[sneakypete]

Smart idea. Very smart, I like it!

I don't. We lose the moral high ground when we are the first ones to resort to using WMD,and the terrorists would make VERY effective propoganda out of this to justify them using WMD in attacks on US cities. Let THEM be the first ones to use these methods,and us be the last ones.

[snopercod]

We lose the moral high ground...

I think you might want to consider whether not responding to a CBR attack with the best weapons in our arsenal is moral or not.

Morarality is the third branch of philosopy, and is simply the sum total of the decisions people make to achieve "the good".

Now ask yourself whether allowing American soldiers to die to maintain your image is moral.

[JimRed]

We lose the moral high ground when we are the first ones to resort to using WMD...

We do not plan FIRST use, but use in response. Just not necessarily in kind; chem = bio = nuke.

[ffusco]

You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque, yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike. Once an enemy realizes that we don't have the will to use our weapons, they lose all deterent value. I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan. It was swift and just, It was moral. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides and liberated millions in the region. The Japanese would have fought till the last man. Our overwhelming use of force allowed them to "save face" and surrender to a extremely worthy and powerful opponent.