skills. (BTW, nice move, going to ad hominem. Shows even stronger critical thinking and debate skills!)

I'm not as convinced as you are that bugs are way worse than nukes. That is contrary to what I learned in NBC school when on active duty. Our survival, as a nation and as individuals, would be threatened far more by us launching a nuke strike than by any bug attack by terrorists.

Lessee, what did you learn in NBC school? How to file an NBC1 report? An NBC2 report? An NBC3, maybe? How to plot downwind hazard areas? How to change out the filters in an M17? How to use DS2 vehicle decon sprayers? The levels of decon support available from divisional and corps assets? Chemical weapon types and their effects? How to read a dosimeter? How to prep an M8 chemical alarm?

Yeah, I spent a week in NBC school, too. I also spent a year in EOD school.

But you don't have to go to school to learn to compare and contrast the threat from bugs and nukes. First of all, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of nuclear weapons have been detonated on this planet, and except for those folks who we dropped nukes on in Japan, the death toll is pretty low. If you look at the incidences of plague or TB or smallpox or malaria or even the flu, you can find staggeringly high death tolls (10s and 100s of millions) from stuff that occurs in nature. Imagine what somewhat targeting people with malicious intent could do, and add in genetic engineering for drug resistance.

Get the picture?

Accepting bio warfare as a condition of this war is a heck of a lot more dangerous than using nuclear weapons is.

It appears that critical thinking is not your strong point. You seem to be really interested in revenge. That's understandable. That you aren't in the decision making chain is a comfort to me. Have a nice life.

Its not about revenge. It is about survival. I think it is immoral to allow an enemy that has proven willing and capable of using biologial weapons to continue to do so.

Reduce the destruction of the ozone layer. Eliminate all pollutant emissions from the entire Middle East and South Asia.

"Nope. But they live in places that harbor terrorists. They should have thought of that before. Sucks to be them, I guess."

I don't recall being asked before I was graced with being born here. I don't think anyone gets to choose place of birth. You may keep your cavalier attitude towards killing innocent people. I still consider it to be barbaric.

"Its not about revenge. It is about survival. I think it is immoral to allow an enemy that has proven willing and capable of using biologial weapons to continue to do so."

Our root disagreement appears to be here. A couple of points are:

1) To the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed responsibility for nor has any evidence been produced proving WHO conducted these bio attacks. It COULD be a disgruntled American. After Tim McVeigh, that has to be a consideration.
2) It is immoral to wage war against a people who have not been proven to be an enemy. While there are probably terrorists in Afghanistan, there are probably 10s if not 100s of thousands of innocents for each terrorist.
3) Do we apply the same defenses against home grown terrorism?(i.e., If we find domestic terrorists preparing to use anthrax or other bio weapons in an American city, say Waco, Texas for example, do we nuke the region?)

I think if you really think this through, you'll come up with solutions far short of nukes that will be effective in the short term and the long term. I would focus on defense from bio attack and investigating the source of the attacks in the short term, which is, I believe, the course our leaders have chosen.When we discover,for certain, who conducted these attacks, we go after them with a vengence using the apprpriate force to finish them off permanently. Long term, I would attempt to maintain a lid on bio weapon development.

IMHO, the use of nukes against ANYONE at this stage would be as immoral, if not more so, than the attacks on the WTC.

FYI

Before you nuke the world, read this

Perhaps you missed it, but the Representatives who have said we should consider nuclear retaliation have said IF we have the evidence that al Quaeda is behind it.

As for that article in the Post, it has been well dissected here on FR. I don't doubt that the people who are sending anthrax out are HERE - but I also don't doubt it will be linked back to al Quaeda.

The people of Afghanistan have some amount of self-determination. The Taliban didn't spring up out of thin air. You may think it cavalier to bomb the people of a nation with which we are at war, but it is an unfortunate necessity sometimes.

Let me leave you with a quote from General William T Sherman:

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.

"You may think it cavalier to bomb the people of a nation with which we are at war, but it is an unfortunate necessity sometimes. "

You make my point for me A state of war has not been declared! The Constitution of the US is still in effect, unless somethings changed while I wasn't looking. Artcle 1 Sec 8 gives the Congress the power to declare a war, which they have not!

Red herring.

We are at war, whether you like it or not.

Whether it is declared or not, we are attacking the military and political structures of another nation with our military might. We might say we are not "at war with Afghanistan," but we quite plainly are.

Under your definition, we were not at war with Iraq in 1991. Nor over Kosovo in 1999.

This war is being prosecuted under the same rubric - a resolution by the Congress authorizing the President to use military force.

Besides, if Congress had issued a declaration of war, would you then be in favor of nuclear retaliation for the introduction of biological warfare?

we have not had to fear an attack from Japan since August 1945

Japan (led by its emporer) surrendered. Terrorists led by BL will not surrender. I agree with dixierat22's 4 points and would add a fifth:
Nuke fallout will slowly kill thousands of innocent civilians downwind.

We must detect and prevent suitcase nukes here (this should not be difficult as they are radioactive), and use other means to fight the general war against terrorism.

The 'wars' we fought in Kosovo and the Gulf were both illegal. Illegal acts gotten away with in the past do not make illegal acts of the present or future legal or morally right.

I understand the need for action against the terrorists, but see no need for a war against the Afghanis. The real desire is to eliminate the terrorists responsible for the attacks. I have seen no evidence that says that anyone specific is responsible. OBL probably is, but GWB and company have shown no one their proof.

In the case of a declared war, I would expect our military to be given the lattitude to make the appropriate decisions as to weaponry. BUT, this is not a declared war, regardless of the attack on us. Even after Pearl harbor, the military did not go on the offensive until after the formal declaration of war. Our Congress has conducted itself the way a bunch of eunuchs would. That is disgraceful. Ron Paul offered up a measure to issue letters of Marguise so that people could go after OBL legally, but I have not heard if they were passed.

Here is the underlying problem:
If any president can throw out the US Constitution to make war as he sees fit, can he not also throw out the US Constitution in order to 'protect' us from attack? Does he not then becaome a dictator? Would you support that kind of action? It would be, under your argument, just as legal as the 'war' we are indeed fighting.

Still, would you support nuclear retaliation IF there were a declaration of war issued by the congress? If not, then you are using this as a red herring, polluting the discussion.

The way I read the Constitution, a resolution authorizing the President to use force is completely within the purview of the Legislative Branch.

As I stated before, the decision as to what weapons should or should not be used in a declared war would be up to the military leaders, including, of course, the President. I would support my country in a declared war, however, as a free man, I would reserve the right to question the judgement of the leadership. That's the American way and always has been.

As to the Constitutionality of Congress giving the President the power to use force, I'll defer the final question to the SCOTUS. I doubt there'll be a serious legal challenge and if there were, I believe the SCOTUS would support the Congress.

Personally, I would save the nukes for a more solidly defined threat and target.