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.
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.