[higgmeister]

Most of the cave dwellers would be shielded from the effects of a blast, while our guys on the surface, would eat fallout.

How do you mean this?
Our guys could leave the
theater of operations
before a Nuke got
dropped on them.

A nuke wouldn't leave
a cave opening left and
even if there was one the
fallout would be theirs
to deal with.

But we're going to lose guys.
  ...just like the Japanese Marines at Tarawa.

The russian experiance
should have taught us not
to get bogged down in a
conventional action in a land
where everyone wants to
fight everyone else.

[section9]

Fallout can radiate to any area, depending on the prevailing winds. You don't want to use tactical nukes in a situation in which conventional means are both tactically and politically of greater benefit.

You don't want to kill a bunch of innocent Afghans when you're trying to bag the al-Qaeda and get as much intelligence as possible.

Nukes must be reserved for strategic purposes.

As to Afghanistan itself; look, when you get the guys to coalesce into a certain area, then you can bag them. We can get them and get the intelligence that will come from captives. Keep your eye on the big picture.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[mikhailovich]

So, you support a nuclear response, because we don't want to engage the rats in the same conventional manner as the Soviets?

Thats an honorable wish, but just imagine how greedily and hastefully the rats would be searching for nukes if the US did indeed, pelt them with the sands of rudeness.

I do like the thought, however.