So, since the terrorists may have used WMD, we have to. If it were your finger on the trigger, who would you blast?
1) We have no viable target for nukes if we are inclined to use them.
...
So, since the terrorists may have used WMD, we have to. If it were your finger on the trigger, who would you blast?
I disagree that there are no viable targets. Sure there are. 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.
Even if we had a target, we could and probably should destroy it with conventional weapons.
If our response to bio attack is the same as to the "conventional" attacks of 9/11, then we are not exacting any higher price for the use of WMD. We are accepting bio attacks as a condition of this war and any others in the future. Bad idea.
The political fallout, in terms of world opinion, would far outweigh any gains we could hope for by the use of such weapons. Are we not the most powerful military on earth? Is it really necessary for us to hunt down cave dwelling cowards with nukes? That strikes me as the equivalent of hunting mice with my .308.
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.
This is not about who loves us. It is about survival. Bugs are way worse than nukes any day.
The 'bio' attacks on us have, so far, been amatuerish at best.
So we should wait until they are more successful? That is simply immoral.