GOP Congressman Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation

CNS News ^ | 10/18/01 | Jim Burns

[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.

[rogers21774]

Buyer for President, 2008

[alpaca]

How about starting with Fuel to air and neutron boms then moving up to the small nukes?

[rogers21774]

Buyer/Rumsfeld - 2008

[Kryptonite]

Steve Buyer is one of the greatest Americans to serve this country.

[Rustynailww]

"big man" talk from one of the running republicians.

[Anamensis]

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. (-:<

[StoneColdGOP]

Care to explain that?

[motexva]

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.

[Constitution Day]

Rusty:

I second StoneColdGOP's query at #8.

[Rustynailww]

the republician congress ran for the tall grass.

[Goatroper]

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

[RetiredArmy]

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.

[Rustynailww]

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.

[kingh99]

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.

[soxfan]

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.

[StoneColdGOP]

What's he going to do? Stand in the House chamber by himself and convene a session all by himself?

[KellyAdmirer]

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.

[Anamensis]

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.