I remember having read that atomic weapons were seriously considered but dismissed. But cannot now find anything about it. So was that ever a serious alternative?
There was discussion in the media about the possibility of the United States using tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, specifically a nuclear version of the “bunker buster.” The question was posed directly to secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and VP Cheney, and they refused to comment. Wikipedia cites several sources which say that such weapons never actually existed.
Many people think the nuclear penetrator concept is inherently flawed- the idea that a warhead, traveling no matter how fast, can penetrate a thickness of earth and rock that a nuclear explosion cannot.
It has been stated US policy since the 1950s to never discuss when, where, or under what circumstances, nuclear weapons would, or would not, be used. So the “no comment” from Cheney & Rummy would simply have been another in the long line of no comments extending back to when Ike was President.
Even discussions of what we’d do if the Soviets had nuked the US were always couched in terms of “appropriate response”, or “massive retaliation” or somesuch non-specific bureaucratese. Nobody official ever said “we’re gonna nuke 'em till they glow”, even though everyone believed that’s what the plan was.
Speaking as a former bomb-dropper, both nuke & conventional, the problem in Afghanistan has never been destroying something we’ve found, it’s been finding it to destroy. Nukes don’t help with your targeting problem.
‘It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it’. :rolleyes:
There’s fast and there’s fast. Remember Project Thor?