ABC's Ted Koppel "stunned" by Cohen's mention of "nuclear" as possible response to WTC attack

ABC News ^ | 9/12/01 | ABC Live Coverage

[ppaul]

About 5:50 am Pacific, ABC's Ted Koppel was being interviewed. He was in London. It was mentioned that before Koppel became famous for Nightline, he served as a correspondent covering the U.S. State Department. Koppel said he had been watching the ABC coverage this morning for a "couple of hours" and that he was "stunned" when he saw the interview early this morning of former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and Cohen mentioned the use of nuclear weapons among the list of possible responses to yesterday's terrorist attack. Koppel said it was the first time he ever recalls any high level person mentioning nuclear weapons as even a possibility.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I say we start with Sadam and ask that he turned over to us by his people, if they refuse, turn Bagdad into a parking lot (POOF). Next!

But then again, maybe if we just stop calling rouge nations rouge nations, rouge nations won’t bother us anymore. Can’t we all just get along!

Thanks Bill, for the legacy you have left this country.

[dwjd]

True. Now what do you do about it?

[George W. Bush]

Was Dwight Eisenhower a "sick person"? No president ever rules it out. But when some overwrought Cold Warriors wanted to use nukes to retrieve their French pets from the militarily hopeless situation in Indochina, Ike came right out and tole them "You can't use nukes a second time against Asians."

Ike was very wise and sober, having seen so much war. I don't think you should lay any claim to him on any use of nukes in punitive strikes against hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent civilians, regardless of provocation. Ike was not the author of Mutally Assured Destruction doctrine. He did not support barbecuing civilians.

[HELLRAISER II]

Your right of course, but no action is just an acknowledgement that it's alright to do it again. That my friend is something that must not & cannot be allowed. I don't know that Nukes need to be used, but somebody is gonna have to pay & pay big. Worried about civilian casualties, I'm not. They damn sure weren't worried about ours, thousands died yesterday. May god bless their souls.

[MadRobotArtist]

Something to consider.

We as a nation have used the bomb before. It got the message across to Japan. They now make a lot of electronics and keep us in cheap TV's. Are they an imperialist threat? No.

Last night I got to see my neighbors, who are of Middle Eastern Persuasion having a party. I don't know if they were celebrating a holiday, or if they were happy about the attack. Either way, I'm getting an idea or two to find out.

Nukes are the FINAL answer to any problem. Afghanistan got a lot of money, and weapons from US to get the Russians out of there. This armament is pretty well state of the art, as they are still able to buy from us, and every other country state of the art weaponry.

You can believe that Nukes will put an end to that problem, however who is directly benefitting from all of this? China. I will lay money on it, that the funding for these terrorists comes from China.

[JohnGaltFla]

It's that kind of "Carterized" (and I mean Jimmy) that got us into this mess in the first place. HOPEFULLY the real W isn't as meek as you are. There are no more innocents. If you don't believe me, ASK THE DEAD IN NEW YORK AND D.C.

Send them all to Allah and let him sort them out.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"Put away thiose Tom Clancy novels. Return to the real world"

Well, I certainly appreciate, even revere, unsolicited advice. But the fact is that I have spent quite a bit of time in the "real world", including some parts of it that I would have preferred to have skipped. I have a basic understanding of what motivates these terrorist nations and their leaders.

Whatever our response to this outrage ultimately turns out to be, it MUST be overwhelming and terrifying. Or are we "too civilized" for this? If so, then we might as well just commit national suicide now- because we WILL be defeated and occupied in the lifetimes of a lot of those posting these neo-pacifist sentiments.

[HELLRAISER II]

If their involved I want their ass to, China needs a good kick in the ass anyway.

[Common Tator]

All kinds of people seem to thing that Afganistan is some sort of easy target. Don't you think Bin Lauden considered our retaliation before he acted? Do you think he has no knowlege of our military power? Of course he does. If we could take him out with a few or even a lot of bombs, Bill Clinton would have done so in 1998. Don't you think Clinton would have loved a Kuwait style victory at the height of the Monica situation?

He bombed an medical factory and some empty fields because that is all he could do with cruse missles.

About 3 years ago I had a briefing from an American Colonel who had been an advisor to Bin Lauden. Lauden was on our side when Afghanistan was fighting against the Russians. The Colonel was stationed in Afganistan for years. His opinions and observations proved true in evey particular I could check. I checked every fact he gave me, that I could check. He told the truth on every point. He predicted 3 years ago that Bin Lauden would attack us and be successful in the attack. He said Bin Laudin was creative and would find a way to hurt us. That was 3 years ago.. in 1998. He said we would be hard pressed to pay him back.

This is not the simple problem that Kuwait was. Ben Laudin is certain that he will win. He is not stupid. He has made every assessment of our reaction and its chances for success. He is a lot smarter than Sadam. He was the architect of Afghanistans victory over the Soviet Union.

bin Laudin has bet his life and his cause that we will not use nukes. He knows the Russians did not use nukes against him and he won. Do you think it was a good bet?

[willyone]

Imbecile? I ain no imbecile! I's a moron! Thang you very much!

[Seruzawa]

The problem with nuking a city is that 99.9999999% of the peole in any such city had nothing to do with the attack on us. In nations with governments likely to support these terrorists the average person has no ability to affect what his govenrment does and indeed is likely to be arrested for merely criticizing that govenrment. Most people in this world are just trying to get through life, raising their families. etc. It would be an insane act to use nuclear weapons against innocents and would make us as bad or worse than the terrorists.

[piasa]

China could look upon this distraction as useful to their designs on Taiwan. Alternately, the US reaction to this could stun them into silence. We were supposed to be fluttering about in mindless terror by now... but instead they pi$$ed us off. Really pi$$ed us off. And for New Yorkers, no less.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

"Send them to Allah..."

Here's a bumper sticker:

NECA EOS OMNES, ALLAH SUOS AGNOSCET!

[the808bass]

You just made the case for nukes.

Zactly what I was thinkin...

[George W. Bush]

Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran and Sudan are at war with us. My own list of our enemies is a little longer but you have the chief culprits here. You forgot elements of UAE and a large segment of the Palestinian population. There are also groups in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt that should pay. In my expanded list there are certainly those who are guilty of terrorism against the innocent citizens of the First World, the civilized world, that which was once known as the Christian world of which we Americans are the sole remnant and, by coincidence perhaps, the most powerful nation in the world.

There is a certain fine line to be walked here. The most moderate of the Arab regimes hold in check some very violent populations and our actions must be seen as just retribution lest we topple governments in places like Egypt. This action against us has united us and awakened the sleeping giant. Let's avoid doing anything so blatantly unjust that we do not inadvertently unify our enemies under a single banner.

I wish this was as simple as launching a few nukes. It's not. I'm glad that Bush and Cheney know it.

[JohnGaltFla]

So what you are saying is that because 99.9999999% of the people who died yesterday, who did not give the terrorist networks food, comfort, aid, support, weapons, nor a country to hide in are just dead and that's too bad???????????!!!!!!

The only way to deal with a nation of animals, is to neuter them. Why nukes? Why should we sacrifice any more of our citizens? Why should we play in to Bin Laden's hands and bog down hundreds of thousands of men and women in the deserts of Afghanistan and probably drag Iran and Iraq into a "Jihad" against us.
They understand brute force. Destroy five of their cities, and if the camps are pinpointed, use tactical nukes on them. Otherwise quit whistling dixie. The Taliben, Iranians, and Iraqis will not back down, nor respect us, if we simply launch another conventional attack.

[Rockitz]

Nuclear annihilation is fair game in my book. The Bible is full of passages where the LORD commanded that an entire city or people be "put to the sword."

[Don Myers]

"I am sickened this morning by the lack of a response while there is unending talk of 'reconciliation' from those who want retaliation, but want it to be 'rational'. There is nothing rational about revenge, it is an emotional response. To Bush - get on with it !!"

To many, proper retaliation is the ol' 20 lashes with a wet noodle. "There, did that hurt? Now, don't do it again." It is no wonder that the terrorists felt free to attack us.