The Nuclear Option

Townhall.com/ ^ | November 2, 2001 | Cal Thomas

[nimc]

"What would we drop one on?"

Ah...Baghdad is a good place to start.

[ASTM366]

The first two should be Mecca and Medina. Then Kandahar and Kabul. Show the Muslim world that they cannot f*&k with the United State of America.

[marbren]

Why don't we threaten Mecca with a Nuke to deter any future attacks on the USA.

[dglang]

Sad to say, dropping either one or many bombs 'over there' will not hit the terrorists 'over here'. Neither using or not using nukes will change their minds from doing what they have already decided to do.

Indeed, using nukes might inspire them to respond with 'dirty nukes' or biochem warefare, while not using them may encourage them to restrain also for fear of them being used on their own people.

Once the thing being feared has happened, fear of that thing happening no longer exists and it's deterent factor goes away also.

[Lent]

Interesting how 9/11 changed out thinking about our conduct of the war against Japan. Roosevelt's roundup of all Japanese--which seemed so racist to us a few months ago--seems less so now, much more motivated by fear and expediency. And Truman's dropping of the atomic bomb seems much easier to justify--though I, for one, never doubted he acted from a sound moral perspective. The use of tactical nuclear weapons by us in Afghanistan is surely justifiable, given they would be aimed at the Talibans or terrorists, not at civilians.

Interesting how death at one's door changes the ivory tower niceties. Looking again at the picture in post 37 makes it quite clear that an attack on the West in this fashion deserves to be recompensed with the kind of deterrence which leaves no question about our will and resolve to uphold the principles we hold sacred.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

IMHO Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz should be put in charge of 'Homeland Security'.
He's not the type to pull punches or screw around.

[medved]

"What would we drop one on?"

How about Baghdad?

[itsahoot]

Indeed, using nukes might inspire them to respond with
'dirty nukes' or biochem warefare,

Uh, I think anthrax falls in that category....

[dglang]

The current usage of Anthrax by 'them' even though biological is really very limited. It is not up to the level of destruction of a 'dirty nuke' or the spraying of a city with chemical or biological agents by a crop duster.

Once the perpetrators of the current Anthrax action are captured and info is extracted from them proving the ties to either Bin Laden, the Taliban, or even Iraq, there will be justification for expanded conventional military action against the perps but not for using nukes on a city or a country nation wide.

The current focus by the U.S. on Bin Laden and the Taliban is already being critized as unjustified and excessive especially since we haven't released absolute proof of their involvement to the world at large and there is even less justification in the worlds eyes for the U.S. to go nuclear on them, totally destroying either a city or Afganistan in total.

If the enemy used crop sprayers on a city, the U.S. would still be hard pressed to justify the use of nukes on one of their cities, especially without absolute proof. At the present time the use of nukes by the U.S. deep within a cave can not be justified because of the fallout which will affect several other countries

The Islamic Arab world in general seems to be wanting to wage war to destroy the U.S. and the use of nukes by the U.S. would certainly trigger that war. Despite our military superiority, we cannot wage conventional war against ALL the arab countries at once.

The U.S. had a policy and the capability of being able to fight two conventional WWII level wars simultaniously, but no longer has even that capability. To fight a conventional war with the Arab world which has a combined population several times that of the U.S. is just not possible.

Even if the enemy uses a 'dirty nuke' against the U.S, there will not be justification for a nuclear response since a 'dirty nuke' is a just conventional explosive that disburses large quanties of radioactive material into the air.

However, if they use a 'suitcase nuke' on a U.S city, the door will then be open for a U.S. nuclear response. Until then, nukes can not be justified, especially without indesputable proof.

Once they use a suitcase nuke against us, our response must of necessity be of sufficient intensity to discourage any further overt or covert warfare against us. The only thing that might accomplish that is the total anihilation of one or more Arab cities.

From the enemys point of view, Afganistans total destruction means very little and they would be willing to trade that for the total destruction of the U.S. Only the destruction of one or more non Afganistani cities will be sufficient to provoke them to a temporary peace which would only last until they believed themselves capable of totally destroying the U.S.

The obvious candidate for a U.S. nuclear strike is not Afganistan but Iraq because they are the ones most likely to possess the chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) weapons which would be used against us. The case against them is being built even now and if the U.S. is struck with nuclear weapons, they will be struck in response.

[atafak]

Even if we are not yet ready to use nukes, we ought publicly be drawing comparisons between the cave dwelling Mo'hams and the Japanese at the time of Truman's decision. A voiced threat is empty compared to letting the enemy see that you are preparing yourself to anihilate him.

[Old Phone Man]

Maybe now some of those born after WWII will grasp the furor, the anger engrained in the people of these great United States then.

Look at it this way. Do you think Osama would have attacked the WTC or do you think he would have used nuclear weapons?

Let's face it, he doesn't have the capability to use nuclear weapons yet. If he did the World Series wouldn't have been in the Bronx this year.

Wake up all you do-gooders out there. Nuke 'em!!!