Would You Define the Attack as Cowardice?

Yes they will be remebered. They will be idolized and accepted as martyrs. Therein lies the secret to the basic strategy behind a rational response by the US.


Make sure that the entire world knows the cost of sending your minions out to become martyrs. Make sure every living person who has access to television, radio, print media or even a good rumor monger understands that when the next great reformer of "The One True Belief(tm)" gets a wild hair up his ass and sends his flunkies out to fly a plane through the side of a plane, it will be a fatal decision. It will not only be fatal to the leader, but to his intelligence staff, his planners, his financial supporters, his "religious" advisers, his drivers, his cooks, his radio operators and everyone else who stood in his shadow and helped him out.


Sure, the "martyrs" made it in to heaven. Of course, the members of the organization who weren't publically martyred were just shot down as they slept. Their leaders were identified by their dental records because their bodies were blown into bloody rags when the cruise missiles came through the back door of their chateau. The intelligence support people were found lying in fly swarmed, blood stained blotches of desert sand.


They chose their method to become martyrs. They weren't satisfied by just dousing themselves with gasoline and lighting it off on the evening news.


There is no possible way to make sure nobody ever considers similar actions. Imposing on others by force is one of the basic aspects of humanity. But they can be made to understand the cost. They can be made to understand that when the next Bin Laden comes and asks them to drive his trucks for him; the last driver was hit by so many bullets that his own mother couldn't identify his remains. They can be made to understand that they do have a choice. Their family is threatened in order to get them to operate the new leader's radios but the last leader's radio operator was barely discernible from the slagged remains of his transmitter so great was the conflagaration when the FAE went off three meters above his bunker. At least now they will understand the stakes.


J.A. James

Hopefully not. Hopefully the US is going to deliver the full weight of it's Special Operations, naval, air and tactical missile forces to make sure that the terrorists can only be identified by DNA analysis.


Cruise missiles followed by Airborne assault followed by Delta and Special Forces coming in to take any survivors off to The Hague for trial. If we're very lucky, those survivors will try to put up a fight and save the hassle of bringing them back.


Realistically, US and Allied Special Operations forces will be employed to attempt to capture Bin Laden, or whoever turns out to be the actual leader, and bring him to justice. Much more than he deserves and not at all likely to generate the lesson that will teach the follow-on terrorists the cost of a similar attack, but most likely.


J.A. James

The US doesn't have any weapon systems that can deliver 100 megatons from a single delivery system. The biggest weapon in the US inventory is the B-53 (Mod-1). It's an air droppable, strategic bomb deliverable by the B-52. It has a nominal yield of 9 megatons.


More realistic weapons, should the nuclear option be considered, are W-80(Mod-1) warheads delivered by Air Launched Cruise Missiles. While they only have a nominal maximum yield of 150MT, they're a safer and more robust delivery system than the strategic bomber. Unfortunately they're not much good against a heavily fortified, dug in target. For that, we have the B-61(Mod-11) which was entered into service in the late 90s in order to have a low to medium yield (.3kt-340kt) tactical weapon specifically designed to penetrate hardened targets. The primary disadvantages to the B-61 are that it's an air dropped weapon. It requires aircraft access to the target area. Given the remoteness of some areas of Afghanistan and the likelihood of Bin Laden's taking refuge there, ALCM delivery is the most likely.


The nuclear option is, unfortunately, a real one in this situation. If the Special Operations troops are unable to gain access to the targets, then higher firepower methods might have to be employed. Fortunately the remote areas of Afghanistan are nearly ideal for targeting nuclear weapons as the tremendously mountainous terrain limits fallout spread and downwind effects.


Not a great option but one that's very likely being laid out on the planning table.


J.A. James

"Until then, they hurt us, we hurt them so badly they can't ever think about hurting us again without remembering the carnage brought by the forces of the United States and its allies."


You might be forgetting something. Many of these people are used to the death and carnage brought upon their loved ones. They are numb to the ravages of war. Except for our enlisted military, we are not. We for the most part, are pampered and sheltered from such carnage close to home. So in this battle you want to engage in, they will hold up much better than we.

Hey don't get me wrong, I am honored and blessed to be an American. But if you don't see that our interests in the Mid-East over the last 20 years, have been a bit self-serving and hypocritcal then you're just plain naive, ignorant, or a little of both. To this day we still make regular bombing runs against Bahgdad. We think nothing of killing innocents who's only crime is trying to feed their family by going to work in a factory just because they "might" be manufacturing a part which can be used for military among other things. With the exception of Israel, our policy our Middle-Eastern policy has been to take whichever side best serves our interest. We have literally created and given power to many of the monsters you now want to destroy.


Peace and solution can only begin with an understanding of the other side's motivation. But perhaps peace is not what you're after. Maybe it's plain old revenge in which case, you're no better than those you wish to punish. I'm not saying retribution and an attempt to stop terrorism isn't in order. But having a myopic view such as yours only fuels matters.

. . . is not funny. Nor is it something to be taken lightly. When American planners are coolly putting megadeath figures on paper as we speak, I'm as outraged as when I imagine the conspirators of the Tuesday bloodbath laying down THEIR plans.


Satire is the last refuge of the outraged.

Thank you. Well put. Most Americans don't seem to see this. And I'm probably expressing myself a little too provocative to get anyone to listen...

I do think that you may need to use violence. But only if you have to. And only as little as possible. And only to reach a goal, a goal of in the end making things better. Not for revenge. Not to get even, to "show them who they are f***ing with", etc, etc. And the violence must stop as soon as possible and be followed with constructive action instead of destructive. Terrorists aren't doing what they are doing because they think it's fun. They are doing it because they believe that they are doing the right thing. (OK, not all, but this kind at least.) They too are fighting the evil of this world. Just like you. And if you see these things in black and white then you are as deluded as the people steering those planes into the WTC.