Replies

When I was in the military, this doctrine was a given.

If President Bush wants to make it clear as day, MORE power to him. These terrorists do not respond to ambiguity, you have to hit them in the head with a hammer, and the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

These terrorists do not respond to ambiguity, you have to hit them in the head with a hammer, and the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

The prime problem with that being that it is too big a "hammer". The terrorist leadership don't really worry about it because THEY are the only ones in their groups who have the intel coming in to warn them of a pending attack,and who have the mobility and ability to haul ass before the strike hits. Hell,since most of THEM won't be the doing the dying,they would probably welcome something like this because they would turn it into a recruiting tool. Nope,to REALLY get the message to them,you have to put it on a more primitive and personal level. You have to make it known that THEY PERSONALLY will be tracked down to anywhere in the world they go,and that one fine morning they will wake to to the feeling of a knife blade sliding across their throats. You are neither a martyr or a hero when you die in your sleep. A few examples of THAT happening will send a message they can't miss.

the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

This enemy doesn't respond to threats. They only respond to actual action.
It's like telling someone that's pestering you, "stop, or I'll punch you in the nose."
If you repeat it enough times, they will not believe you, because a threat doesn't hurt.

I agree with you, sir. The countries that sponsor the terrorist scum and asymetrical warfare have always depended on our being duped into believing that the terror groups are unaffiliated and amorphous. If they think the hammer can and will drop on them, they will rapidly rethink their options.

Unless they really do have a death wish.