[Jhoffa_]

Why does a nuclear device carry an emotional or moral baggage that an AC-130's 20 mm cannon or howitzer does not?

Only two reasons are immediately obvious to me.

1) Nukes hurt "mother earth" (Now, while I could care less about that a soft, warm, liberal type would undoubted call it a negative.)

2) AC-130's and cannon haven't been demonized for decades in the press. They are smaller and less destructive (which means inferior in my book) and to a warm, fuzzy liberal type that might be viewed as a positive.

[ArneFufkin]

There is no doubt in my mind, regardless of the provocation, if the United States ever employed a nuclear weapon it would be hysterically condemned as a crime against humanity more evil than Hitler's "Final Solution", Stalin's reign of genocide, Mao's murderous purge, Pol Pot's mass exterminations, etc. etc. Between Hitler, Mao and Stalin - they killed around 30 million of their own citizens. Huessein has used gas against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. But I'll guarantee you, if the U.S. drops a tactical nuke that eliminates a threat of 600 of the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard - that will be an inhumanity beyond mortal agony to the Socialist elite in Europe and here. The cross dressers in The Hague will be soiling their Depends wit' a quickness. It's going to take guts for any Commander in Chief to authorize the weapon tool, and for any General to give the green light. Well, if it's between dropping nukes as part of the arsenal or losing a lot of American kids in a dirty scrum ... there's no question in my mind.