A nuclear solution to WTC bombing?

Great Debates
1

I’ve heard a lot of “nuke the bastards” rhetoric today. Yesterday it made me sick and saddened.

I started thinking about it though, unemotionally, and now I’m not so sure, that a nuclear or other massive form of retaliation might not be appropriate.

Now it seems most likely that the WTC atrocity was perpetrated by Islamic extremists, probably Bin Laden, and probably with passive help from the Taliban, or others.

Think about what it takes to be a suicide bomber, to spend years of your life training for this task as a team, knowing that you are all going to die. Think about deliberately going after not soldier, but innocent citizens, women and children.

These extremists do not value life as we do. I wonder if they interpret our reluctance to wage war, or kill on a wholesale scale as weakness.

We have sought the peaceful solution. We do not use our might to conquer or punish the innocent. We respect other country’s rights, and we do not interfere with them, because that is the right thing to do.

But I don’t think they understand.

When I have recurring problems with people who are unreasonable I have a little trick I use. I pretend they are dogs or horses (I train both as a hobby.) It never fails.

With a dog or a horse, you cannot explain right or wrong, you cannot reason. You cannot appeal to their better natures. The next time your dog eats the pie off the counter try explaining to it how wrong it was, and see what that gets you.

You must keep it simple. You must deal with the animal from a perspective it can understand. Fear, respect, love, immediate consequences, are all things you can bring to bear in your task.

The kind of people such things as the WTC are not people we can appeal to. They do not see forbearance and love of life as strengths. They are weaknesses that gode them into ridicule and embolden them further. They must think we are soft.

So what to do?

I think that without anger, we must teach a lesson. Higher security is a good thing, but the ultimate defense against terrorism is to prove that it doesn’t work.

As a nation, we must adopt a clear and public stance.

We do not negotiate, and we do not talk. If you hijack our planes, we shoot them down. If you take hostages we storm your position immediately. It works for the Israelis.

There will be horrendous repercussions to a terrorist attack. Harboring terrorists, or allowing them to exist within your borders is an act of war, and we will respond appropriately.

We should let the world know that we topple any government that does this, and hold its leaders responsible.

If Osama Bin Laden is responsible, then the government of Afghanistan has lost its right to exist. We do not target the people of Afghanistan. We target the leaders. We target Bin Laden. We destroy them both.

If, as it may turn out to be the truth, the people of Afghanistan support these actions and defend the Bin Laden and their leaders, then we are truly at war with that entire country. The entire country is truly responsible for what has happened.

I think the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan was the right one. The whole country was against us, and the cost of capturing Japan conventionally would have been to high, nor could we allow their government or their people to exist the way they were. They had to be defeated.

If Bin Laden is reponsible and they do not turn him over, the Government of Afghanistan is an accesory after the fact and must be defeated. If the people of Afghanistan are behind their leaders in this, and defend them in these actions then they too must be defeated.

They must taught a lesson. Without anger, without calling it revenge or retribution, and with regret, we must teach this lesson.

In such a situation, nuclear weapons would be justified. We do not destroy the entire country. We take out the capitol with a city-buster type device. If they do not capitulate we use another, and another, until they do.

That will be a message that any dog can understand.

2

Unfortunately, using nukes would also destroy most of the mid east, rendering it uninhabitable. Besides, once we use a nuke against someone, what is to stop someone ELSE from nuking us?

I don’t want to be the first to push the button. I’m TERRIFIED about this. Scylla, I can’t sleep, I’m having panic attacks at the thought.

3

This concept is totally sick. I hope you’ll come back to your mind. You’re falling morally way beyond yesterday’s terrorists.

4

Guinastasia,

You don’t have to be scared. This idea makes no sense and the people who make decisions in your country have sense. There isn’t the slightest chance that it could happen.

5

I understand your anger, Scylla, but I don’t think it is very desirable to drop nukes in Asia for the third time in 60 years. I think such an action will hurt us in Chinese, Japnaese, Russian, and Indian eyes. If I were Bush, I might threaten nuclear action in private conversations with Taliban ambassadors to get them to do something, but I don’t think the long-range consequences are worth it.

I agree with you that adolescents & evil people see forbearance as weakness, but I think a conventional response is more appropriate.

6

Yes. It is. That’s the problem. I don’t think that terrorists, terroristic governments or terroristic nations act or think morally.

If and that is only if that is in fact what we are dealing with, how can we respond morally and hope for understanding?

If we send such a message do we not ultimately save more lives?

I wonder if we can afford our level of morality.

That’s why I say that if we do such a thing, it must not be for revenge, retribution, or out of anger.

As a nation we would be the lesser for having commited such an act, but I wonder if maybe it is something that we must do anyway.

7

How do you ‘target the leaders’ and ‘target bin Laden’ without killing INNOCENT PEOPLE? You are fooling yourself. I am quite sure that whomever was responsible yesterday validated killing innocent civilians because they consider all Americans ‘evil’ and worthy of death. Most right-minded Americans dont think this about Arabs. Killing innocent civilians is wrong. I can not validate it. How many innocents are you willing to kill as long as you get bin Laden as well? 100? 10,000? 1 is too many.
please think peace,
JB

8

I have to admit, I would never have thought that a nuclear strike would ever be an acceptable response. That was before yesterday. Today I am sitting on that fence.

We would need to have certifiable proof that the nuked parties were in fact responsible, and that the country we nuke is willfully harboring them. We would also need a committment from a large majority of NATO nations that they will stand behind us after the nuke.

I don’t know if all of those things will hapen, and I never thought I’d find myself sitting on this fence.

9

No anger at all in this one.

10

I disagree, Attrayant, we need to think more about Asian reaction. Right now, there are more Great Powers in Asia than in Europe, and, altho’ the yahoo element of our populace won’t like it, we need to be thinking about their opinions in order to secure our own long-range goals.

Not to say that, since this horror erupted, I have not enjoyed fantazing about turning Kabul into radioactive rubble.

11

You have to understand what kind of ‘nuclear’ response we’re talking about.

The most likely scenario is that a small tactical nuke might be dropped on Bin Laden’s compound, which by all accounts is located in a remote region of Afghanistan, in the mountains.

The problem with hitting him with conventional missiles is that he is apparently living in an area of heavy natural protection (caves and such), and stays continually on the move. So you can never pinpoint exactly where he is, even if you know that he’s in an area of maybe 1 sq mile.

So you drop a tactical nuke on his camp, and wipe him out. There would be little or no collateral damage, and not much fallout. These tactical nukes are available in yields no bigger than the destructive force that was released on the WTC yesterday.

I don’t think it will happen, but the U.S. has specifically said it hasn’t ruled out a nuclear response. I’m just pointing out that if one comes, that’s almost certainly the form it would take. I don’t think anyone would ever remotely consider bombing population centers, or even military targets in the middle-east with large-scale weapons.

12

If conditions are as you say, Sam, then I doubt that a tactical nuke will do much good. I’ve been in Mammoth Cave and a few Indiana caverns, both private and commercial. Believe me, some of those caves are pretty goddamn deep with more than one entrance.

You still have to deal with the political fallout of using nukes in Asia for the third time in 60 years. The Japanese and other Asian peoples aren’t going to be too happy.

13

No nuclear weapons! Their use will result in terrorist nuclear retribution.

I am quite in sympathy with a lot of what you have written. This is causus belli, a cause for war. My Great Debates thread is considering the consequences of the use of force, while I can see no alternative to it.

In overwhelming, crushing and terrible form. Gasoline vapor bombs act just like nukes, but without the fallout. One major city per building hit by a plane. Enough events, no more country. No more problem… Next?

14

**

A Special Forces operation. Maybe laser guided bombs. Inevitably innocent people would die. Innocent people died in WWII but we were right to enter that war. It is not something to be shrugged off or taken lightly, but make no mistake, we are at war with terrorists, and innocent people will die in a war. We do our best to minimize it.

I agree. Nor do I. I think attributing the attitudes of these extremists to Muslims or Arabs in general is analoguous to assuming David Koresh spoke for all Christians.

Yes.

How many more innocents will pay the price if we do not?

This is not Bin Laden’s first attack against the US. We made a mistake in allowing him to continue to operate, in letting him get away with it, in letting a nation give him safe harbor.

If in fact he is responsible, we have paid a terrible price for our forbearance. What price do we pay next?

It’s a horrible situation to be, horrible choices to make, but I think if we do nothing, if we do not pay the price we must pay to stop this, there is more and worse to come.

Yes. 1 is too many. I thought Mayor Giuliani said it right yesterday when asked how many casualties there were.

“More than any of us can bear.”

There’s a simple Zen koan:

“Who must do the hard things? He who can.”

This may very well be a thing we must do. I hope it does not come to this, but it may be a lesson we need to teach.

Yes. But if ever there was a more evil enemy than the one behind this, I cannot think of it. I cannot imagine one that needs stopping more.

I think the U.S. is a peaceful nation. We prefer peace. We wish it, and we strive for it. But, when war is made upon us we must respond or we will never have peace.

15

As any player of CivII knows, if you use a nuclear missle all countries declare war on you :wink:

But really, I am quite terrified of nuclear war. Apart from that, however, I’m not sure it is a viable solution. But your reasoning isn’t crazy, scylla… any friend of Ayn Rand knows you can’t fight irrationality with reason… and I agree that a nuke is a solution…

But dropping a nuke, even over this, is going to be-- by far-- the worst diplomatic decision after The Original Snub. We’ve got the support of most of the world right now, and tossing a nuclear weapon is going to really change that-- especially so with the more ambivalent nations in the middle east, whose support we could use the most right now.

Though the wold outrage may be strong, we are walking on eggshells big-time right now. America is being looked on to make a strong, decisive move. A nuke is not the correct decision simply because we’ll lose so many supporters from such a devestating attack. I think we will stick with conventional warfare… and retain moral integrity from that… or at least we won’t lose any in the eyes of those who think we have some.

16

I beleive if they had them they would not hesitate to use them. If fear of these people is our deterrent, we have lost to them in any case.

Yes. That would be the best solution. I would say that a nuclear weapon, even a tactical one is the last resort when and if all else fails.

Ideally a strong enough initial response to this action would alleviate the need for making such a strong statement, and doing such terrible damage to the people and environment of Afghanistan.

17

I really dont know what to think today. On one hand I, unlike the US government, want justice, not war. How we could ever get justice, I dont know. But I think a peaceful aproach is always best. Call me un-realistic. Violence does not beget peace, whether the violence is justified or not.

I fear a war with Afganhistan or any other Arab country would turn into my generations Vietnam. It is hard to defeat someone fighting in his homeland. Especially extreamist freaks like this bin Laden fellow. I dont know if I make any sence or not, but I am overwhelmed with emation for the U.S and every other person on this planet. The horror, the horror.

think peace,
JB

18

erislover:

What you say makes sense. I hope it doesn’t come to use needing to use a nuke, and I don’t think it will.

I don’t think we can rule out the need though. If the need does come though, I think we need to be willing to go that far.

I think that we need to know that we’d be willing to go that far before we start down this road. Our enemies need to know that we are willing to go that far.

Nothing would be worse than to threaten and posture and ultimately do very little.

19

We are in total agreement. However, we must absolutely refrain from using nuclear weapons. We have fully efective alternatives to such reprehensible measures.

However, were we ever to be struck by a terrorist nuclear attack, instant identification and extermination of them would be the only path.

20

What a perfect way to create legions of suicide bombers. What an exceptionally efficient method to make rank-and-file Arabs think that their only recourse to fighting the Great, nuke-tossing Satan is to use terror methods to injure and wound us. What a great way to increase the pursuit of bio/chemical weapons as a leveller. What an astonishingly good plan for presenting to the world the image of a powerful oppressor.

I can’t think of a better propaganda tool to use among Afghanis and Palestinians to make them strap a bomb onto their chest and board a bus.

A nuke is exactly the sort of indiscriminate response that terrorists long to provoke. I’m sorry to say that, at least in Scylla’s case, the attack on the WTC worked.