SURGICAL NUCLEAR STRIKES WOULD PUT AN END TO TERRORISM

Calgary Sun ^ | November 11, 2001 | Paul Jackson

[bulldog905]

Your right, I shouldn't have used that phrase.

I still stand by my assertion that if there is credible evidence that we are about to nuked, we should go pro-active, as opposed to reactive.

[blam]

A lot of opinions expressed on this thread will change before this war is over, some dramatically. A review of GWB's UN speech yesterday is in order. He was very clear, we will win.

[wienerdog.com]

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.

I'm glad I read to the bottom of the thread, because you voiced my sentiments exactly.

We don't want nukes to become just another weapon of war -- and besides, we have the BLU-82, which is as powerful as a small nuke without all the political problems. We do not need to do something stupid, and permanent (until the world is finally blown to smithereens by routine nukes) to waste a bunch of ragheads with donkey-mounted artillery.

[Grut]

What this maniac [Harris] accomplished ...

He was a maniac, too, or at least seriously disturbed. By the end of the war he was having his dead aircrews in for tea and explaining to them that he had not wasted their lives....

[southland]

You must not have been in London during Germany's effort to destroy it.

[bulldog905]

The use of nuclear weapons, barring a massive first-strike provocation

If ANYBODY, used ANY nuclear weapons on America, would that constitute your definition of massive?

I just want to be clear on that.

[zook]

That would make you kind of a goofball, IMO.

[zook]

On what do you base your assertion?

[mlocher]

personally, i believe nukes are a last resort, however, this is a rather large cancer that we are trying to remove...

[AndyJackson]

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,

This author does not know what he is talking about. First, what he advocates is anything but surgical. I will leave other supposed experts here to deal with our stockpile capabilities.

His suggestion is also either mad or preposterous. Our policy is that our nuclear deterrent is there as a deterrent, and the trip wire is easily seen with plenty of warning signs around it. If tripped it HAS to go off, and we have spent Billions hiring the best minds in the country to think about whether we really want it to go off under those circumstances. If you lower the threshold for a nuclear response or hedge or fudge what you are talking about either (a) you will compromise your position and people won't take your deterrent seriously or (b) people will swindle you into using it when you shouldn't and suddenly make nuclear warfare respectable around the world.

This is insane.

[zook]

1. Use nukes? In a limited fashion against military targets (e.g., mountain tunnels)? Absolutely. 2. Use them against targets that might involve deaths of civillians? In certain circumstances, absolutely. Hiroshima was a moral act. 3. Our use of nukes might somehow rationalize or even justify their use by bin Laden? Ridiculous. Anyone spouting such nonsense has lost their moral compass.

[verity]

A surgical nuclear strike is akin to performing heart surgery with a machete!

[bulldog905]

Colonel Charles A. Linbergh, advised the British not to stand up to Hitler and Germany, because, in his opinion:"The Bombers Would Always Get Through"

The British passed on his advice.

Today there are well meaning people who sincerly believe that if we demonstrate a restraint, that our enemies clearly will not, everything will be alright.

The barbarians are obtaining nukes and WMD. They will not be holding them for any "balance of terror" strategy.

They mean to use them.

[majordomo]

If I recall history correctly, during WWII many in the western world could not comprehend the Japanese mindset that would cause their pilots to dive their planes into American warships loaded with HE. I also remember reading an article in a scholarly historical journal written by an author who had researched in as much detail as possible what took place in the Japanese hierarchy near the end of the war. One thing from that article stuck with me. When military commanders eplained to Emperor Hirohito what happened in Hiroshima and advised him that the allies demanded Japan's surrender, Hirohito's comment was, "How long would it take us to build one of these bombs.?" What I took away from this article was the absolute necessity for acquiring an understanding of the enemy's belief system and thought processes before deciding what course of action is correct.

[bulldog905]

A surgical nuclear strike is akin to performing heart surgery with a machete!

You have point, but the reason we did so well in the Gulf War, was due to Powell's strategy of overwhelming force.

The reason America(not our military, they did great) did not do so well in the Vietnam war was the policy of graduated escalation, which was a reactive as opposed to proactive route.

We should do our best to stay out of war, but once in it, use any means at our disposal to lessen American casaulties.

[rmvh]

Re your # 54....Bulls-eye!!

[rmvh]

Re your # 45

I flew out of Brize Norton with the 8th AF...a short distance from London which is still, today, an RAF base.

Have a nice day.:>)

[rmvh]

re your # 37....

Bulls-eye!!"

By the way, I really like your home page lead.."Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup"

[genefromjersey]

Calling a nuclear strike "surgical" is strange ! Using nukes is about like using one of those neat .50 cal. sniper rifles on a field mouse. It will do the job, but,there may be unintended consequences !

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"Those operations cost not a single American life."

Except for the USS Indianapolis.