A nuclear solution to WTC bombing?

Great Debates
121

At least we don’t have to worry about a terrorist attack from any of you cowards. While you sit there in the comfort of your home debating the moral implications of retaliation, Americans are digging out their dead, dying in hospitals or waiting for the next attack. The strikes must be decisive and must destroy the nations that for too long have given safe refuge to these murdering madmen. The claims of retaliation creating waves of suicide bombers is bunk. In case you have not noticed, there already are waves of them. Let them all die for Allah, preferably in the same large fireball.

Sleep well in your cowardice and feel comfort in the fact that real men will guard you while you whimper your spineless self to sleep.

122

Hey jabe -

I’m interested in knowing your solution to prevent tens of thousands of other innocent civilians from being slaughtered by large groups of organized, well-funded terrorists.

The solution we’re going to take is, to militarily annihilate all of them, and anyone affiliated with them. Crippling them so they can’t even lob a stone at us.

And then, as a unified, civilized world, keep our boot on their throats for the next century or two or three, hitting them whenever they build up the bravado to even try to get started again.

To make countries so fearful of our reprisal for harboring or in any way supporting terrorist cells, that they are more diligent about weeding them out than us.

That’s the solution we’re going to take.

What’s yours, again? And why will it be more effective, more quickly?

(Feel free to chime in, those who think similarly.)

123

This isn’t about retribution. It isn’t even about justice. It’s about protection. Terrorists have proven themselves to be a threat to our security. When they escalated the level of violence to nation-shaking proportions, they set in motion events that are simply necessary.

Isn’t it clear to everyone now that terrorists pose as big a threat to our security as Japan and Germany did in WWII? This attack was PUNY compared to the one that comes next, if we let it. A terrorist with biological weapons and a Cessna could fly across the country, spreading anthrax over every major population center. Hell, just put a fan in the back of a truck and drive around Los Angeles blowing plutonium dust out the back and you’ll kill millions.

This is a war. Terrorism will never be eliminated, but state-sanctioned and supported terrorism is the most dangerous variety, and THAT we can stop. Unfortunately, that probably means we can’t make clean, surgical strikes against terrorist compounds only. To make states stop supporting terrorism, you have to make it costly for them to do so. And the only way to do that is a full-scale military attack.

I honestly don’t see an option. We will be making a big, BIG mistake if we just kill Bin Laden and go home. There are a million Bin Ladens. Not with his money, but Saddam has more money than Bin Laden did, and he’s willing to give it to anyone with an audacious plan to hurt the United States.

We have to issue an ultimatum, to every country in the world - if you have harbored terrorists in the past, that stops today. Because if we find terrorists actively being supported in your country, we’re coming THROUGH you to get them. If our intelligence ever discovers evidence that you are actively or passively supporting terrorism in any form, we will immediately assume that state of war exists between our country and yours.

It’s time for every country in the world to decide: Who’s side are you on? Declare your allegiance now, and prove it through your actions. If you refuse to join us, you are the enemy, and you WILL be attacked and your regime will be toppled.

Any half-measures now that leave the world essentially unchanged will do NOTHING. It’s time for a fundamental re-alignment in the world. I expect that this is the end of Saddam Hussein, for example. Maybe not this week or this month, but he’s finished. He just doesn’t know it yet.

And this isn’t a one-shot thing, either. We need to get together with our allies and draft a new set of international laws that allow us to attack terrorism where we find it, forever. Perhaps a new, multi-national anti-terrorist team, under U.S. control, with the best elements of the Special Forces, SAS, Mossad, and other counter-terrorism groups, with enough lattitude and intelligence to act as a world anti-terror police force (and execution squad, if need be).

You guys are treating this like it’s just another bombing. It’s not. It’s the end of the old world.

124

I am sorry I am not the millitary genius you are, Milo. I dont have a plan on how kill the bad guys without killing the innocent guys. It is something that should be considered, however.

Dixie Son: If being a coward means I dont want to see innocent people( white, black, American, Arab) killed, I guess I am the biggest fucking coward you have ever seen.

Milo: I dont have a plan. I am sorry that advocating a peaceful solution where no innocents are killed angers you so. No one wants this death and destruction to stop more than I. I just think we should look for a more low key way to kill the terrorists without nuclear weapons.

I have been called morally corupt and a coward for advocating peace. That surprises the hell out of me. But I guess everyones emotions are running real high this week, maybe we should calm down a little before we decide to blow up the whole fucking world.
peace,
JB

125

…but wouldn’t this just lower you to their level?

126

Pay attention to the thread oceans_11. I have never stated that killing the terrorists was bad, just the innocents. I would rather the terrorists face some kind of trial or something, but I know that will not happen.

once again: I want the terrorists to come to swift justice.
I also dont want to see any innocent civilians needlessly killed.
peace,
JB

127

So F-117’s and B-2’s with conventional ordinance are cheap “old tech” answers.

My grandfather worked on a Remote spotter project for Lockheed back when I was like 10-11 yrs old. If we are going to go to war with Afghanistan their skies will be full of little spotter drones of various types locating targets, designating targets for guided weapons, etc. Like somebody said earlier, nukes are just big bombs. Would a relatively clean medium yeild nuke strike be somehow worse than having a major city carpet bombed for a few hours by waves of b-52’s or the like?

Granted precision guided munitions can minimize collateral damage. This however IMHO is not about minimizing damage. The people who have done this need to understand that attacking the US has a terrible price. They need to see that price exacted on their own people. They are fighting a war that we cannot defend against, we should do the same to them.

A band of a couple hundred millitant extremists cannot fight a stand up war against the US. They have strutted out into the world and stated with their actions “look how many americans I can kill, see how strong my organization/group is”. I don’t think many of them realize we can pulverize a city far more effectively without risking a single US soldier to weaponfire.

Our guys get to say look, we killed a couple thousand of your people and I still get to go home, now whos the bad ass. Winning a war without losing any of your own people is about as much as anyone could ever hope for beyond avoiding war in the first place.

If we can somehow avoid it I will accept that, if blood has to spill, then hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them where it hurts the most.

128

Again, aside from “Kalt”, no one wants to see innocents needlessly killed.

However, if we as a nation don’t stop this mess decisively, you will continue to see innocents needlessly killed, including mor Americans. And in this situation, better theirs than ours…

129

**
That’s been evident. But thanks for making it official.

**
You just pointed out in the aforementioned sentence that you don’t have a solution.

There is no solution where innocents aren’t killed. That’s the reality of war. We’re at war. It wasn’t started by us.

Did you see this, by the way? Does it help you to understand that we need a sweeping solution now?

We can give peace a chance when we eradicate the enemies of peace.

Pacifism in the face of the fundamentalist hatred we face is not only misguided, it’s dangerous.

Read Sam Stone’s posts carefully, please. He’s more eloquent about it than I am. Try to understand.

130

No, but they can realize that politics-- the one thing they refuse to use-- works on their side in these matters.

131

This reminds me of counterstrike. You can be the counter terrorists rescuing the hostages or the terrorists planting the bomb, but most hit auto assign because it really doesen’t matter which side you are on. Ever wonder about how the people around Mcarthy felt?

They cannot lob a stone at us now. We can make it so they don’t openly harbor terrorists. So what happens when the next terrorist attack occurs and we have no idea where it is from? It would not be too hard for terrorists to set up a cult like following completely removed from the world totally unnoticed untill they suicide. When we find that they will simply find a new way of doing things.

No solution at all is better than one that hurts us more than it helps us.

132

**
Well, the use of a nuke in this situation is most certainly debatable. A very good argument can be made that it is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. There are also reasons that it makes some sense, that have been cited.

But you can give up on a “low-key” solution. This will no doubt involve multiple terrorist cells, and maybe even multiple countries supporting them.

The strike is going to be big, and it’s going to involve several places.

133

Milo: Like I stated earlier, I dont have a plan. I am not a polititian or an Army General. If you want to use this to invalidate everything I have said, be my guest.

Sam Stone and yourself have offered quite a few ideas that are swift, brutal, and probably effective. I cannot eccept the high civilian casualty rate these actions would cause. And oceans_11, you should be ashamed of yourself, buddy. “Better theirs than ours?” What a fucking ignorant statement. Lets not dehumanize every Arab in the world with a few short words.
peace,
JB

134

Can you accept the high civilian death count that INACTION will almost certainly cause?

Look: we’re out of options. We really are. A time bomb is ticking. We’ve spent decades trying to disarm terrorists and deal with radical governments diplomatically. We have come frighteningly close to devastation before - the last WTC bombing came within a whisker of working, and the death toll would have been MUCH higher because there would have been no time to evacuate buildings. We have uncovered chemical weapons plants in Iraq, and we KNOW that Saddam would love to get such weapons in Bin Laden’s hands. He may already have them.

There are a number of missing warheads from the old Soviet Union. Even if they are non-functional, the fissile material itself is an incredibly dangerous poison. You think cleaning up the WTC is hard? Try decontaminating Los Angeles after 20 kg of Plutonium dust is sprinkled on it. Don’t forget to clean up the millions of bodies.

That’s the way I see it. In the reasonably near future, a lot of people are going to die. We have the option of deciding whether those deaths will occur in the countries responsible for exporting terror to the world, or whether those deaths will be of our mothers, fathers, friends, and children. There are no other options. NONE.

BTW, I don’t think Nuclear strikes are called for. Politically, it’s a bad idea. We would lose coalition support for no good reason. But the THREAT of using them must remain, so let’s not take them off the table. Now is the time for the forces of evil and terror to be AFRAID. The threat of nuclear weapons helps that goal, without loss of life. So we don’t say we will use them, we don’t say we won’t. If we are asked, we say “No option has been taken off the table” and leave it at that. That appears to already be the administration’s position.

135

jabe, taking it personally, are we?

Why don’t we talk ignorance. How about ignorance of the fact that WE ARE AT WAR? Maybe ignorance of the fact that terrorists only understand the language of force? Or maybe just ignorance of the fact that these animals have murdered THOUSANDS of our sons, daughters, parents, neighbors, and friends?

Please don’t condescend to me. I know exactly what I said, and I did not once mention a specific group.

This is war, jabe. War has sides. In this war, I want my side to win. Whether the enemy is Arab, Klingon, or German Shepard, when it comes to casualties, BETTER THEM THAN US.

136

I really enjoy your posts Sam.

Tomorrow has come and the old world died last Tuesday. These bastards are at it again;

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87119

Incredible amounts of violence including the threat of nuclear immolation will be needed in the months ahead. This is just the beginning. Milo, I could use a little help over in MPSIMS.

137

Firstly, let me apologize to jabe for the implication of moral corruption. Please note, though, that I had interpreted your postings as meaning that no military action should be taken against terrorist cells. I was wrong, and I’m sorry.
Secondly, many of the posters have been a little too careless in describing what they would like to see happen in Afghanistan (assuming military action becomes necessary). Ladies and gentleman, please remember that civilians are not to be targetted in any way, shape or form. If we have to send in ground troops to remove terrorists hiding in the population, then so be it. I do not believe any rational military planner / commander sees it any other way.
Thirdly, unfortunately, there will be civilian deaths. No rational person glories in this - in fact, there will no doubt be soldiers haunted for life by such things. This is the real world, and accidents happen. This is not a reason to avoid this confrontation, however, as terrorism is close to the ultimate evil that mankind has come up with. Its practitioners prey upon the innocent and helpless. I believe the purpose of the armed forces, the only moral purpose, is to Serve and Protect.
Fourthly, there seems to be a vast gulf between the attitudes of those protesting the use of nuclear weapons and those allowing for their possible use. Nuclear weapons, as has been stated, do not have to be used to destroy countries and cities. Granted, the term “weapons of mass destruction” is subject to some semantic games. Is a half kiloton shell fired from a howitzer a WOMD? I don’t think so - certainly not when compared to repeated use of fuel - air munitions, which would be far more indiscriminate weapon than the aforementioned tactical nuke.
jabe, I think some of us are really on the same side here. My objection to the use of nukes is pretty well illustrated by your and other’s apparent assumtion that Scylla and I are advocating widespread, indiscriminate use of strategic nuclear weapons. We aren’t. Again, I apologize for the slur on your character.

138

Oops, a little unclear there in my last paragraph.

What I meant to say is that my objection to using nuclear weapons of any type is the automatic association of those weapons with some sort of indiscriminate murder of civilians in cities. They don’t have to do that, but that’s the way most people view them. I think that it may be counterproductive to use them because of that.

But I’d rather that than see hundreds die in a clearing of a tunnel system in the mountains of Aghanistan. This may come to the point where we can carfully use small nuclear weapons to end things quickly, or use conventional means and watch hundreds or even thousands die - on both sides.

139

OP’s points are well reasoned, with exception of using nukes. Their use will inevitably bring hostile reaction from Russians and Chinese. Although I believe we can deliver justice with conventional weaponry.

Use of force, unfortunately, is the only language the Islamic countries understand. It has been by force that Islam was exported to other countries, and it is by force that those countries rule. It’s time these bastards a diet rich in cruise missles.

140

Right. That will be the exact same reasoning the next round of terrorists will use in their thinking. Except replace NY city with some place in Gaza.
They want to secure a place for their children and their people to live as well. Can you believe you actually have something in common with the enemy?

So then we quickly rise to the level of “final solution” which has been mentioned by Kalt (and unfortunately many other people not on this message board). So then what happens?
Well, then you’re going to have some pissed off Germans who had to eat the fallout coming over here and doing a version of their terror.
So maybe we should wipe a few of them out too. Oop, we forgot the IRA folks, and maybe some other people in other places who’ve been glued to their TV sets watching the great Western War machine on a rampage. And then THEY’LL come over here and do something.
And heaven forbid if any Middle Easterners should escape to neighboring European or East Asian countries before they get nuked. Whooaaaa boy. Are they ever gonna be pissed!
Just think if some of the ones that get away are Bin Laden himself and a few recruits.

I’ve been reading some of the most incredible discussions on both sides of this. But unfortunatly, America (and maybe even the entire world) faces a type of enemy that isn’t killed by your conventional weapons. In short, you’re trying to shoot a ghost folks. You can kill all the Afghanis, Iraqis, Lybians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, and anyone else you want. But in the end, there will still be no shortage of hatred for America in other parts of the world. And the only thing they need to find is a loop hole somewhere that’ll allow them to deliver their brand of terror to your door. They don’t need jets, bombs, nukes, or guns. Just creativity and imagination.
And who said they need all that much cash? A well thought out plan could be carried across US computer networks for less than the cost of an yearly magazine subscription.
So go ahead and tighten airport security, kill the ragheads, and feel safe in your living rooms knowing that your sons and daughters can once again bask in the glorious freedom of Manahttan’s streets.
Someone else answering to the name of Timothy McVeigh will feel the US government has wronged him or her or their people for some reason and blow something else up.

What we are seeing today is the cold war machine rusting. This is what humanity gets for thinking it was somehow a good idea to build nations hell bent on having the biggest cock on the block.
The Russians armed the Chechens and now they’re paying for it.
The US armed Saddam and had to go back and clean up their mess. The CIA trained Bin Laden to kill the commies, and now he’s sending his nutbags on a mission from god to kill Americans.
Yes sir. This is what war gets you. Ghosts. Ghosts that come out of the closet and can’t be killed with guns, nukes, missles, or F-16’s.
Some of the people on this board crassly mock those who aren’t quick to “git their guns and defend Muhrica.” Once again, you’re a dumb hippie who isn’t patriotic. You’re Anti-American. You’re wussies.
Well at least the hippies aren’t trying to figure out how the hell Bin Ladin came to be in the first place.
Go ahead Bush. Be a tough cowboy. Press the button. Kill all the ragheads. I assure you, their ghosts won’t be so easy to kill.

By the way, I must say that I am in total awe of many of the posters here. I just can’t help but wonder why people like you guys aren’t the ones who are running our countries and the idiots and zealots who are running them are deciding humanity’s fate!