Posted on 11/11/2001 4:58:36 AM PST by LarryLied
President Harry Truman ended the Second World War almost overnight in 1945 by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.Jackson, associate editor of the Sun, can be reached atThose operations cost not a single American life.
The atomic bombings were not all that devastating when put into perspective. Just weeks earlier, saturation bombing -- with conventional explosives -- killed as many as 200,000 in Tokyo. In February, 1945, round-the-clock carpet bombing of the beautiful German city of Dresden killed as many as 250,000 men, women and children in a scenario that is awesome, even today. Go to Dresden, as I have and the lasting effects of the destruction are still there to see.
Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris, legendary head of the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command in the Second World War, boasted his squadrons of aircraft had killed 600,000 people -- mainly civilians and children -- in their non-stop flights over Germany.
Most of the able-bodied men were fighting on the Russian front or elsewhere, but "Bomber" Harris' bombing helped demoralize the entire population. Again, Bomber Command used only conventional explosives.
We still look on atomic -- nuclear -- weapons as something loathsome because of their singular forces. You do not need hundreds of planes to drop bombs in a nuclear attack -- as at Tokyo or Dresden -- just one will do the job in quick fashion. A nuclear bomb drives the message home quickly that to fight on is fruitless, to surrender is the best option.
The U.S., Britain and France are nuclear powers. Coincidentally, no matter whether the government of the day in Britain or France is conservative or socialist, neither have ever considered for a second giving up their nuclear arms.
During the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of which Canada is a member, had a nuclear first-strike policy -- if the Soviets invaded Western Europe and looked like they were advancing over large areas successfully, NATO would go nuclear and take out Moscow and other large Soviet cities.
Last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- whose nation has both nuclear attack submarines and fighter-bombers equipped with nuclear weapons, raised the frightening spectacle that if Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorists had weapons of mass destruction, rather than slaughter just 6,000 people in New York City they would have killed 60,000 or 600,000 with a grin on their faces.
This month, bin Laden has said it is the "sacred" duty of Islamic forces to get hold of weapons of mass destruction.
When he does -- or when some of his contemporaries do -- he and they will use them. President George W. Bush admits to this horrifying scenario.
Indeed, as George Will noted in his Nov. 4 column "Daring Israeli raid saved U.S. grief," if it hadn't been for the Israelis taking out an Iraqi nuclear processing plant in a daring raid in 1981, Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons and many of us today would not be alive.
Saddam is still doing his best to get hold of nuclear or biological weapons and he is surely not going to get them just to fondly gaze at them. He will use them, initially against Israel -- recall the Scud attacks in the 1990s -- but then against the U.S.
Just 22 years ago, during the American hostage crisis in Iran, the Soviets went to Iranian authorities and warned them any moves against the Soviet Embassy and its staff in Tehran would provoke a nuclear response. Tehran would be gone. Not a single Soviet Embassy official was ever touched.
Looking at the current scenario, we can do one of two things: Wait until the Islamic terrorists get weapons of mass destruction in which case any number of our cities and their populations will be wiped out, or we can make some 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, which kill people but leave buildings standing, we would have won the war against these dictators and "rogue" nations without losing the life of a single allied soldier.
It would also be a lesson to the likes of Syria and North Korea that retribution for any of their transgressions will be met in similar fashion.
You do not win wars by pussyfooting around, playing the gentleman or dropping humanitarian supplies to civilian populations -- can you imagine the laughter if anyone has suggested dropping humanitarian supplies to Germans back in the 1940s? You win wars by taking your opponents to the edge of the precipice and letting them know you'll kick them over the edge unless they comply.
We have committed this country to war, and the other side will use these weapons with no hesitation.
If it appears that we are going to be attacked with nuclear weapons, it would be insanity not to strike first.
The lay-down-Sally mentality has permeated the soul of too many in this country.
There are even some who say we should not respond if we are attacked by Nukes or Chemicals.
Are we going to wait until New York City or Washington D.C. is nuked before we respond? No, I don't think so. President Bush made a statement at last week's Homeland Security address that we are just at the beginning of the Afghanistan war and that Afghanistan represents just the beginning of our worldwide war against terror.
I am convinced that President Bush is setting the stage for a widening war which may very well include surgical nuclear strikes. I'm sure we have tactical nukes already in place against our enemies and as soon as we determine that they have acquired nuclear capability, we will use them.
It is time to forge an agreement with the current nuclear powers of the world to stop nuclear proliferation in its tracks. It is enough that the U.S., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and at least a half-dozen other countries possess nuclear weapons. No more nations should be allowed to join the nuclear club. We need to jointly issue a statement that any other nation attempting to develop nuclear weapons will be seen by the rest of the civilized world as an act of war. This may not sit well with the isolationists out there who say that the U.S. needs to mind their own business. But I feel that this is necessary in order to preserve civilization as we know it.
A piecemeal approach, war by increments and escalation, cost us thousands of American lives in Vietnam. One has to wonder if the line will ever be crossed to when we say,enough is enough. I don't know.
It's time to send the big ones and not play games with "tactical nukes". 2 or 3 would end the war especially if there was an immediate announcement that any other nation supporting the muslim terrorists would receive the same. To hell with what the rest of the world thinks.
Looking at the current scenario, we can do one of two things: Wait until the Islamic terrorists get weapons of mass destruction in which case any number of our cities and their populations will be wiped out, or we can make some pre-emptive surgical nuclear strikes and end Islamic terrorism for the next 100 years.
It will not end the irrational demonic drive to sacrifice a terrorists life to kill thousands in the West. Such a strike might, MIGHT, persuade Arab governments to resist the temptation to openly harbor terrorists, but the governments of nearly every Arab nation are right now on the precipice of overthrow from the radical Hezbollah, Hamas, Party of God, al Qaida, etc. that infest the nations in and around the Middle East.
We might take a lesson from the current course in Iran: the Irani powers that be recognize the sick tendency to radicalize in Islam and that would threaten the powers that be in that Shiite state, so they are moderating on a planned schedule, is my guess. Nuking one or more Islamic cities is stupid. The terrorists of al Qaida want that very thing, to tip the balance of hate in favor of the billion+ Moslems blindly hating America forever.
The better course of actgion is to methodically and near surgically excise the radicals and stop the national support they enjoy, step by step, until the general populace begin to see the wisdom in not supporting terrorist enclaves and radical notions.
Afghanistan is getting pounded because they were taken over by al Qaida, through the ignorant Taliban fanaticism and inherent hate. The al Qaida network has used Afghanistan for theirt training and storage location. we have to annihilate the stored weaponry and eviscerate the Taliban, then send the 'vaunted' U.N. into the breech, to form a peaceful government there. Then, we move on to the next terrorist harbor, in Syria,or Iraq, or ... the key is better energy self-sufficiency and security here in the U.S. and off our main coastal cities, then we can stomp the livin' shit out of the terrorists and the nations that harbor them, and tell the snooty Saudis to go pound sand and eat oil.
But don't fret for the Saudis, they'll still have the euro markets to feed them for their oil. Besides, al Saud isn't gonna be in power much longer ... too two-faced and naive when it comes to terrorists, rich family thinking they can buy benign neglect. I sincerely hope we never yank their bacon out of the fire ever again! They don't deserve the attention we give them. Let the frogs and gerries do it for the oil.
We can do A LOT with conventional bombing. Just look at Dresden and Tokyo etc. 56 years ago. Let's stick with that or we will, I believe, regret it later.
I'm not sure that nuking Kabul would have the effect of demoralizing our enemy.
And if their cities are being incinerated, and they somehow manage to avoid being killed in the process, they are likely to be thrown out of power by someone who thinks it's time to surrender already. For an example of this dynamic, see Japan in 1945.
I think it's more than "might". But even if one such strike doesn't convince them, two or three will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.