Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Congressman Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation
CNS News ^ | 10/18/01 | Jim Burns

Posted on 10/18/2001 12:24:31 PM PDT by truthandlife

Emphasizing that his idea is just an option, Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) believes the United States should consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden's terrorist network in Afghanistan if that network is linked to the recent anthrax incidents in the United States.

Buyer, a Persian Gulf war veteran and member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee thinks small, specialized nuclear weapons, not as powerful as the atom bombs that were dropped on Japan in World War Two, could be used on the caves where members of bin Laden's network have taken shelter.

However, Buyer emphasized that the use of the weapons would only be a proper response if bin Laden's people are linked to the anthrax cases in Florida, Washington, New York and elsewhere in the United States.

"Don't send special forces in there to sweep. We'd be very naive to believe that biotoxins and chemical agents were not in these caves. Put a tactical nuclear device in and close these caves for a thousand years," said Buyer in an interview with Indianapolis television station WRTV.

Buyer stressed that he doesn't advocate the use of full-power nuclear bombs, but acknowledged that much of the world wouldn't see the difference.

Buyer's press secretary, Laura Zuckerman, told CNSNews.com Thursday, "This is not an option that the congressman has called upon the White House or anybody of the military operations to take. He is just saying he would support it, if this an option that they would like to take.

"He's not advocating nuclear war. He's a gulf war veteran, he knows the horrors of war and he would never look to escalate something in this way. If they [were] quelled somewhat by the threat of a nuclear attack, then the threat itself might be enough," said Zuckerman.

Last Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said the United States would remain on high alert for some time although there were no specific terrorist threats, she said, nor any evidence that terrorists had gotten their hands on nuclear weapons.

"There are reports of all kinds of things, some true and some not. But there's no reason for the American people at this point to fear a specific threat of that kind. We have no credible evidence of a specific threat of that kind," Rice said.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last

1 posted on 10/18/2001 12:24:31 PM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Buyer for President, 2008
2 posted on 10/18/2001 12:27:18 PM PDT by rogers21774
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
How about starting with Fuel to air and neutron boms then moving up to the small nukes?
3 posted on 10/18/2001 12:27:45 PM PDT by alpaca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogers21774
Buyer/Rumsfeld - 2008
4 posted on 10/18/2001 12:28:20 PM PDT by rogers21774
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Steve Buyer is one of the greatest Americans to serve this country.
5 posted on 10/18/2001 12:28:39 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
"big man" talk from one of the running republicians.
6 posted on 10/18/2001 12:30:16 PM PDT by Rustynailww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Excellent. I'm glad to see someone is thinking. We start with very small nukes to get past that fear-of-nukes barrier in the public mind. Then, if we have to go a little bigger, well... it won't be such a shock. Not to US, anyway. (-:<
7 posted on 10/18/2001 12:32:22 PM PDT by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rustynailww
Care to explain that?
8 posted on 10/18/2001 12:32:25 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
What possible reason would we have to use tactical nuclear weapons? We have far more powerful conventional weapons, some of which I believe have already been used there. A poster above mentioned Fuel Air Explosives, these can be more powerful and more effective than nuclear weapons, if Gulf War lore serves me correctly. I understand using nukes as a verb, as in "Let's nuke 'em!" being used to describe the unleashing of general mayhem and destruction. But there's really no need to actually use nukes in this theater.
9 posted on 10/18/2001 12:32:32 PM PDT by motexva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rustynailww; StoneColdGOP
Rusty:

I second StoneColdGOP's query at #8.

10 posted on 10/18/2001 12:35:14 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP
the republician congress ran for the tall grass.
11 posted on 10/18/2001 12:35:47 PM PDT by Rustynailww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: motexva
Do a search for B61-11, the nuke bunker buster. Made to order for what the Congressman is suggesting. I'd love it.
12 posted on 10/18/2001 12:36:09 PM PDT by Goatroper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Goatroper
This guy is talking my language. In war, you use the weapons to destroy the enemy. You do not, you do not worry about what the cry baby liberals will say. You do what you have to do to protect our brave men and women in uniform, to keep down OUR casualties and to maximize the enemy's losses.

You destroy their will to want to continue. This is exactly what the rag heads are trying to do to us right now! They are counting on the cry baby liberals and anti-war babies to come out of the woodwork and get another Vietnam type of protest started. They hit us, destroy our will and they win! This we cannot allow.

Last night on O'Reilly, the commie senator from Taxsatussus, not fat Teddy, but the other senator (sorry right now I forget his name) said that after he served in Vietnam and came home, that is when he was against the war. Because we had no purpose, no goals, no committment, no reason. But, he said now we do have a goal, a purpose, a committment and we will win. The first thing that ever came out of his mouth that I agreed with.

13 posted on 10/18/2001 12:43:16 PM PDT by RetiredArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
i support the use of all weapons. and do not mean to disrupt the thread. hastert let himself be tricked by dashole. the rank and file shoulld have seen through the ruse and revolted.
14 posted on 10/18/2001 12:43:43 PM PDT by Rustynailww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: alpaca
absolutely insane to be the first to use tact nukes. It would give cover to the enemy to use nukes on home soil. They very well could have several nukes in this country wating for the oppty. We shouldn't give them one. Our policy should be simple. Any nuke detonated on home soil and the rest of the world is going to see an extinction level event response from the USA. We have the subs, they should have their orders. America is nuked, end of days. It has to be said otherwise we may suffer the unimaginable.
15 posted on 10/18/2001 12:44:24 PM PDT by kingh99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
I'm confused. Ms. Rice states "there's no reason for the American people at this point to fear a specific threat of that kind. We have no credible evidence of a specific threat of that kind". Is it a prerequisite that our government will obtain in advance "credible evidence of a specific threat of that kind" before future terrorist action can occur? Did we have "credible evidence of a specific threat of any kind" prior to 9/11? Clearly, our enemies are performing test and evaluation of biological weapons of mass destruction on us RIGHT NOW. Our WMD deterrent is obviously in tatters. Are there some mysterious, nuclear "Marquis of Queensberry Rules" that state we must we wait until we are massively "nuked" (or gassed, or infected) ourselves before we can even CONSIDER a tactical nuclear option. Because, otherwise, rest unassured, if history is any judge, we WILL be attacked with WMD, and then we WILL use STRATEGIC, not limited tactical nuclear weapons, and it will be MASSIVE, REFLEXIVE, and without consideration for loss of innocent life. Seems perfectly reasonable to me to at least consider a tactical nuke option in order to prevent having to use inevitably massive ones later.
16 posted on 10/18/2001 12:44:57 PM PDT by soxfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rustynailww
What's he going to do? Stand in the House chamber by himself and convene a session all by himself?
17 posted on 10/18/2001 12:46:11 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: truthandlife
Buyer's comments only continue the American mania of having bloodless victories. I know, I know, there are 6,000 or so victims already - but the notion that we can win each and every conflict by remote control is decadent. Sure, it would be easier to just nuke 'em and be done with it. But the unnecessary enmity engendered around the world by doing that would be catastrophic in the long run.

American casualties are a heavy price to pay for conventional operations. However, there will probably be fewer in the long run by NOT using nukes.

19 posted on 10/18/2001 12:48:31 PM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingh99
Our policy should be simple. Any nuke detonated on home soil and the rest of the world is going to see an extinction level event response from the USA...America is nuked, end of days.

Hmmmm... that's a good point too... except I hate to wait for them to nuke US. I mean, to me the WTC was enough.

20 posted on 10/18/2001 12:48:58 PM PDT by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kingh99
you are incorrect. if taliban had nukes in the US, they would have been detonated by now, so there goes your argument...
21 posted on 10/18/2001 12:49:31 PM PDT by Capt.YankeeMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Buyer is a sleeper among the Republicans, I think. He will (or should) make a name for himself in national leadership soon. In addition to being a Gulf War vet, he was one of the managers in the impeachment trial. He is in a fairly safe Republican district that has has been carved out of Inidiana. So he should be able to serve in Congress just about as long as he wants to. He's MY representative, and am proud that he serves our interests in the House.
22 posted on 10/18/2001 12:52:25 PM PDT by daves_brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Let's ROLL!
23 posted on 10/18/2001 12:53:22 PM PDT by kapn kuek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP
yes.
24 posted on 10/18/2001 12:53:44 PM PDT by Rustynailww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KellyAdmirer
Buyer's comments only continue the American mania of having bloodless victories.

So do you believe that it was wrong for us to save American lives in WWII by using nukes on Japan?

25 posted on 10/18/2001 12:54:15 PM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
I'm with this guy.
26 posted on 10/18/2001 12:54:28 PM PDT by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daves_brother
Inidiana = Indiana (oops)
27 posted on 10/18/2001 12:55:47 PM PDT by daves_brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
These idiots are getting more and more brazen!
28 posted on 10/18/2001 12:55:53 PM PDT by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
I have long felt that the use of chemical or biological agents against the US should be met with a nuclear response.
29 posted on 10/18/2001 12:56:06 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Already Posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/551193/posts

THE AGENDA EXPRESS





30 posted on 10/18/2001 12:57:10 PM PDT by agenda_express
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingh99
absolutely insane to be the first to use tact nukes. It would give cover to the enemy to use nukes on home soil.

If I read you correctly, I disagree with you. If binL has 'em, he will use 'em. Why should we take a second hit of innocence and instead of 7,000 it will be 70,000 or even the next exponent of that. Take him out FIRST. We were the FIRST to take out Japanese empire '45...

31 posted on 10/18/2001 1:00:00 PM PDT by Sara Dorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Goatroper
Do a search for B61-11, the nuke bunker buster. Made to order for what the Congressman is suggesting. I'd love it.

Here it is: http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN08-01-97/b61_story.html

Personally, I'd like something a bit bigger, say 25 megatons or so.

Nukem

32 posted on 10/18/2001 1:00:01 PM PDT by Alas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
No, the WWII A-bombs are easily defensible - and still look at the endless controversy even now over their use. It was a first use, before the world was armed to the teeth with nukes, ended a world war, and saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. All the other major powers were not just supporting us, but actually had ground forces in operation. Here, none of those facts apply.

What do you suppose the Chinese and Indians would think when nuclear clouds float over their territory afterward? How would you feel about your family drinking contaminated milk for the next few years?

33 posted on 10/18/2001 1:00:40 PM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
When will the good people of Indiana WAKE UP and elect this guy over Evan Gay.
34 posted on 10/18/2001 1:00:59 PM PDT by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Volley Up!! Fire!!

Atomic Cannon

35 posted on 10/18/2001 1:05:07 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Man is a funny sort of creature...

Before he ever does something in the 'real world', he does it in his head.

The act of 'Speaking' about something, even as a remote possibility, automatically advances people more than halfway toward 'Doing' it.

One of the ways in which this reality is validated is demonstrated by the virtually universal use by governments of 'trial balloons'. Even repressive regimes often run ideas up the flagpole and take note of whether they draw any salutes.

An unwillingness to use trial balloons as one instrument of policy decision making, in fact, is a good indicator that the regime involved is not long for the world.

The murdering sand goblins simply went too far. And, like the doomed characters in a Greek tragedy, they are busily compounding their error in virtually every way that they are able to.

There's a symmetry, a predictable harmony to what is developing...

1) "Nuke Em?"

2) "We'll Nuke Em if..."

3) "Nuke Em!"

4) "We Nuked Em because..."

We're at step 2 now, just a few spores, a bit of soldier’s blood, an atrocity away from step 3. The question is no longer whether we will use nukes in this struggle, but whether any realistic possibility remains that we won’t.

36 posted on 10/18/2001 1:06:25 PM PDT by DWSUWF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
it was john kerry... and he is NOT from texas... for godsake man get a grip... if we blame texans for kerry, they might decide to take up their old status as the texas republic... we need 'em right now to keep our own coalition here together... don't messshh wi teksus.

< /sarcasm >

Repeat for all texans, we know YOU did not send us Kerry... please forgive us....

37 posted on 10/18/2001 1:08:15 PM PDT by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agenda_express
America currently and indisputably occupies the moral high-ground with respect to Bin-Ladin and the Taliban regime in conducting its reponse to terrorism. No resonable criticism can be advanced against a US conventional military response to the death of thousands of civilians regardless of the amount of collateral damage it generates. Using nuclear weapons would instantly revoke this moral standing without necessarily advancing any military goal. Irradiating portions of the Afghan countryside for a few thousand years simply isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
38 posted on 10/18/2001 1:08:25 PM PDT by Pitchfork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
"When will the good people of Indiana WAKE UP and elect this guy over Evan Gay."

AMEN TO THAT!

39 posted on 10/18/2001 1:08:27 PM PDT by agenda_express
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
Pitchfork - member since October 18th, 2001
40 posted on 10/18/2001 1:10:02 PM PDT by agenda_express
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Capt.YankeeMike
"you are incorrect. if taliban had nukes in the US, they would have been detonated by now, so there goes your argument..."

I disagree with you. I do think they have them and I think it is just a matter of time, they will use them.

41 posted on 10/18/2001 1:10:04 PM PDT by auggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
hate to wait for them to nuke US. I mean, to me the WTC was enough.

The only way this war is going to be won is find out where bin Laden is and drop The Bomb at that location. Anthrax from Iraq? Drop The Bomb on Saddam.

Then some hadith loving Osama idolator from Pakistian will think twice about attacking USA knowing that his entire country will be gone the day after his suicide attack.

42 posted on 10/18/2001 1:14:42 PM PDT by Khaleel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

As I am learning HTML, let me try that again.

Pitchfork member since October 18th, 2001
 

43 posted on 10/18/2001 1:14:43 PM PDT by agenda_express
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; agenda_express
When will the good people of Indiana WAKE UP and elect this guy over Evan Gay.

I'm wide awake and I sure as hell didn't vote for pretty boy Bayh. I'm tryin' folks! I'm tryin'!!

44 posted on 10/18/2001 1:15:46 PM PDT by Hoosier Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: rogers21774
EL 'BIN RANCHO

You can check in, but you can't check out...

Bin Laden is a roach, why not Nuke him if he goes down a hidy hole...

46 posted on 10/18/2001 1:19:01 PM PDT by RISU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: motexva
"What possible reason would we have to use tactical nuclear weapons?"

Enhanced radiation weapons can cook anything alive in those caves. The radiation will penetrate and kill them before they know they are dead.

THAT's the reason.

--Boris

47 posted on 10/18/2001 1:19:24 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
We're using 'em.

Proof?

48 posted on 10/18/2001 1:20:21 PM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: motexva
Why have nukes if you are afraid to use them....I think five or 6 nukes could settle all disputes and render the middle east PEACEFUL. They cannot stir up trouble if they have been baked at 4500 degrees for 1000 years.
49 posted on 10/18/2001 1:24:58 PM PDT by RasterMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Djk
"What possible reason would we have to use tactical nuclear weapons?"

...because it would be a lot of fun?      :) -djk

at last!!! an honest answer to the question.....
50 posted on 10/18/2001 1:26:17 PM PDT by moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson