“Collateral damage” is the damage that occurs that is not connected to your goal. That’s the definition.
I think you are indulging in some extreme moral relativism here in your defense of the terrorist mindset.
They may consider us bullies, because we don’t appreciate having our noncombatant citizens being slaughtered, but their mindset is only important insofar as how they understand our response.
They are wrong to use these extremes to start war and kill innocents.
We are justified and correct in using whatever force necessary to stop them.
My last reply to Scylla and Milossarian ended up being the last post on the previous page; given the speed with which this thread is growing, I don’t want it to be missed.
**
Being willing to use a nuke is a little different than being eager to use one. You might want to pull out a Ouija Board and ask Harry S about that.
But I hope you sleep well tonight, with the naive little dreams that our military power for 225 years has allowed to be safe and cultivate.
Peyote Coyote:
**
The use of a nuke (or a conventional attack on that magnitude) almost certainly would come if we find a nation has been complicit in some way in Tuesday’s attack. Not just to take out a terrorist cell somewhere.
**
It’s my understanding that virtually every nation in the world has pledged its full support of any military action we deem necessary.
I admit I’m worried about Pakistan. If we determine Pakistan was highly complicit in this, how do we respond? A. They have nukes of their own; B. The instability between them and India now is a huge world concern. What happens when we annihilate them? In Kashmir? Or in Pakistan itself? Can we keep a short leash on India (another nuke-capable country?) Will the Pakistanis just start lobbing on India when they see their annihilation is inevitable?
**
I think you are woefully underestimating how history has changed.
jabe:
**
A new day has dawned in the world. Citizens are going to be responsible from now on for what goes on with their governments and in their countries. If it cannot be demonstrated that they are vigorously resisting and trying to thwart threats against our way of life, they stand the risk of being targets when we do what we have to to eradicate those threats.
If I was a Middle East leader right now, and I knew that my government had some level of involvement in what happened, even if just allowing terrorists to stay or train on my country’s soil, A) I’d be pretty damn sure the West is going to know it, too, before too long; and B) I would be diligently offering up any and all involved.
Not doing so will put innocents at risk. We won’t allow attacks within our borders anymore. We won’t allow tens of thousands of our citizens to be killed anymore. We’re going to do whatever we need to do to keep this from happening.
By your standards. There are far too many people in the world who consider America to be a bully for you to state that as fact. You don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree with them, but that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong, or us right.
What is needed here is a response that is devastating and disproportionate to the attack. We need to respond not just because of this attack, but in order to forestall in further attack.
I’m reminded of Orson Scott Card’s book Ender’s Game. In that book, Ender fought his battles not just to win that particular fight, but to beat the enemy so deeply that another attack would never be contemplated. The enemy must be destroyed so thoroughly that any possible future threat is drastically reduced.
Considering that the recent estimate announced on the news that the death toll may very well exceed 20,000 at the WTC site alone, it would be difficult to see how the United States can mount a disproportionate response without the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
This is the message that needs to be sent: “Do harm to us, and we will drop the Bomb on you and your kin. We’ve done it before, and we will do it again.”
I’m with Scylla on this one. If the Taliban can be linked to bin Laden and the horrors of 9.11.01, then Kabul should be utterly reduced to ashes, and the part of the countryside where bin Laden is known to operate should receive likewise treatment. The government of Afghanistan, by their actions, will have imperiled their own citizens, just as the Empire of Japan imperiled their own citizens after Pearl Harbor, and Germany imperiled their own citizens after initiating the war in Europe.
We must take care of our own. We must do what we can not just to retaliate for what has happened, but retaliate with such force that future attacks may become less likely.
Atreyu: If you’ve read Ender’s Game, then you know that in two of the cases, preventing future attacks were talking about single people, and you can’t draw analogies there. You can draw analogies with the war with the buggers, though, and the solution there was xenocide. That serious a response is not what Scylla or you are suggesting (at least I hope neither of you consider genocide a suitable response).
Even if you did eliminate all of Afghanistan, where does that leave you? Hamas is still going, so you have to eliminate the Palestinians, the Iraqis, etc… You come back to the idiotic comment of nuking the entire Middle East. And that still leaves the Timothy McVeighs running around. You will not solve the terrorist equation with violence - if you could, Israel would no longer be facing that problem.
The six thousand++ bodies lying under tons of rubble in Manhattan makes them wrong.
If we “Think Peace”, and turn the other cheek, do you suppose these “misunderstood” folks will just go away and leave us alone? Maybe OBL can be rehabilitated and work with disabled children or something?
If violence is their way of “communicating their needs”, we need to respond in kind.
I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, but I do believe that the philosophy of Ender’s approach is consistent with the OP.
I don’t have time right now to re-read the entire book, but I’ll quote a little excerpt from the opening chapter, where Ender was fighting Stilson:
[sub]Note to moderators: I hope this excerpt of a few paragraphs from a novel was not excessively long. But I felt it was necessary “fair use” in order to make my point.[/sub]
This is the introduction to Ender’s philosophy in the book. Card’s genius is that he shows Ender not exulting in this kind of behavior. Ender actually dislikes it, and prefers to avoid resorting to this kind of thing whenever possible. But when it becomes necessary, he commits completely to that option.
Likewise, we would not exult in this kind of action. It will simply be a demonstration of our grim resolve to ensure that such attacks on us will be met with dreadful retaliation.
Ender’s philosophy does not seem that far different from Orson Scott Card’s own thinking. He wrote an essay in response to the attacks, in which he argues for all-out war against the terrorists. A small quote from his essay:
Card does not mention the nuclear option in his essay, however. He argues for a more conventional war, admitting that his proposal more resembles the massive troop deployments in WWII.
A brief quote from his essay:
He says this because he believes that the goal should be beyond punishing the terrorists, but to completely deprive them of any chance of achieving what they desire. This means the destruction of any hope for Palestinian sovereignty. Although this is not part of the OP, I can understand this rationale.
**
I would not consider this kind of action genocide. If it was genocide, that would seem to suggest the systematic elimination of all Arabs, Muslims, etc. That isn’t what the OP indicated.
**
Do I smell a straw man?
At this time, Hamas does not appear responsible for what happened, nor the PLO, nor the Iraqis. They would not be included in this retribution.
**
I never made such a comment, and I agree that nuking the entire Middle East is idiotic.
However, if the Taliban and bin Laden are linked to this, then the total destruction of the Afghani government, bin Laden’s base, and bin Laden himself will do in a pinch.
**
Violence may be the only language that they will understand. For example, Saddam Hussein was completely unresponsive to diplomacy, and it took considerable violence to expel him from Kuwait.
And besides, they will not be receptive to diplomacy. They are terrorists. We do not, and should not, negotiate with terrorists. They are not deserving of diplomacy. Through their actions, they have abdicated any such right to such interaction with any major world government.
At the very least, such an action may force the governments of other nations that are unfriendly to the United States to seriously rethink their support of terrorist activities. If that occurs, then terrorists may not have access to major resources. And without resources, their ability to cause harm in the name of fanaticism will be reduced.
I don’t wanna get all in the thick of this, but violence will indeed solve this problem…better than sitting on our a**es, that is. What are we supposed to do? We can’t ignore it! We sure as hell can’t put the guy in jail…I don’t want someone who murdered 10,000+ people receiving the same punishment as someone who robbed a 7-11. If a retatliation on the people responsible isn’t the answer, then WHAT IS?
The problem with holding the citizens of a dictatorship responsible for the actions of thier leaders is that, well, it just ain’t the case. Further, if you follow this logic, then as participants in a democracy, we as American citizens are reasonably accountable for the actions of our govt (as percieved by extremists) since, in the spirit of democracy, we elected them and they therefore represent our will.
This is the rationale behind terrorism, and the reason that Bin Laden has declared all americans as legitimate targets of his Jihad. He has a beef with the US govt- we elected our government- therfore we are all accountable for his grievance with same. If we say that all afghani’s are responsible for the actions of thier corrupt dictatorship we have descended in to reasoning significantly MORE spurious than that of Bin Laden and the Taliban. I have to therfore vehemently though respectfully disagree with you Scylla.
This nuclear babble is insane. It’s as insane as the acts of Tuesday. You want the nuclear genie in the bottle, not out of the bottle. And you definitely don’t want to be the one opening it. The only thing that prevents us from being nuked right now by a crude device, shipped up the Hudson in a container, is the fear of righteous retaliation.
Saddam didn’t use gas during Desert Storm because he feared nuclear retaliation. (I’m told that the threat had been made, but nobody in charge honestly thought of nuclear as a viable option.)
Apart from the questionable morality, using nuclear weapons as a reaction to this would be suicide and insanity. Our cities, our infrastructure are much more vulnerable to a single nuclear device than the Afghani countryside to a barrage. A crude device can be manufactured easily by a scientist with half a brain. Fissionable material is said to be readily available. They don’t even have to blow it up. They can use plutonium and dump it out of the window of a NYC highrise. Or they can buy a barrel of anthrax and dump it into the water supply. They’ll do it anyway, sooner or later. But I drink that water. And I’d rather die later.
Now close that inane thread and dream about something else. Or go to downtown Manhattan and help dig.
1] When Scylla is talking about using nukes in Afghanistan (or on whomever is responsible), many of you seem to be thinking of some massive fallout producing blast. Be aware that nukes come in many varieties - environmental effects are optional. If it comes to digging bin Laden out of the mountains, small tactical warheads are much more precise and much less apt to cause civilian casualties than repeated FAE/conventional bombardment.
2] I agree with Scylla’s basic premise that terrorists, by definition, will not respond to anything but naked force. Whether they will respond to that remains to be seen.
3] jabe, perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but it seems to me that you are advocating that no military action be taken against a country that planned, executed, or abetted in this monstrous attack. I hope that I am mistaken. If that is your position, it is morally bankrupt. Any government, organization, or individual who commits murder should be held liable for that murder. To refuse to do so indicates that you find such behavior tolerable, in my mind. These people need to be found and prevented from ever doing such a thing again. The attitude of “Peace at any price” is more frightening to me than most of the opposing viewpoints; the price has always been too high.
[4] Several posters have argued that using nukes will only inspire more heinous acts of terror. Unlikely. Terrorists are by definition cowards who are unwilling to fight fair. Even allowing that, should we then avoid punishing wrongdoers because we fear what their friends, relatives, or countrymen may do in the future?
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully the posters will continue to read, or have read even this far. All of the above aside, I feel that minimal necessary force should be used. Civilian casualties will, I’m sure, be kept to a minimum. There will be some, and I will grieve for them; yes, even the woman who was dancing in the street.
I think I’m a little more rational today. I’m still not sane mind you, but hopefully moving back in that direction.
And with that bit of lucidity just within my grasp I’m going to take a position against the use of nuclear weapons in this instance.
As a matter of deterence, we need to hold nuclear weapons back. Our very public policy should be that we will not use nuclear weapons unless we are attacked ourselves with nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. This will hopefully have some value in staying the hand of any of our enemies who obtain weapons of mass destruction. I realize that they are not rational, but perhaps if it is explicitly clear that any action using such weapons will result in their peoples total annihilation that they will realize such use is not the way to advance their cause. There will be no one left to celebrate their actions. No political movement left to succeed in whatever it is they espouse.
For those who say that we must hold back in pursuing these terrorists because we will only create additional terrorists, I disagree. Yes, military retailation will create new recruits for them. But new recruits are also created with every success they have. Ultimatly this becomes a quest for something more than vengence. We must kill them before they kill us. They are already pursuing a course that has them killing us as fast as they can. They will escalate the violence if we strike or not. If we strike back we can disrupt their next attack. Yes, others will emerge and we will have to deal with them as well. We must go after all terrorists this time. Not just the ones that struck us, but all terrorists everywhere. It will take a terrible cost, but one that they will make us pay in any case. In time they will learn that it is less costly to pursue other means for their goals than terrorism. Being a terrorist will mean that your cause is already lost.
You and I have disagree quite fiercely on Russian/communist type debates. But the above paragraph is beautiful.
Think about it. People in Japan are STILL suffering from the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Medical, physical, mental, emotional-possibly even in future generations-birth defects? And this wasn’t even a nuclear bomb.
It might not hurt the entire middle east. But there would be hideous after effects. Horrid and unimaginable. And WE would have to live with the knowledge that we were responsible for this. My god-we would be no better than Bin Laden. We would be massively hated.
Imagine the horror for generations to come if we were to do this. To LIVE with this horror. To be known not as the US, land of the free, the “Sleeping Giant”, but as the first country ever to use a nuclear bomb. My god, have you no sense of decency?
And yes, it scares the shit out of me. Call me crazy, but I’ve had nightmares in the past-mostly around December 99- about nuclear war, because I kept hearing about it. I didn’t BELIEVE it, but the ideas still frighten me.
WHY is it a weakness to refuse to condemn someone to mass genocide? To destroy an entire nation of innocents, because of a minority of crazies. Bin Laden is not a god-he is a human. We MUST, if he is guilty, have him captured and brought to the Hague. To show that we are NOT monsters-but that we BELIEVE in our Constitution, that we believe in human rights. We MUST set an example.
I know some of you here are Christians. Always remember, “Whatsoever you do, to the least of my brother, that you do unto me.”
Know your fears, guys. Nukes aren’t all fallout anymore. There are all sorts of nukes available, some which maximize intense fallout over specific periods of times, others which have virtually no fallout whatsoever.
That really doesn’t matter to me, erislover. Nukes is nukes and I stand firmly behind not using 'em. “Justice, not retaliation” seems to be the slogan I’m coming around to.
The cite you mentioned, by the way, doesn’t seem to indicate that any of the information you assert was actually borne out in practice. Meaning, it’s all theoretical what these things will do - and I certainly don’t want to find out what they’ll do if used.
Guinastasia, that meant a lot coming from you. I appreciate it.
Exactly so. But that doesn’t mean I think, if Vakyrie and the Tzeroling had - God forbid! - been killed because the plane that hit the Pentagon fell short of its mark (Val was working less than a mile from the impact site, the Tzeroling just about a mile away in school) that condemning “Olentzero bin Norman” in Kabul and his family to death through nuclear assault would be justified.