View Full Version : Nuclear versus conventional means

09-14-2001, 08:26 AM
I prefer conventional but, I cherish the nuclear concept. Talk about your totally antiseptic cleansing...

The important point is to excise Bin Laden _et al_ (and I mean _et al_ in the most complete and extensive sense) like pustulated ganglia in a premetastatic state. And don?t let the surgical metaphor mislead you. The completeness of the procedure is foremost, the precision secondary and coincidental.

I want no one left alive to nurture, harbor or finance the terrorists. I want no one left alive to perform the terror. I want everyone left alive to know what will happen to them if they try.

We can take our lesson from what the Royal Navy did to slavers in the nineteenth century: intercepted them at sea and hanged them summarily (no trials; therefore no acquittals).

09-14-2001, 09:54 AM
Going nuclear is a whole new ball-game. It should not be discussed lightly. It is doubtful that we will get into a situation where the nuclear option could be even mostly confined to military or terrorist targets. But at some point we will have to discuss what to do when a terrorist uses a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. If that happens and the activity is state-sponsored, there will be some very grave and unpleasant decisions to make.

09-14-2001, 10:40 AM
Nuclear weapons were suggested in these pages.

I oppose nuclear because I don't want to see (this is sort of obvious) upward spiraling of the means and the stakes. With the fracturing of the old Soviet Union, and assorted Russia mafiosos allegedly peddling "red mercury" (code for weapon grade plutonium) we may really be in for it. But the price of courage is less than the price of cowardice, and the courageous and proper thing to do is, to the greatest extent we can, to rid the world of terrorism by ridding it of terrorists. Every last f**king one of them.

We have no real alternative.

09-14-2001, 01:22 PM
It scares me that so many Americans seem to be jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. Talk about trying to kill a bug with a sledgehammer! These people are really nothing more than a fairly small group of common fanatics and criminals. This is no nation of people. Let's not give them more validation than they deserve. These fanatics want this to escalate into World War and to alter the American way of life. If that happens they have scored a resounding victory. George Bush has a tremendous opportunity here to marshall support from across the globe (even from quasi-enemies) and isolate some of these groups and do far more damage to them in the long run than any nuclear strike. Keep in mind that terrorist cells are spread across the globe, even in the US and other Western countries. The killing of civilians by the US will only serve to escalate the level of violence in perpetuity. This is our chance to further isolate these terrorist fanatics using an unprecedented level of global cooperation. We don't need to deliberately kill innocent civilians in the process. We don't need to stoop to their level. America and NATO in concert with non-NATO countries have the manpower, intelligence, and technology to exterminate the culprits, as well as several other like-minded groups along the way. If you must have revenge, consider that this kind of operation will be far more terrifying to them than any nuclear strike.

09-14-2001, 03:56 PM

09-14-2001, 04:28 PM
I believe that not until nuclear and/or biological weapons are used against us will (or should) America seriously consider the nuclear option. IMO, it would be a dangerous and unnecessary escalation of the conflict which seems incompatible with America's certain goal of minimizing "collateral damage."

09-14-2001, 05:44 PM
Let me get this right. To do what you propose would entail wiping out: Algeria, Libya, Egypt (the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel), Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Russia (umm, maybe not...), and various communities in the U.S. and many other countries. Lets be coinservative and consider it 300 million dead.

09-14-2001, 07:46 PM

No, I don't recommend resort to thermo-nuclear weaponry. (Call me a traditionalist.)

But in prior postings someone had suggested it. My post was ridicule of the proposal.

Please give me more credit.


(P.S. You omitted the Sudan.)