SURGICAL NUCLEAR STRIKES WOULD PUT AN END TO TERRORISM

Calgary Sun ^ | November 11, 2001 | Paul Jackson

[bulldog905]

President Harry Truman ended the Second World War almost overnight in 1945 by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.

Those operations cost not a single American life.

The atomic bombings were not all that devastating when put into perspective. Just weeks earlier, saturation bombing -- with conventional explosives -- killed as many as 200,000 in Tokyo. In February, 1945, round-the-clock carpet bombing of the beautiful German city of Dresden killed as many as 250,000 men, women and children in a scenario that is awesome, even today. Go to Dresden, as I have and the lasting effects of the destruction are still there to see.

Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris, legendary head of the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command in the Second World War, boasted his squadrons of aircraft had killed 600,000 people -- mainly civilians and children -- in their non-stop flights over Germany.

Most of the able-bodied men were fighting on the Russian front or elsewhere, but "Bomber" Harris' bombing helped demoralize the entire population. Again, Bomber Command used only conventional explosives.

We still look on atomic -- nuclear -- weapons as something loathsome because of their singular forces. You do not need hundreds of planes to drop bombs in a nuclear attack -- as at Tokyo or Dresden -- just one will do the job in quick fashion. A nuclear bomb drives the message home quickly that to fight on is fruitless, to surrender is the best option.

The U.S., Britain and France are nuclear powers. Coincidentally, no matter whether the government of the day in Britain or France is conservative or socialist, neither have ever considered for a second giving up their nuclear arms.

During the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of which Canada is a member, had a nuclear first-strike policy -- if the Soviets invaded Western Europe and looked like they were advancing over large areas successfully, NATO would go nuclear and take out Moscow and other large Soviet cities.

Last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- whose nation has both nuclear attack submarines and fighter-bombers equipped with nuclear weapons, raised the frightening spectacle that if Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorists had weapons of mass destruction, rather than slaughter just 6,000 people in New York City they would have killed 60,000 or 600,000 with a grin on their faces.

This month, bin Laden has said it is the "sacred" duty of Islamic forces to get hold of weapons of mass destruction.

When he does -- or when some of his contemporaries do -- he and they will use them. President George W. Bush admits to this horrifying scenario.

Indeed, as George Will noted in his Nov. 4 column "Daring Israeli raid saved U.S. grief," if it hadn't been for the Israelis taking out an Iraqi nuclear processing plant in a daring raid in 1981, Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons and many of us today would not be alive.

Saddam is still doing his best to get hold of nuclear or biological weapons and he is surely not going to get them just to fondly gaze at them. He will use them, initially against Israel -- recall the Scud attacks in the 1990s -- but then against the U.S.

Just 22 years ago, during the American hostage crisis in Iran, the Soviets went to Iranian authorities and warned them any moves against the Soviet Embassy and its staff in Tehran would provoke a nuclear response. Tehran would be gone. Not a single Soviet Embassy official was ever touched.

Looking at the current scenario, we can do one of two things: Wait until the Islamic terrorists get weapons of mass destruction in which case any number of our cities and their populations will be wiped out, or we can make some pre-emptive surgical nuclear strikes and end Islamic terrorism for the next 100 years.

If we took out, say, Kabul, Baghdad and Tehran with clean "neutron" bombs, which kill people but leave buildings standing, we would have won the war against these dictators and "rogue" nations without losing the life of a single allied soldier.

It would also be a lesson to the likes of Syria and North Korea that retribution for any of their transgressions will be met in similar fashion.

You do not win wars by pussyfooting around, playing the gentleman or dropping humanitarian supplies to civilian populations -- can you imagine the laughter if anyone has suggested dropping humanitarian supplies to Germans back in the 1940s? You win wars by taking your opponents to the edge of the precipice and letting them know you'll kick them over the edge unless they comply.

[JCG]

The city of Dresden had not a fragment of use to the German military and was the repository of irreplacable art of immense value to the world. What this maniac accomplished was no different than the Taliban's recent and equally insane destruction of the desert statues after ignoring the pleas of the civilized world to spare them.

Mecca and Medina await.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America -- here

 For better viewing download 8Mb file here

[Dacus943]

"I flew with the eighth AF and can tell you that there was nothing noble or commendable about Mr. Harris's destruction of Dresden and massacre of it's inhabitants. It was simply a crime and has been whitewashed by the British press since the mid forties."

While I respect service to the efforts of WWII, I disagree with your above statement! Hilter WAS PURE EVIL RUN AMOK! His actions, and those of his followers laid the ground work for this horrible Military Action against (a German City) Dresden.

[JCG]

I've hit the ABUSE button on bulldog905 for advocating the murder of civilians.

What about the 4500 dead civilians in downtown NYC, jerkoff?

 America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America -- here

 For better viewing download 8Mb file here

[rmvh]

re your # 18

I see the two arguments and believe neither can be proven:

The first..That enormous American casualties could be expected from the enevitable need to invade the Japanese mainland due to their implacable will to fight on.

Two: That as you say, they were dead in the water and time would have forced acceptance of the "unconditional surrender" demanded by Pres. Truman.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Live by the sword....die by the sword.

[OldFriend]

As you continue posting it is becoming clear that you are part of the 'hate America' crowd. Our country wrong about everything. Have you looked around for an alternate recipient for your citizenship? Please do!

[JCG]

believe me everyone id like to use nukes on them as well..but there is the pandora's box agenda in that...we
cant risk using nukes..or else we could get nuked right back (and i mean china THE BACKBONE OF
AL-QAEDA)

According to Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington, we're seeing the "clash of civilizations."  If we get past Islam (actually Islamism), China will be next.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America -- here

 For better viewing download 8Mb file here

[bulldog905]

Since the Gulf War, Americans can't fathom casualties. I've often appealed for reason, but the chest-beaters seem to have a death cult, trying to pander themselves as some form of 'patriot.' They can't get in touch with what happens if/when we start bringing the boys home in baggies.

The reason for Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasak was tht military planners estimated the American dead resulting from an invasion of Japan would be between 600,000-1,000,0000. That number of body bags was deemed unacceptable.

If indeed, it appears that we are going to be a nuclear target, of anybody, our Commander-in-Chief should have no hesitation in a pre-emptive strike.

[Restorer]

He said it; I want him NUKED NOW, and I do not want to feel his pain.

I might agree with you if nukes were not completely irrelevant. Since we don't know where he is, we cannot nuke him. If we find out where he is, we don't need to use nukes to take him out. The only thing keeping the man alive is that he has not yet been located. Once he has been found, his life will be short.

[rmvh]

Re your #22

The destruction of the WTC was exactly the same as the destruction of Dresden and the massacre of it's citizens...not a particle of difference. The aim was to kill civilians.

Hitler was evil, you say, and that was enough to justify the Dresden massacre....OK, OBL is evil and, using your logic, that justifies the WTC disaster!!!....I don't think so.

[KirklandJunction]

....sure wish we could get the "chest-beaters" to go to the front of the line. (Or down wind as the case may be.)
But, most of the ones here aren't old enough.

[Lady GOP]

true true

[KirklandJunction]

What makes you think I hate America?

[bulldog905]

Hence, the title, "Surgical Nuclear Strike."

Now, that's the epitome of American ignorance!

Uh, the article and title were written by a CANADIAN

[Vigilantcitizen]

I suppose the nightly bombings of London we're not targeting civilians??

[cardinal4]

Target one or two of the Muslim Holy cities.A nuclear detonation over Qum or Medina will demonstrate that we are quite serious in our war against terrorism,and lets face it,Islam.(Im going to flamed i know for that statement.But Islam as a whole will not condemn 9/11.Until then it personal with me and Islam.)

[Junior]

I find it interesting that the majority of those who want the U.S. to now use it's most destructive weapons have never been in the military and have never participated in combat. Don't you agree?

Amen! As the old saying goes, "people who like war and sausages should never see either one being made."

[bulldog905]

I suppose the nightly bombings of London we're not targeting civilians??

Yes, it funny, isn't it, that the folks so concerned with the Dresden bombing(and it was horrible) don't give the same concern to London, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Leningrad and all the other cities Hitler bomber first.

But then again, the Blame America crowd, is always looking for opportunities to show their stuff.

[eastforker]

I agree alot of what you have to say.Keep in mind one thing,when we nuked Japan no one else had that ability.No one could do it back to us.Now we have China and other countries that could.The main reason this bothers me is all the contact china and russia has/had with iraq and iran prior to 9/11.What reason does a two bit organization like OBL and the taliban have other than suicide to attack the US.Could it have been promisis from china to back them up once we got fully involved?IMHO there is more at stake here than meets the eye.

[George W. Bush]

Nuke them all and let God sort them out.

I'm not sure why McGowan is objecting except possibly because the phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them out" was the policy of the church of Rome, attributed to a papal official during one of the murderous Albigensian crusades when queried as to how to distinguish Romanists from Cathars in the assault on Beziers. This is a sore point with Rome since it reveals the general mentality of Rome's hierarchy at that time. They were indifferent to killing their own members and more concerned with the thorough extermination of Cathar heresy, regardless of how many innocents were killed.

As far as your article, I think the idea should be discussed. And then soundly rejected barring a massive WMD attack on the U.S.

The use of nuclear weapons, barring a massive first-strike provocation, is short-sighted and mistaken. Unless we have substantial legitimacy in world opinion in the use of WMD, we would ultimately create a more dangerous world, one in which the use of nuclear weapons becomes acceptable. Or even routine.