The nuclear option

The Washington Times ^ | Sunday 4 Nov 2001 | Cal Thomas

[vannrox]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the London Telegraph late last month that Britain and the United States should expect a large-scale chemical and biological weapons assault on civilian targets by Osama bin Laden's terrorist group. The objective, said Mr. Wolf-owitz, is to cause tens of thousands of casualties.

[ChadGore]

Never let your enemy dictate the caliber of your weapon.

[vannrox]

Marine Lance Cpl. Clinton J. Bates, practices weapons drills on the flight deck of the USS Peleliu, October 30, 2001. The Secretary of the Navy told marines and sailors in the Arabian Sea to be patient and prepare for a long fight against terrorism
A Marine CH-46 Chinook helicopter lifts off from the assault ship USS Peleliu carrying its load of U.S. Marines as a crewmember salutes, November 1, 2001. A small taskforce of marines left the USS Peleliu on Thursday in what officials would only say was part of operations in support of Washington's Operation Enduring Freedom anti-terror campaign.
U.S. Marines aboard the USS Peleliu, in the Arabian Sea wait to load onboard Marine helicopters for operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom Thursday Nov. 1, 2001.
A sailor assigned to USS Peleliu gives the signal to launch an AH-1W "Super Cobra" helicopter from the ships flight on October 13, 2001. Peleliu and her embarked Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are conducting events in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. REUTERS/Lance Cpl. Matthew J. Decker

ANY QUESTIONS?

[Savage Beast]

If the time should ever come that the U.S. must use nuclear weapons in its defense, President Bush and his advisors will use them--and not before. Pray that that time never comes. I have supreme confidence in George Bush. Thank God for his election to the presidency.

[He Rides A White Horse]

They'll use it when they get it. You can count on it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

They are undoubtably overjoyed that they got their murderous little hands on anthrax.

Watch how they dance after nuking some major city. They'll do it.

[GOPJ]

One smallpox case, just one, and good-bye Afghanistan and Iraq.

Evil requires extreme.

[vannrox]

"...We totally nuke Afghanistan. Then what?..."


No one here is advocating the large scale use of Nuclear Weapons in Afganistan. I can't see where that would benefit anyone. However, the use of nuclear related technologies in this area would greatly accelerate and result in an American Victory. Small scale nuclear Weapons such as the M-80 (a mere 2KTon Pocket Nuke) would be advantageous.





"...Do we nuke all the other nations (with their oil) that would inviteably rise up in anger at us?..."


No of course not. We are after all terrorists (those organizations that use "terror" to fight and obtain their own adjenda.)as well as ANY country that supports or harbors or assists these individuals. These individuals are a valid threat to Americans and as such, in a state of war, they will be treated as the Enemy.


"...Do we nuke, say, Trenton New Jersey because there are Muslim terrorists operating there? ..."


OF COURSE NOT!! What are you? Crazy?


"...By steadily eliminating the Taliban as we are doing right now we will set an example to other regiemes that might consider harboring terrorists, but we are doing it in a way that is unlikely to bring out a violent response by other nations or individuals-ie the so called moderates..."


Perhaps. But I don't really see any FEAR. FEAR is what you would have to balance against the mosre radical of the opposition. Fear can be generated and only generated as an open and enormous expenditure of massive military might. The consequences of harming American should be considered to be wholly unacceptable to all of our enemies.


"... Now, some of these individuals and nations will, and are, speaking out against our actions, but none of them are commiting agression..."


Not really. Some are permitting use of the technique of "Terror". Supporting, accelerating the training or people and providing food and comfort to our enemy is IDENTICAL to fighting a more traditional (old fashioned) war.


A nice picture for inspiration...

[Channel_Islands_EANx_Diver]

We totally nuke Afghanistan. Then what?

Then the Muslims wake up and hopefully say to themselves, "Attacking the United States and its interests are not a very good idea."

No one is saying that we "totally nuke Afghanistan"

Some of you people have such a limited idea of the capabilities and limitations of the dozens of types of N weapons in our arsenal, it just makes me sick.

Why don't you do some research on the subject and come back when you know something about it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Some Paki sypathizers, um, 'borrow' one for their Taliban pals.

[is_is]

I fear your type as well....guess that makes us even, huh?

[Deep_6]

re:
"...VAST MAJORITY of arab/muslim's hate us...."

Please provide those statistics and factual information?

And please explain why the millions of Muslims and
Middle East people are helping us with this war.

Thanks.

[Righty1]

Don't get hysterical. If we use 0.2 Meg enhanced blast bunker busters they will not contaminate the world. I would like to see us employ FAEs first though. The main beef I have with our strategy is that we didn't unleash our bombers on the Taliban front lines before they got a chance to dig to China.

[Brasil]

Do a FreeRepublic search for 'Relentlessly and Thoroughly', read that brilliant article by Paul Johnson, and see why all these terrorist populations should be nuked.

[Andy from Beaverton]

There is only one nuclear power in the world, and it is Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and would use them without hesitation. Imagine what would happen to the demographic map of the Middle East if Bin Laden’s people were dumb enough to crash a 767 into the center of Tel Aviv. The next morning there would be big, glowing craters where Damascus, Baghdad, and Riyadh used to be, and the West Bank would be a mustard-gassed wasteland. That is what it is to have nuclear and chemical weapons; and by this standard, the U.S. has no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons at all.

[beavus]

Only one question has to be asked. Will the use of nuclear weapons save American lives? If the answer is "Yes" then the U.S. government is OBLIGATED to use them. As an act of self-defense, all the horror is the responsibility of those we are defending ourselves against.

I don't know what kind of sick reversal of morality could lead anyone to think otherwise.

Innocent Afghans killed by U.S. bombs are victims of the Taliban.

[Lizzy W]

An "I'm ok with nukes" bump!

[Beenliedto]

ANY QUESTIONS?

Absolutly no questions... I understand exactly where you're coming from... If you want WWIII, that's your right....

I, on the other hand, want a change in US foreign policy... I want us to stop empire building....

Mine is the better way... Mine is the way the Founding Fathers intended this great nation to work.

Yours is sick.

Totally sick.

[NJ Neocon]

Foolish foolish talk. Will we atom bomb Germany and Italy too where many Middle Easterners reside, many with ties to these cells? Will Canada be after that? How about Mexico? How about London? They are there as well. All this nuclear bravado is nothing more than frustration being exhibited by people who can't think beyond their front door. And after we have nuked them all into submission, we'll be dealing with radiation in our milk, meat and water for a long time to come. I think you better give a bit more thought to the use of nuclear not as a first, but a last choice.

I agree. Well said

"Nuc em all" sounds good and is emotionally satisfying, but impossible because of all the reasons stated above and others.