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.
Nuclear weapons provide a clean, quick solution to the most of the world's problems. They save lives and clear minds. It's time to go nuclear!
If it is a domestic terrorist group they should face special circumstances (death penalty) when apprehended and put on trial. If they are middle eastern related the evil forces of terrorism have just upped the ante with their use of NBC warfare and we should respond in kind with the weapons of our choice. Then I would support the Congressman's recommendation whole heartedly. Any response less than that would be giving an encouraging green light to the terrorists. Force is the only thing terrorists understand since they don't reason like other human beings.
My condolences...
Gives a whole new meaning to "enLIGHTenment" :-)
Even LIEberman sounds like a hawk now...
NOOOOOOO!!!!!
The city council of Berkley will pass another resolution if you do!!!!!
Don't be naive. Our longstanding position is that we have a nuke doctrine that says "you hit us with nuke/chem/bio, and we nuke you."
They hit us with bio. If we don't nuke them, we're sending a clear message: it's safe to hit us, because we talk big, and we wave a mean stick, but when the day is done, we'll take it, because we're a paper tiger.
As to your notion that they're playing by some tit for tat rules, get real. We're the ones playing this with the Marquis of Queensbury in one hand an Roberts Rules of Order in the other. They do what they can get away with, and what will inflict the most harm to us.
Don't believe me? Then think back a few weeks. There used to be two big skyscrapers on the south tip of Manhattan. Now there ain't. Oops, there went your "don't hit them, or you'll give them an excuse to hit back" idea.
You are evidently one of those people who's never had to deal with a real bully. Or perhaps you dealt with a mini-snot of a bully, and you sucked it up, and he didn't take your lunch money, so now you think the whole world works like that.
Well, it doesn't. There are some real nasty mothers out there, and OBL is about as nasty as they come. Animals like that understand two things. The first if force. Overwhelming force. And the other is weakness. To them, it's a black and white world -- and as long as we're not giving them overwhelming force, in their eyes, we're weak.
<>"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."
Nice big-talk, but how would you avoid hurting the Innocent Civilians(tm)? Ahh, so much for that idea.
We can't even bomb the bastards on their so-called holiday, and you think we're gonna waste 'em to the ground? The weak among us would piss and moan about how "those children didn't set up us the bomb, how can you kill them?"
If we don't drop at least one token tactical nuke on the bastards, we're as much as telling them they've got carte blanche to do us up one side and down the middle. And they will. But as far as nuking them into oblivion? You're in fantasy land.
Except one.
Failure to respond to 9/11 in such an extreme manner
so as to cause future generations of these folks to lose bowel control,
at the mere mention of American, will insure continued attacks on America.
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.
Nope, our nuke doctrine is clear, and according to it, we should have retaliated on 9/11, because those four jets did comprise a WMD.
But, we're too hobbled by the left, by PC, and by fear. So, we lie to our people. We tell them that an obvious bio attack is just a series of "isolated incidents". We say don't worry, buy a car. No big deal, it's nothing to sweat, just take antibiotics, blah blah blah.
Then they prove it's a lie (to the 3 or 4 people who actually believed 'em) by running like scared rabbits when their workplace gets dusted.
So, in summary -- and to address your question -- it's not that the threshhold for a response is artificially high -- it's that they are denying that it's been crossed, because they don't want to implement it.
This sort of ambivilance only accomplishes one thing: it tells the enemy that we are paper tigers. That we're weak. That we're safe to hit.
If they'd used a tactical nuke instead of two airplanes, the damage would not have been any worse. In fact, it would have been less deadly. The people on the airplanes would still be alive.
We're denying that it's time -- by the book -- to invoke our nuclear doctrine, because we don't want to invoke it.
Until the "leaders" grow the balls to do what needs doing, the enemy will continue to feel confident that we're a paper tiger, and they'll continue to hit us in our weakest points.
And that's our homeland.
At last someone who gets it.
Screw "controversy", sheesh!
As long as we pause to ask "How do I look?" after each shot, we're gonna lose our asses.
A war is not a debutante coming out party. It's hell, and in hell, the biggest meanest dog wins.
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.