Replies

"If a terrorist group detonates low yeield nuclear weapons in, say, NYC, DC, and Los Angeles, just as an example. The entire cities would not be destroyed, most likely - initial blast crater would be a few blocks, and fires would rage for a few blocks more radiating outward.
"The cities would be terribly damagaed, and the impact would be felt citywide - gas pipes exploding, fire racing down subway tunnels, and not enough police and firemen to control the disaster.
"Say 50,000+ dead in each city, several hundred thousand more burned or injured in each city.
"OK, Einstein, who do you nuke in response? A major muslim city? A holy site? So kill millions of innocent people over the murder of our innocent people? Ruin one of their holy sites over what an admittedly small minority of their culture did? What does that accomplish?

"The correct response is attack those directly responsible - using a nuke is like using a dozen grenades when a 9mm gun is better suited."

The attack on 9/11/2001 was an act of war WORSE than Pearl Harbor. It occurred on our soil, against innocents, including women and children. At least Pearl was against a military installation not on American soil.

The event of 9/11 was ample justification for a formal declaration of war against Islam--and for any form of retaliation we had the capacity to inflict.

Had I been President on 9/12/2001, you could still see the glowing patches that once were capital cities of terror supporting states, and Mecca and Medina would have been reduced to their component atoms.

No mercy. No quarter. This is war, and we are in denial. Specifically, you are in denial.

One lesson: the death of one American is worth the deaths of (say) 100,000 Arabs. They understand only violence, overwhelming force and superiority--and we should have administered it long ago. To do otherwise shows only weakness and invites more attacks.

--Boris

Yep. That works for me too. Not only as retaliation, but to set an example for any future would-be terrorists (attack us, and this is our response). The Romans knew how to set an example. I believe a tactical nuclear detonation within a few days after 9/11 would have been a defensible response on our part.

Boris,

I for one am glad you are not, and likely never will be, president.

I am all for using our military might against those responsble for the terrorist acts, indeed, the act of war.

I am against going on a homicidal, genocidal rampage against 1 billion people around the world, many of which live here in the states.

The terrorist attacks on 9-11 is not justification for a war against a religion, sorry. If the battle lines ultimately are drawn that way, fine, but as of 9-12-01, up till today, there is nothing to warrant such a rash action as 'you could still see the glowing patches that once were capital cities of terror supporting states, and Mecca and Medina would have been reduced to their component atoms.'

Grow up - denial isn't a river in egypt, nor am I in denial. What you describe would be a terrible course of action that most folks would not justify. Even after thousands of our own innocents are murdered, that is not an unlimited license for us to do what you prescribe.

I do not advocate weakness - I advocate a measured response against those responsible, both as a punitive measure and as a deterrent. Nuking holy cities and killion millions of innocents is not a rationally measured response.