A nuclear solution to WTC bombing?

Great Debates
41

He was trained to fight by the United States, as was bin Laden. What he knew, he learned from the United States Army.

I cannot vouch for the Taliban, but I will certainly vouch for the ordinary working men, women, and children of Afghanistan. If neither you nor I nor the other 250+ million of us are complicit in the actions of Timothy McVeigh, then the citizenry of Afghanistan as a whole cannot be held responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden. And any conception that you can limit the effects of a nuke, even way out in the desert, are foolish in the extreme. Have you forgotten about the crisis caused in Europe and even North America by the meltdown of Chernobyl? A nuclear strike will have the same short- and long-term effects no matter where it occurs.

On a more personal note, Scylla, it’s been clear for a while that we have fairly low opinions of each other, and furthermore our opinions haven’t mattered much to the other. So I certainly don’t expect you to care one way or the other when I say this, but I feel the need to say it anyway.

There is nothing in this world, no matter how horrific it has the potential to be, that justifies the use of nuclear destruction. I did not consider it possible to be even more shocked than I have been over the past 40 hours, but your attitude on retaliation is flat-out sickening. There are men, women, and children in Afghanistan who work hard, like you do, to make a comfortable living for themselves at whatever it is they can do. Consider what your life, or your daughter’s life, might be like if a nuclear bomb went off in your vicinity. That is the life to which you condemn thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of others more or less like you. Such an attitude is callous and inhumane.

42

Despite your claim to trying to think rationally about this, you are clearly being blinded by anger…or something. This is a silly argument in many ways. For one thing, it’s not like Israel isn’t having problems with terrorism. For a second thing, the day before yesterday, you could say our airlines don’t get hijacked either…You are ridiculously extrapolating from one day’s horrible events that have dramatically changed the statistics. For a third thing, when I was questioned at the Israeli airport at 3 in the morning flying out of the airport there I can guarantee you that my questioners were very well-trained to study my reactions and body language; they were not simply some folks working for not much above minimum wage, as the people manning the x-ray machines here in the U.S. apparently are (so I’ve heard…this is 2nd hand)! What the Israelis understand is that security costs money.

43

Because you think people advocating here the use of nuclear weapons think “rationnally”??? Wake up! Quick!

44

I am already on record on this issue in another thread. Militarily, and given the gravity of what happened in the U.S. on Sept. 11, and given the possibility that it can happen again anywhere, at any time, in the U.S. again or anywhere else in the free world, the nuclear option is almost certainly under consideration.

It is not about vengeance (although nobody who said they were not feeling that emotion would be telling the truth). It is about engaging and neutralizing your war enemy, in a complete way.

Those who think use of a nuke would render “the entire Middle East uninhabitable” are incorrect.

And those moral-equivalizing pacifists who do not seem to be adequately concerned about protecting our nation’s borders unequivocally should be marginalized. Thankfully, that seems to be occurring.

OUR NATION WAS INVADED. WE LIKELY HAVE 30,000 CIVILIANS DEAD. IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN IN LONDON IN AN HOUR. PUT YOUR CANDLE DOWN; STOP SINGING “KUMBAYA” AND THINK ABOUT IT.

These cowards learned within the last few decades to hide among the innocent. They do that because they know you won’t then have the stomach to do what needs to be done to eradicate them, and they can continue to pick you apart.

I believe that’s about to change.

This will never happen again. And it’s not going to be your fervent hopes and good wishes that see to it. It’s going to be The War Machine of Western Civilization.

The kind of peace desired by some of the woefully misguided I’m hearing out there in the world right now won’t be achievable or sustainable until the war that has been started by someone else is finished. In an overwhelming way that does not allow for recovery of our enemies. By the military of the Western world.

There’s a faction of you out there that don’t seem to understand that. Frankly, I don’t care. Thankfully, the people that do need to understand that, do.

45

Zenster:

I see a problem with ruling out nukes. I don’t think it’s a smart stance to take.

As others have said, there are circumstances where a tactical nuke may be appropriate.

If we rule it out it’s a weakness.

I agree that it is one of the weapons of last resort. Like the end of WWII though, I think it is preferable to certain types of land war.

It is such a fearsome and final weapon that it’s judicious use might conceivably save lives.

If we rule it out, then we are not resolved in our actions, and we should reconsider.

My father, a Vietnam Vet always used to tell me “Before you go charging up that hill, you better decide whether it’s worth dying on.” I think those words apply.

I think it appropriate that we seek cooperation with the Afghanis, failing that, we seek a coalition and strangle them politically, and economically (not that that’s not happening now,) and pursue conventional warfare, if that’s what it takes.

We are not a nation of conquest though. Conquest is horribly costly on both sides. Do we want another Vietnam? Can we fight another protracted land war? Do we send our children to die fighting fanatics?

If we cannot accomplish our goals conventionally (and I believe we can,) we have to be willing to pursue a nuclear solution, as the last choice before sending an army of conquest.

It’s a paradox, yet true nonetheless, that our resolve is our fiercest weapon. We cannot afford to blunt its edge by saying we will not use nuclear weapons if the need arises.

The paradox is that our very willingness to go to such an extreme may very well ensure that we never need to.

46

Because America would have to commit genocide to get anywhere with your method. If we do such a thing as you describe many people will be left without families and the only option they will see is revenge. If you aren’t willing to do as Kalt suggested then such a thing as you describe will only escalate the situation.

Yes, but in this case we are the bully and it is the arabs who are standing up for themselves. We just thought they wouldn’t fight back. They did this terrorism because they wanted to retaliate. Bombing them will only increase their desire to retaliate from extremists to all of them.

47

**
What are you basing that assertion on?

48

Scylla, As ever, an intriguing thread.

I completely agree with the OP. The people with whom we are dealing don’t understand compassion, love, restraint, killing only at need, or reason. They speak only one language: Violence.

With a small child or an animal, who is not capable of understanding reason, you need to communicate on their level, and the only things they can understand are Pain. Fear. Cause and effect.

The only proper response to this event is an overwhelming, brutal act of force. We need finally to send out a message, saying “We’ve sat still for too long. We will no longer tolerate anything of this sort. If you attack us, your nation will cease to exist,” and follow through on it.

The cost of attacking the U.S. needs to be FAR greater than any possible benefit. Israel has linked Iraq to the attack, in a funding and supply role. We seem to know that Bin Laden is headquartered in Afghanistan. So we take president Bush at his word, and leave both of those countries in the same state as the World Trade Center was left in, and teach potential suicide bombers that if they attack us to get attention for their cause then that cause, and anyone who aids them, will be annihilated.

I don’t think we should jump straight into lobbing nukes, tempting though it is, but we are in a position where we have NO ALTERNATIVE but to respond with massive force.

49

peace is not possible as long as the middle east exists. that’s the bottom line. sad but true. Diplomacy will not stop people who will kill themselves and others for heaven. I see no other alternative.

50

Because we do not face a single enemy that can be crippled or destroyed. We face a social pathology that manifests as terrorist attacks, but it caused by the existence of a particular culture and its supporters.

I’m not suggesting forbearance. I’m suggesting that we not pull those triggers we know will result in a bullet in our foot.

The fact that terrorists use terror methods means that they know we’re not weak. They know that they can’t face us in a “fair” fight. They know that they have to strike at us through sly and secretive means that have great and sudden effect. Our weakness is not military, political, or economic, and this is why they fight us with terror: because they perceive our weakness to be that which we consider to be our strength–our sense of rightness in our culture. Terror attacks undermine that, and tempt us to suspend our morals for the sake of expediency. That is why I’m horrified by the idea of indiscriminate overreaction.

For every extremist willing to die for the cause, there are supporters who will provide a bed for the night, money for the cause, moral support, and other minor duties because they’re not so certain, or not so willing to sacrifice their life. What better way to create more firm believers than to enrage those who are now only half-involved?

A nuke is a stupid extreme. It speaks of impotence. It speaks of hiding behind technology. It speaks of a rich nation’s solution to its problems.

I said earlier that Dubya should build a military coalition to threaten the harbor nations with invasion and occupation. Give them a chance to distance themselves from terrorists, as they’re already doing. If they do not, invade the country and depose the government. Attack the guilty and the complicit; attack those who believe that they have plausible deniability.

And quit dealing with terrorists in the name of realpolitik.

A nuke would kill the innocent. A nuke would unite the lukewarm in exactly the same way that people who didn’t vote for Dubya now are standing behind him.

On the fact that Hezbollah co-operates with the IRA with Badher-Meinhof with Red Dawn. On the fact that Libya trains Italians in its camps. On the fact that Afghanis get weapons from Islamic Jihad. On the fact that the US supported the Mujahadeen from which the Taliban arose. On the fact that Basque separatists buy bombs from the PFLP.

The various organizations that carry out terrorist acts live and breath in a sea of discontent amoung various peoples around the world. They co-operate; they trade members; they splinter; they even sub-contract. The underlying cause is the pathology of oppressed peoples to go to violent extremes that appear plausible to them, and find support in the form of guns, money, and safe harbors.

We could kill every member of Al-Qaida, and Hamas would still call us the Great Satan. We could nuke Kabul, and it would confirm to rank-and-file Egyptians that their dancing in the streets was correct. And the next time 10,000 Americans are killed, there’ll be twice as many in streets, handing out candy.

51

Clairobscur: I was talking with a little bit of sarcasm when I refered to the American people as “Rational”

Milossarian: It saddens me to think that the only way things can change or get better is with violence. Maybe this is true, but truths can change. I want to change it, somehow. If all I can do is light a candle and sing ‘Kumbaya,’ that is what I will do. I wont have any part in the killing of innocent people with nukes. That makes me no better that Bin Laden. But I hope you all sleep well tonight with visions of nuclear weapons dancing in your heads.
light a candle,
JB

52

It’s not “not politically correct”. You’re advocating genocide. You’re exactly in the same line of thought than nazi leaders. If you had any authority, you would be a major danger for humanity, and the worst criminal ever born. There is nothing hard enough I could say after such a statement. It’s the evil personnified.

53

Kalt: You’re right - diplomacy won’t do anything. Have a read through Sterra’s post, and you’ll understand why it won’t do anything. Your proposed solution puts America several orders of magnitude lower than Nazi Germany. If you’re serious about it, then you’ve come to accept the fact that the US is the Great Satan that Islamic fundamentalists proclaim it to be, and then you start giving the terrorists some sort of basis upon which to justify their actions.

54

Millossarian: I am not a pacifist and in fact have been consistently urging assassination or surgical military action on this board all day. I disagree that dropping the bomb at this point in time is going to solve anything. We might get bin Laden, IF we have accurate intelligence (something I wouldn’t bet the farm on) and IF he does not get the hell out of Dodge.

However, as I have tried to point out on this thread: the political fallout of dropping nukes in Asia is something we better think long and hard about. This ain’t the world of White Man’s Burden any longer. There are several Great Powers in Asia and using nukes might irritate several of those countries far more than is wise. We can kill bin Laden and his henchmen just as easily with assassination and conventional means.

Right now, we have the sympathy of most nations because of our horrendous losses. However, when this resolves, the Europeans and others are going to remember that we are backing out of the Kyoto Treaty, the Russians are going to remember the Bush administration wants to pull out of the ABM Treaty and the Chinese are going to remember we are their biggest rival.

We had better start thinking ahead. I hope to Jesus, Allah, Mithra and Yog-Sothoth that Bush & Powell have more sense than some of the posters on this board.

55

BTW, Sterra, the answer to your question in General Questions has been posted. Hadn’t you better getting to your homework?

56

This was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the OP. Fuel-air explosives can do roughly the same damage as a nuke to buildings, the landscape, terrorists, etc. There is no need to actually use a weapon with a nuclear reaction.

The press is already warning us to not be upset at the civilian casualties that will result in our response. All I have to do is think of the 10,000 plus that lie dead in the wreckage that is the WTC. Is 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 dead civilians too much to make sure that 9/11/01 can’t happen again?

No.

57

I’m sorry you have such an opinion of me. Unfortunately you’re mistaken about my feelings towards you. I happen to think you’re a pretty good guy, and I specifically remember one time (that pit thread you made about me, and one other. I won’t provide links,) when you realized you were mistaken about something , and you backed down and apologized. The way I read that incident was that you did it not because you felt pressured, or anything else, but simply because you’re an honest and honorable person, and you had the guts to own up to your errors. That’s a rare trait, and one that I think is emminently worthy of respect.

We do frequently disagree and I think you’re sometimes naive and misguided and occasionally go off half-cocked, but I base my opinion upon what I perceive as your character, and I think you have much of that.
As to nukes, I think they’re terrible to. I think that upon sober reflection you will have to concede that comparing the Afghani government’s harboring of Bin Laden and their complicity in his actions to Timothy McVeigh’s place in America is a very poor comparison.

I have been very clear in what I advocate, and my reasoning for doing so.

It is my belief, which few contend that we must retaliate for these actions upon those who perpetrated them.

That being the case we must decide how far we are willing to go in attaining this retaliation so that there is never another WTC or worse event.

I am saying that we have to be willing to go the whole way if that is the cost. We don’t do so out of bloodlust, but only out of necessity, and only after all other avenues have failed.

You ask me whether I would like my daughter to be the victim of a nuke. No more than you want you would want you and yours to die in a collapsing pile of rubble in downtown NY.

58

We don’t need nuclear weapons. We have ordinance that can deal with caves, and bunkers, and we have, or can build a lot of it. We can put a fuel air mix bomb over the valley where Bin Laden has his stronghold. I will drive everyone below ground at the very least. We can use penetrating bombs to dig down a few hundred feet, and another fuel air bomb. Then, as long as China and Russia don’t mind, we can repeat that every hour or so for a month, or a year. Nuclear weapons are not necessary to entirely destroy a subterranean bunker.

Afghanistan can do nothing to stop us, and no one else will. Only our own desire to be decent can limit our ability to destroy. We are a super power; Afghanistan is not a power at all. If we wish, we can entirely ignore the Taliban, and conduct an air war right over their heads, and as long as they stay on the ground, we don’t need to destroy anything of theirs. If Pakistan wants to be part of the war; there is a good chance that they can actually mount a militarily significant force. They can’t win, but they can die. NATO has already agreed that mutual defense does apply here.

I have little doubt that Russia, and probably China will not care at all how much damage we wish to inflict on Afghanistan, if we limit ourselves to conventional weapons. It doesn’t matter how the Afghanistanis feel about it. But none of this will end terrorism.

We have to address the leaders of Afghanistan, Lybia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, and Syria, and let them know the cost of supporting or harboring terrorists has just gone up. We need to make clear to Egypt, and Oman, and Kenya, and every other country that no one is on the fence on this matter. Yes, we will have to attack military targets, and yes there will be civilian casualties. But we don’t need nuclear weapons. We need economic weapons. We do need the resolve to embark on a long and costly effort. We need to stop importing oil. We need to enforce a strict blockade on any nation that crosses the line to aid our enemies. We need to make succoring terrorists the most expensive possible matter a nation can undertake.

We need to make the nations of Switzerland and Cayman and the other banking havens of international criminals know that they too must now choose. The economics of terrorism are that those who pay for it don’t suffer for that. As long as that doesn’t change, Nuclear weapons are impotent. So, the real test is, are you willing to carpool, or walk to end terrorism? Will you stand up and vote to end trade with countries that do not participate in a worldwide effort to eliminate safe havens for terrorists? Will you accept the economic consequences of declaring economic war on even those nations which continue to trade with identified terrorist supporting nations? Will you take a chance that your job might be one of the casualties of the economic depression that economic war will bring on?

Killing a bunch of people in Afghanistan won’t change anything, except the names of the most wanted terrorists.

Tris

My guts hurt too much today.

59

I have to agree with clairobscur here. And, the sad fact may well be that peace does not exist because humanity exists. Your proposed solution might well lead to the cure of this problem, but it is not the one that I would personally advocate.

The people who live in the Middle East are human beings just like the rest of us and they have the same dreams and aspirations and the same horrendous failings that all human beings have. To start to condemn a [huge] group of people as somehow being subhuman and worthy of destruction for who they are is indeed exactly the sort of use of logic and semantics that led to the Nazi and other genocides. This is not meant as an insult to you but merely as a sad fact that I doubt can be seriously disputed.

60

I wish some of you posters could get it through your head that the 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000 people that you advocate killing are, in the most part, peaceful, hard working, normal, everyday, people who just happen to live in Afghanistan. Do you realize that they are innocent? That their governments are to blame, not civilians? Is 1 dead Arab or Muslim civilian any different than 1 dead American? I think not. This bloodsport will have to end soon. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone blind and toothless.”

and Demise, please consider peace, buddy,
JB