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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 last
To: truthandlife
. . . he knows the horrors of war and he would never look to escalate something in this way.

Did I miss something? How is it an escalation to respond with WMD after they've already been used against you -- twice? Buyer needs to call Zuckerman on the carpet and warn her not to undermine him again.

121 posted on 10/19/2001 9:06:53 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alpaca
How about using them all at once and making it a history or discovery channel special! Let's roll! Let's get this job done and over with and let everyone else know this is what is going to happen if you ever mess with our freedom again!
122 posted on 10/19/2001 9:31:10 AM PDT by surfer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Time to use 2 nukes: Samson 1 and Samson 2

(both 40 mega-ton) NOW!!!!

123 posted on 10/19/2001 9:36:09 AM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
Buyer: Ground troops too risky; small, nuclear device an option

If it becomes clear that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network is behind the recent wave of anthrax cases, and it is hiding chemical or biological weapons in Afghanistan caves, U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer said they've "upped the ante" and he would support the use of nuclear weapons to destroy them.

Buyer said he isn't advocating nuclear tactics. But if the Bush administration decides to go that route, it would have his backing. He planned to outline his thoughts in a letter to the administration.

A Gulf War veteran who returned home from that conflict with an illness caused by exposure to mustard and sarin gas, Buyer said Thursday that it's too risky to send large numbers of ground troops into mountain hideouts. Instead, small special operation forces could fight their way into caves and bunkers and plant timer-detonated tactical nuclear devices powerful enough to bring down entire mountains.

"These caves have catacombs that go deep into the mountains of Afghanistan," the Monticello Republican told the Journal and Courier. "Before we send special forces into these caves and try to flush people out, before we subject them to the chemical or biological toxins that might be contained inside, I would support collapsing these caves to seal them forever."

Buyer, who serves on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and is a major in the Army Reserves, said he doesn't think conventional weapons would be powerful enough to do the job. He said a small, tactical nuclear device could be "limited in scope," without creating a mushroom cloud and spreading radioactive fallout to civilians.

That notion drew laughter from John Pike, who heads Globalsecurity.org, a defense and intelligence think tank in Arlington, Va.

"Just a little teeny Chihuahua-size atomic bomb?" Pike said. "There's no such thing as a small atomic bomb. That sounds kind of silly.

"I don't think there is any evidence that they have any structures that are too deep or too strong to resist a conventional attack. If you look at these tunnels, they're shallow. They only go a couple dozen feet into the mountain. It's not like they're Journey to the Center of the Earth or something.

"Frankly, if the United States knew they had such munitions in an area, they'd send in special forces to capture such people and ask where they got them."

Buyer first raised the nuclear option Wednesday on an Indianapolis radio talk show, and Indianapolis television news stations picked it up for their 11 p.m. broadcasts. On Thursday, Buyer's press secretary, Laura Zuckerman, said she had fielded numerous calls from reporters seeking clarification of his views.

"The last thing we want is for people to think Steve is advocating nuclear war," Zuckerman said. "That's the last thing he would ever do."

Still, deploying nuclear weapons isn't under serious consideration because it would be too risky politically at a time when civilian death tolls in Afghanistan already are mounting, said Christopher Hellman, senior analyst for the Center for Defense Information, another military think tank in Washington.

Hellman acknowledged that the idea of using small, tactical nuclear weapons to destroy underground stores of chemical and biological weapons in hostile countries has floated around U.S. military circles in recent years. But it remains to be seen whether there are large supplies of chemical and biological weapons in Afghanistan, he said.

And Hellman said the U.S. could not guarantee that civilians wouldn't suffer. It would risk violating an international norm against the use of weapons of mass destruction.

"This is very much a political war. We could win the war on the battlefield and lose the war at home, and using nuclear weapons would be one way of doing it.

"Do you think our new friends in the region would remain our friends if we used nuclear weapons?" said Hellman, referring to Pakistan. "And then there's the issue of fallout. We don't want to irradiate the people we're trying to feed."

"More importantly," Pike said, "with India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, and having been at war over Kashmir, I think it would be astonishingly unwise for the United States to be setting off nuclear weapons in that part of the world because it might give neighbors the wrong idea."

In 1998, Pakistan successfully detonated a nuclear bomb in a test. Many view the country as increasingly unstable in light of the U.S. bombing campaign. But Buyer said he wouldn't worry about its nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands in the event of a coup -- and possibly being used against the United States.

"They tested one, but they don't have the know-how to deliver it and they don't have the guidance systems to do that," he said. "We shouldn't fear this discussion. There's such a stigma attached to the word 'nuclear' that people don't even think rationally."

124 posted on 10/19/2001 10:25:22 AM PDT by blf1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
(Letter to the editor in local paper.) Kerns' Sept. 11 tale separates candidates

I was sickened by the report that freshman congressman Brian Kerns exaggerated to reporters his personal experience during the tragic events of Sept. 11. But I think it provides a useful comparison between Kerns and Steve Buyer, the five-term incumbent whom Kerns plans to challenge for Congress next year.

One is a politician, the other a congressman. One did nothing in particular to distinguish himself before going to Washington and merely inherited the job from his father-in-law. The other distinguished himself by serving his country in war and earned the title of patriot before representing his fellow Hoosiers in Washington. One says what he thinks will sound good. The other says what his heart tells him is right. With one you cannot distinguish the truth from the bull when he speaks. With the other, you know exactly where he stands by what he says. With Kerns, it's politics as usual. With Buyer it's anything but.

Shame on Kerns for exploiting the greatest tragedy in American history for his own political gain.

125 posted on 10/19/2001 10:30:11 AM PDT by blf1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: blf1776
In which paper is that letter? I've been a supporter of Buyer for the past few years and know that he's one of the best in the House.
126 posted on 10/19/2001 11:08:01 AM PDT by NYC GOP Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
The Journal and Courier Online - Greater Lafayette, Indiana (www.jconline.com)
127 posted on 10/19/2001 11:21:28 AM PDT by blf1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: rogers21774
I like the idea with one small change. Rumsfeld/Buyer 2008.
128 posted on 10/19/2001 11:26:48 AM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blf1776
Very kewl! Thanks! :-D
129 posted on 10/19/2001 11:28:09 AM PDT by NYC GOP Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
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.

Aye carrumba! Those of us on the ground just outside the WTC would have been killed instantly. :-(

130 posted on 10/19/2001 11:32:06 AM PDT by NYC GOP Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Twodees
They are going to nuke us the first chance they get, regardless of what we do. From now on, we must think pre-emptive.
131 posted on 10/19/2001 11:35:01 AM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Your# 131)
You truely "understand" the real time situation!!
Thanks for posting!!
WTC=Thousands DEAD
Pentagon=hundreds DEAD
Heroes of flight# 93 by pre-emptive ACTION saved thousands of lives!!......93-93-93-93-93...thank you 93....!!
Facts are FACTS!!
132 posted on 10/19/2001 12:17:40 PM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
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.

Yes. I keep wondering "what will it take?? 50,000 dead of smallpox? Superbowl bombed? White House? What??"

133 posted on 10/19/2001 7:45:00 PM PDT by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
Funny about this "don't want to offend muslims business," isn't it? Notice how quiet most liberals were about the whole East Timor business?
134 posted on 10/19/2001 7:50:39 PM PDT by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
They are going to nuke us the first chance they get, regardless of what we do

That's right. That is exactly right. They aren't trying to just "make a point." They want us ALL DEAD!

135 posted on 10/19/2001 7:54:59 PM PDT by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 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