If it came to using nuclear warheads, wide area suppression with thermobaric weapons would be just as effective, and politically "safe" compared to using tactical thermonukes.

Not only because they aren't in the classification of "weapon of mass destruction" but also because other nations HAVE used them(including the US) in other conflicts.(Indeed the Russians have been using them as both an artillery, and tac-nuke alternative since during the Afgan war.)

Make no mistake that these are horrifying weapons, but at the same time they DO make a clear difference in borders, and are less likely to cause an international incident outside of against the target country.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/binmurder1.shtml

If after reading you still think we need to take the patty cake approach to what has
happened then so be it.

It was said that we should still play by the rules.
---------------------------------------------
1) Civilian targets are not eliminated
2) Military targets are destroyed with due regard to potential civilian deaths. That is to say
in any conflict there will be civilian deaths, however, you do not destroy without
considering those civilians.
3) Act on factual information and wisdom. Use the intelligence community to identify
those responsible, those that support them. That same information will be used to separate
the innocent from the conflict to ensure there is no needless death.
4) Dont let emotion and anger cloud your judgment on the selection of action.
---------------------------------------------

It is because of these rules that the terrorist leaders continue to live. All they have to do is hide among the Civilians and they are safe. They have proven time and again that they can evade us. I completely agree with Khoros.

"You wanna get terrorist? Here's how you get them. They pull a knife, you pull a gun.
They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theres to the morgue. That's the
American way. And that's how you get Terrorist!"

Sure we could close down our boarders, place the military on every street corner. Close down public places, and tear up the constution all in the name of public safety and revenge.

That logic just dosent work im sorry. By your reasoning we could get rid of all freedom in this country in order to secure ourselves from the threat.

The world has rules, and you must follow them. If you do not, then your a terrorist state. Just because a person down the street commits murder, does not mean its open season on murder.

Keep that in mind, you guys are speaking from your heart and your not thinking this through.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Khoros:

World War I was essentially a balanced conflict. Noone was "winning". Eventually, in all likelihood, a negotiated settlement would have occurred.

---

Wrong. Germany would have won outright. They broke Russia completely in 1917, and French troops were quite shaken, if not quite broken. In 1918, if it weren't for the Americans to take on the extra Germans freed up from the now mostly inactive Russian front the Germans would have overrun the West.

quote:

---

Consider an alternate reality.

No American intervention, no shift of power.

---

Without American intervention, there would have been a huge shift in power, namely German domination of the Continent and German dominion over French colonial holdings. Not good, not good at all.

I think you entirely fail to appreciate the consequences of German victory in WW1. Even I don't have a good grasp of them, but keep in mind that Germany is the source and root of every form of nasty collectivism and socailism that has poisoned the 20th century. Philosophically, Germany was the anti-theses of everything American. NOTHING good could come from an ascendant Germany.

quote:

---

No shift of power, no harsh surrender terms.

---

If Wilson hadn't been out of commision due to strokes, surrender terms would not have been as harsh as they were. You don't have to give Europe to the Germans to get an alternate history.

quote:

---

However, in this, I have to respectfully disagree. His own article shows where the moral high ground has led us. And we have been following the "military only" path for years, and it has obviously not worked.

---

Your premises are wrong as I described above, so I won't go into detail refuting you. But America has not followed the "military only" path in recent years, but instead has been diplomatic and half-hearted in pursuing her interests, leading to the present perception (and actuality?) of weakness.

quote:

---

1) A mushroom cloud, and incredible destruction. Scenes of horrible disfigured men, women and children, in and around a single city, MAYBE a second. Bitter public outcry around the world as these images sink in. Many will revile and hate us for doing the unthinkable.

---

WTF, destroying the WTC towers was unthinkable. A great many people in this world already hate us, curbing our actions will not appease them into liking us better. Also, many of our allies will support the use of nukes. Certainly Russia would, it would give them carte blanche to nuke their own problematic muslim rebels.

Growler

NUKE MECCA !!

It wasn't fifty nuts.

It wasn't any one country.

It was ISLAM that made war on the U.S. on tuesday.

If you want to believe in Allah and Mohammed, you need to rename your faith and divorce yourself from Islam, because Islam Made war on the U.S. and Islam is about to be eradicated. To all the good and law abiding, neighbor-loving Muslims in this world, I beseech you, , ,

REFORM YOUR FAITH!!

Divorce Yourselves from those we must now exterminate.

Declare that you Love Allah, Israel and Women.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sethan:
The very last thing we want to do is an invasion and occupation.

Aside from the reaction of the surrounding countries, our casualties in such an operation would be enormous. Not in the 'invasion' stage, but in the 'occupation' stage.

We have countries here where nearly the entire populace has been brought up from birth to hate the US. They have a culture that condones and sponsors terrorism, and a religion that says that anyone who dies in a Holy War goes directly to paradise.

It is a recipe for disaster for occupying troops. It is a guarrantee of regular, repeated, large scale suicide bombings of barracks, facilities, and gatherings of occupying troops. Snipers and booby traps will be around every corner, and small children will be used as mines, just as they were in Vietnam. We cannot win that kind of war.

As long as the culture remains intact, the attitude of the people will not change. Remove their government? They will put another into power that is just like it, and hates the US just as much.

---

Sethan, their culture must be changed. These cultures are all dictatorships of one variety or another, a little democratisation will have a huge influence on them. Occupation is the only way to get there. Don't worry about them hating us, some won't and some already do so it doesn't matter much.

We can win Vietnam-like conflicts. Many in the US were unconvinced of the strategic importance of Vietnam. After 9/11/01 few in America doubt the threat from Mideast countries so the will to fight is here. Technically, the US performed well militarily in Vietnam so that is not a problem either. I don't see the obstacles here that you do.

In Vietnam, the Russians provided huge logistic support to the Viet Cong, it really was a big portion of the Russian GDP. There is no prospective sponsor state today.

I prefer conquest and reformation over genocide. I don't think we can kill everyone we need to, but having an Arab territory on our side can suck the wind out of the sails of the Islamic extremists.

It is a battle of morals. The American way of life (the ethical, legal, and moral dimension as well the material dimension) is the best thing on Earth. I have confidence we can turn some of these countries as Germany and Japan have been turned.

Your repeated message is as ignorant as was the message the terrorists tried to send. Attacking a site that is holy to a large proportion of the world's population would not advance your cause. It could only make you new enemies. Look around this country if you don't get it.

I do not personally think that these Forums are an adequate place for any of these discussions, and the tiny melodramas you're all enjoying here serve only to belittle what's happened this week. It's not about you. It's about several thousand people who have actually suffered, and all the many thousands who cared for them.

Pax et Lux,
BWS

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voidwar:
I wish you would all realize that we were attacked by ISLAM and the proper response is to . . .

NUKE MECCA!!

---

Whoa, I don't support that.

Islam is not monolithic, it is riven by severe factionalism. There is no formal church within Islam, no pope, nothing like catholicism. They are incapable of reforming as you demand. A big, powerful influential faction hates the west but nuking mecca will not weaken that faction and would probably strengthen it. Bad idea.

Growler

I'll make it simple then:

If the USA sends a nuke to Afghanistan, I wouldn't mind Europe/Russia sending a nuke back. Nuking a country because of some terrorist is not an option.

If I am president of Russia, and I don't like Bush: Should I kill him by nuking Washington DC ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SirWillem:
If the USA sends a nuke to Afghanistan, I wouldn't mind Europe/Russia sending a nuke back. Nuking a country because of some terrorist is not an option.

If I am president of Russia, and I don't like Bush: Should I kill him by nuking Washington DC ?

(Again, if I offend anyone: My apologies)[/B]

---

Your analogy is flawed. This is not like Russia nuking DC because Putin doesn't like Bush. This is like Russia nuking DC because Bush carpet bombed St.Petersburg! Such a response, in that case, would be completely legitimate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crisisman:
Who knows, if a half dozen targets were chosen, France, England, and the USSR might each target one for us as a show of unity! Lord knows the Russians would love to get payback for their humiliating defeat. Nothing like a multilateral nuking to put fear into a terrorist's heart! Heck, such a display of both overwhelming force and unity at the same time would probably make China change their drawers, and policies

---

Multilateral nuking, including Russia (the USSR is gone) sending a nuke or two.

Y'know, somewhere in a wishful thinking fantasy, I kinda hoped for that, I doubt Putin supports the stuff that much, though.

Remember, we can't use very many nukes, especially BIG nukes, otherwise a north wind out of Afghanistan could sweep the fallout right into Russia.

There is no acceptable use for nuclear weapons. Even in a defensive situation, MAD is the only policy we have. No one wins, everyone loses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Musashi:
I have to agree with Sethan on this one ... well, somewhat. Think of it as a firepower demonstration.

I say: stick with Plan A. Find this guy and his buddies and eliminate them. Once this is done, pick a decent sized Afgan city (prefferably one of his many hideouts or even Kabul if practical), evacuate it, nuke it and then have our troops wipe their feet off at the border on their way out.

Let it be a monument to the folly of mass murder.

No aid.
No Marshall Plan.
Not one dime.

The punishment should fit the crime or this will never end.

[This message has been edited by Musashi (edited 09-13-2001).]

---

What an interesting thought. Don't use a nuclear weapon to kill off people (although you clearly gain the ability to eliminate a rat-hole) - but as a demonstration. A clear message that may last for decades.

"We did this because we could."

quote:

---

Your analogy is flawed. This is not like Russia nuking DC because Putin doesn't like Bush. This is like Russia nuking DC because Bush carpet bombed St.Petersburg! Such a response, in that case, would be completely legitimate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SirWillem:
Why nuke a country? Why killing 200k people to punish a few? What is the logic of that?

---

There is no logic in killing 200k people to punish a few. The country's leaders and the terrorists themsleves would most likely escape, and continue their operations from elsewhere. The leaders would consider the loss of a city 'acceptable' as long as they remained in power.

I advocate destruction on an even larger scale. Pick a nation that sponsors and harbors terrorists - and annihilate it utterly. Cities, industry, infrastructure, people, herds, small animals, trees, and rocks. Nukes are not required, but near total mortality of the population is. In the case of Afghanistan, that would not be 200k casualties - it would be 26 million.

Make the consequences for sponsoring, harboring, and financing terrorists so horrific that other nations will not only not do so, but will hunt down the terrorists within their own borders for fear they might be next.

It is a terrible solution - but the only one I can think of that will end state sponsored terrorism, put a big dent in 'private' terrorism, and make the world a safer place for ordinary people all at once.

"WHAT?!?" you say. "Terrorism?!? That's absurd!"

No, that's not what I'm talking about. We face a group of people that live in their own reality. They cannot comprehend the bigger picture as a whole.

In the Middle East, the average person knows only what they see on their local news. They know only the horror of the wars they have seen. They know death is horrible. They cannot see beyond that immediacy.

They've lived their lives with the media telling them how horrible the things we have done in the past are, and how they must never be allowed to happen again.

In some cases, like Void, they cannot see past their own anger to realize that what we are dealing with is a relatively SMALL portion of the Muslim community as a whole. On the other extreme, they find loss of life so abhorrent that they cannot bring themselves to advocate it on a wholesale level.

You and I speak, grimly, of killing a relatively few million, patiently explaining that it is better that this few million should die, rather than see this disease continue to grow, fester, and bring down many more millions.

We explain to them that the fact is, people ARE going to die in this cycle of events. We try to make them stand back from their safe niche, and realize that a choice has to be made. Will it be OUR fellows that die, or will it be those of countries that harbor terrorists?

We explain how the cycle works, and they don't respond. They continue to stubbornly insist that there has to be another way. When they DO offer a solution, it's invariably the same methods that we've been using for years.

In their own way, their every bit as closed to us as the civilians in Afghanistan. They can't, or won't, comprehend what we are telling them.

Maybe it comes from having served in the military. I don't think they can comprehend the choices that any member of the military has to face, regardless of whether he's actively in combat or not.

I spoke above of having spent long hours with my late brother-in-law, talking of his experiences in Vietnam. Let me relate an experience of his, one that stuck with him until the day he died. Please, put aside the urge to roll your eyes, and say "well, whoop de doo", and try and comprehend.

Imagine yourself as an 18 year old marine. You're tromping through a jungle in a foreign land, and you finally come to a fairly sizeable village.

Word comes in of an enemy artillery strike. You and your company flatten, as the shells start coming in.

As the earth around you is dug up by explosions, you discover that you are in a graveyard. See, not everyone in the world buries their bodies six feet down.

The stench is incredible. A lot of the bodies are recently dead. The artillery strike is short-lived, but afterwards, your company has to dig in. Right where they are.

So you start digging in. You're trench tool is hacking pieces off a corpse.

Your platoon sergeant passes the word down the line, telling you how to get the stench out of your nostrils.

You put your poncho over yourself, and take out your pack of sulfur matches. You take two, light them, then quickly blow them out, and stick them into your nostrils. After a few repetitions, the smell of sulphur finally overcomes the stench of rotting corpse.

Now... tell me. Is that the kind of experience you want your brother, your friends, your fellow countrymen, the soldiers of other NATO countries to live through? Is that what you want?

Do you want to see coffins draped with American flags coming home for burial?

Do you want to see families standing like they are now, holding pictures, begging for information on someone who is missing?

Then fine. Stand by your morality, your humanity. Retain your innocence. Those of us posting here have that luxury. We're not going to be the ones out there doing the fighting, or the dying.

And yes. You can rightly retort that by using the solutions that Sethan and I have advocated, that it won't be OUR wives and children dying in the streets, that it will be some poor innocent person continents away. We won't be watching our cities go up in flames. We won't be fleeing from explosions, and burning buildings.

That's my point.

------------------
Khoros

quote:

---

Originally posted by Growler:
You make a bad historian Khoros, as is your source. First I respond to your original post:

Without American intervention, there would have been a huge shift in power, namely German domination of the Continent and German dominion over French colonial holdings. Not good, not good at all.

I think you entirely fail to appreciate the consequences of German victory in WW1. Even I don't have a good grasp of them, but keep in mind that Germany is the source and root of every form of nasty collectivism and socailism that has poisoned the 20th century. Philosophically, Germany was the anti-theses of everything American. NOTHING good could come from an ascendant Germany.
[QUOTE][b]
No shift of power, no harsh surrender terms.

---

If Wilson hadn't been out of commision due to strokes, surrender terms would not have been as harsh as they were. You don't have to give Europe to the Germans to get an alternate history.

quote:

---

However, in this, I have to respectfully disagree. His own article shows where the moral high ground has led us. And we have been following the "military only" path for years, and it has obviously not worked.

---

Your premises are wrong as I described above, so I won't go into detail refuting you. But America has not followed the "military only" path in recent years, but instead has been diplomatic and half-hearted in pursuing her interests, leading to the present perception (and actuality?) of weakness.

quote:

---

1) A mushroom cloud, and incredible destruction. Scenes of horrible disfigured men, women and children, in and around a single city, MAYBE a second. Bitter public outcry around the world as these images sink in. Many will revile and hate us for doing the unthinkable.

---

WTF, destroying the WTC towers was unthinkable. A great many people in this world already hate us, curbing our actions will not appease them into liking us better. Also, many of our allies will support the use of nukes. Certainly Russia would, it would give them carte blanche to nuke their own problematic muslim rebels.

Growler

[This message has been edited by Growler (edited 09-13-2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

My competency as a historian is up for debate. However, the premises are not mine, nor are they wrong. They are supported by professional historians, and none other than former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Let me guess... he's just misinformed?

Great Britain did not enter the war because of an assassination in Serbia. They entered it because Germany was becoming to powerful economically.

Germany was not "winning the war". She was making advances, but had we not joined the Allies, they would have sought a negotiated end to the war. Germany would have retained a large chunk of the continent, yes. But why not. GERMANY was defending the party that was ATTACKED.

Hmmm... that doesn't sound so out of line with our own philosophies, does it?

Socialism had many roots. Remember a guy named Lenin? I don't believe he was a product of Germany.

Sorry, don't take it up with me. Take it up with the person that wrote the article, and his sources.

------------------
Khoros

There is no way you are ever going to get Young Americans to do the wholesale murder you are advocating. Yes there will be some who will take matters into there own hands. Yes there will be some who before the shit hits the fan on the ground will be saying Kill'em all let god sort out the mess, or Truth speaks in a 6 to 9 round burst.

I've seen scrap books from soldiers in Vietnam that would make you puke. They kept those books to remind themselves just how sick any war can become. None of them were proud of those books. They kept them to remember the shame of what they had done.

I have calmed down somewhat from what I was feeling earlier this week. From what we are now hearing this is going to be a protracted and ongoing campaign to eliminate these people. Will we ever eliminate this threat I doubt it. We are not the Mongols we do not herd women and children in front of our armies. But we will put a serious hurt on those that believe terrorism is acceptable.

On my Desk today sits a picture. I dug up an old Picture of my 1st sqaud I had. I wanted faces to look at, so I could come up with a rational train of thought. Looking at those 10 faces I cannot imagine any of them willingly following an order to murder someone. Fight yes, wage war yes, but wholesale murder NO F**king way.

I calmed even more after re-reading what i have written.

Maybe not as calm as I should be still.

[This message has been edited by Fred of Cyberville (edited 09-14-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
There is no way you are ever going to get Young Americans to do the wholesale murder you are advocating.

---

You are probably right - and that means that we will be faced with this problem for the rest of our lives, as will our children and theirs. With luck, some of the 'older' Americans will see what needs to be done and do it. I have no great hopes that this will be the case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
Yes there will be some who will take matters into there own hands. Yes there will be some who before the shit hits the fan on the ground will be saying Kill'em all let god sort out the mess, or Truth speaks in a 6 to 9 round burst.

---

And both of these groups would be wrong. Some here are advocating genocide. I am not, nor is Khoros. I advocate a carefully measured response, designed to produce a specific reaction in the other countries that sponsor terrorism. The reaction of the target is meaningless, since they will no longer exist. The problem is that the measured response I advocate involves the deaths of 26 million people. That is a hard number to get your mind around. It would actually make us worse butchers than Stalin, if the scale were measured purely on body count. The difference is that the goal here is to eradicate terrorism. To allow the average Joe to walk down the street in whatever country, and know that the car next to him is not going to explode because someone half a world away has decided that since they cannot fight his military, civilians make good targets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
I've seen scrap books from soldiers in Vietnam that would make you puke. They kept those books to remind themselves just how sick any war can become. None of them were proud of those books. They kept them to remember the shame of what they had done.

---

I've never seen one of those scrapbooks. I've had a number of friends who were Vietnam vets, and they rarely talked about it, except when they were drunk. From those conversations, I can understand why.

Sometimes it is necessary to do unpleasant things to accomplish a worthwhile goal. I think this is one of those times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
I have calmed down somewhat from what I was feeling earlier this week.

---

As have I. What needs to be done still hasn't changed, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
From what we are now hearing this is going to be a protracted and ongoing campaign to eliminate these people. Will we ever eliminate this threat I doubt it.

---

It is good that the government has finally woken up and realized that something needs to be done. I worry about what it will choose to do, however. Too little a response will be worse than none at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
But we will put a serious hurt on those that believe terrorism is acceptable.

---

I hope you are right. My fear is that we will do so in such a way that the cost to the US (in terms of the lives of US soldiers) will be so high that the American people will call for them to be pulled out before the job is done - and that they will elect politicians who will do just that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
On my Desk today sits a picture. I dug up an old Picture of my 1st sqaud I had. I wanted faces to look at, so I could come up with a rational train of thought. Looking at those 10 faces I cannot imagine any of them willingly following an order to murder someone. Fight yes, wage war yes, but wholesale murder NO F**king way.

---

American Soldiers have already committed acts, on a personal level in Vietnam, far worse than I am proposing here, for far less gain - simply as acts of frustration and revenge, and sometimes of sadism. The cost in enemy lives would be higher in Afghanistan, of course, but the cost in American lives would be much lower. I suspect that most enlisted men would follow orders when it came down to it.

The destruction would all be from the air, in any case. It is far easier to push a button that (in theory) kills someone somewhere, than it is to point a gun at a six year old and pull the trigger - even if she does have a bomb strapped to her back.

Perhaps it has become too easy, and we are too removed from the actual horror of death. That does not change the necessity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
I calmed even more after re-reading what i have written.

Maybe not as calm as I should be still.

---

Nor am I - and it will be a long time, I think, before I am. My wife told me last night that I have an aura of barely suppressed rage about me. I think perhaps she has mistaken for 'rage', what I would call grim resolve. Either way, it will continue until the terrorists - all of them, not just the ones who planned the Sept 11 attacks - are dead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSatyr:
Welcome to the Nazi States of America and the new "final solution"

TheSatyr

---

If you can think of a better way to make sure that terrorism stops, permanently, I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon, and I'll be behind you 100%.

Oh, and "hunt them all down and kill them" does not qualify. As long as there are nations willing to sponsor (or even turn a blind eye to) terrorism, there will be terrorists. Terrorists are adept at hiding. It would take the combined resources of every country - including (and perhaps especially) the ones that formerly sponsored them, to hunt them all down, and prevent more from springing up.

Find me a better way to make that happen. Please.

Don't feel bad if I point out the holes in your ideas as you come up with them. We need something that will work, not just make us feel good.

A push button killing machine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
Sethan, I am amazed by you.

A push button killing machine.

What was your MOS. I know we were both in the military around the same time frame. Although had I not become a Disabled Vet I would have retired prior to you. During my 14 years in the US Army I don't recall ever meeting an individual with such a disregard for life.

---

That's sad. You brush aside the facts of the debate, and resort to name calling.

You mistake recognition of socio-political reality for genocidal mania.

You would rather spend innocent American lives, than supposedly innocent foreign lives. You justify this, I guess, because they are men, and they are in the military. By your lights, this makes them fair game?

Never mind that the people who did this were once children, like those you would save. They had parents, like the ones you would save. Those parents raised them, and allowed them to become the monsters they have. The "innocents" you speak of have allowed this behavior to continue for generations. The argument is that "they couldn't do anything about it". The "goverment has all the weapons". What could they do?

Tell me, did that stop the passengers on that flight that crashed in Pennsylvania from taking action, even though they knew they were going to die? Did THEY have weapons?

Tell the children of those men, who wonder if Daddy is in heaven, and if he can talk to them on his cell phone, that these supposed "innocents" are helpless, after their fathers gave their lives for others.

You can lead a man to a fact, but you can't make him think.

------------------
Khoros

quote:

---

Come up with something that will work, and I'll happily abandon the idea of wiping out 26 million people as an object lesson.

---

HELL NO!!!!

The United States have the unfortunate branding of being the only nation to have used Nuclear Arms in Anger.

Our use of Nukes would be seen as abhorant regardless of the reason.

The Nukes we have now are of a magnitude stronger than those used on Japan.

If ANY country should be against the use of these horrible weapons it should be us. We are fully aware of their destructive power and the after effects of that power.

Since the use of Nuclear Arms, we have attempted to get the "Genie back in the bottle" so to speak.

There are other means to fight terrorist attacks other than resorting to Nuclear Arms.

Nuclear Arms do not distinguish between innocent civilians and terrorists.

The Terrorist did not distinguish between innocent civilians and soldiers.

I am not advocating being "soft". What I think needs to be done is Precise, Skilled, erradication of all terrorists, and those who support them. Preferrably, during their most "private" times. The times in which they are the most vulnerable. In their beds, in the toilet, in the shower.

Let no terrorist think it is safe to appear in public. And when they go into hiding, let them know there is no comfort in the shadows.

Let the bodies rot in the public square with a note written in arabic, or whatever language is appropriate, that this is what happens to you when you align with terrorists.

You die, without honor, without glory, but you die, nonetheless.

And as you weed out the terrorists, you assist those who are merely trying to survive.

If there is something we learned in World War II, (from World War I) is that you help bring back the country you vanquish. Germany in WWI was severely "punished" for their role in the war, and came back later and made us fight it again.

Since the end of WWII, we have helped rebuild Germany, France, England and Japan. All 4 remain our close Allies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SirWillem:
Btw, ever thought about it that when you kill 26 million people for no reason , someone might get mad, thus actually increasing the amount of terrorist attacks?

---

Well, I think Sethan and I can both safely say we've never thought about killing 26 million people for no reason.

The fact that you and those from your side of the argument don't feel the reason is valid doesn't make it invalid.

Denying reality doesn't make it go away, even though it may comfort you to do so.

------------------
Khoros

"The aliens are coming Duke, what shall we do?"
"Nuke'em!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
Sethan, I am amazed by you.

A push button killing machine.

What was your MOS.

---

304X4 - Ground Radio Communications Tech

When stationed at 21st Norad Region HQ (long since shut down) in Syracuse NY, I maintained the equipment that was used to vector fighters toward the Soviet bombers that cruised the borders of our airspace, and communicated with AWACS aircraft.

When stationed in Saudi at the King Abdul Aziz Air Force Base, I maintained the equipment that was used to vector fighters toward anything that came into Saudi Airspace from the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, those fighters would be over our position for 8 minutes before we could get even the 2 aircraft in the ready hangar up in the air to fight them, but those were the breaks.

Stationed in Austin, TX. with the 602nd Tactical Air Control Center Squadron, my mission was to deploy to a forward area, and set up tactical communications to vector fighter aircraft toward incoming threats.

In many ways, my job was that of a push-button soldier. People's lives - a lot of them - depended on my pushing the right buttons at the right time. If those buttons had killed people instead, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. It was in defense of my country and my comrades.

Though I have seen death "up close and personal", I have never killed someone - face-to-face or remotely. I have, however, spoken with people who have done both. They told me it is always easier to push a button knowing that people will probably die as a result, than it is to pull the trigger on a gun pointed at someone who is looking you in the eye. Push button warfare is impersonal - and you never see the results of your handiwork.

My comment to that effect was in response to your assertion that the men you served with would never 'murder' someone (by this, I am assuming you mean 'kill civilians' - we are at war, so killing enemy soldiers is not murder, and since they are treating our civilians as combatants and making combatants of their own civilians, I consider the argument specious). My point was simply this: While it may be difficult to get a soldier to walk up to a village of civilians and mow them down (though we have done that in Vietnam also), it is far easier to get that same soldier to push a button that kills those same villagers, if he never sees the result.

We live in an age of push-button warfare - and destruction on the scale I am advocating would be accomplished in exactly that way. I strongly suspect that there would be no shortage of volunteers to push the button.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
I know we were both in the military around the same time frame. Although had I not become a Disabled Vet I would have retired prior to you. During my 14 years in the US Army I don't recall ever meeting an individual with such a disregard for life.

---

USAF - '81-85

I have plenty of regard for life. My wife's, my parents', my grandmother's and my friends'. I have regard for the lives of the other people of my country, and of innocents in other countries. I have regard for my own life. I have no regard whatsoever, for the lives of anyone who would hurt me or mine.

Given any chance whatsoever, I will kill them before they get a chance to harm the people I have pledged to protect - and after I kill them, I'll shoot their lifeless corpse again, just to make sure.

As for the civilians in Afghanistan - people have overthrown governments many times throughout history when those governments do not represent them well. This would be a good opportunity. There is, in fact, a revolution going on now (and has been for some time) - it just doesn't have much popular support. It seems the people are happy with their current government. So let them reap the rewards of that government's decisions.

quote:

---

Well, I think Sethan and I can both safely say we've never thought about killing 26 million people for no reason.

The fact that you and those from your side of the argument don't feel the reason is valid doesn't make it invalid.

Denying reality doesn't make it go away, even though it may comfort you to do so.

---

Maybe, but, consider this:

Even if you'd nuke half the world, you still wouldn't get rid of terrorism, in fact, you will increase the amount of terrorism.

Look at what he wants to accomplish, 26 million dead, and thats Afghanistan.

So were does it stop. Egypt,Quatar,United Arab Emirates, Suadia Arabia. Guess what the terrorist have been linked to those countries also.

It does not take genocide. So my comment stands you want to make this all nice a neat for CNN and push some buttons. Dream on its time for you to wake up.

Americans are going to be on the ground. Americans are going to die wiping this scourge out.
But Americans will not stand for genocide, well except (another name coming up don't get upset) The Lunatic Fringe.

Sethan, Khoros, I am not as educated as you two appear to be. I am an Ex-Grunt who volunteered out of High School to join the 82nd. I believe we are the good guys. I believe we should keep the moral high ground and let our military kick some ass, not be compared to the Waffen SS in 5-10 years by historians.

This effort will not end over night. Bush has 3 years and change before the next election and I'll bet we are still fighting this war then, one terrorist base at a time.

Since it appears we are not going to change each others opinion on this one. So be it. Ventilate all you want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Overon-:
Some of you need to think less about what Duke Nukem would do and try to look at the consequences.

"The aliens are coming Duke, what shall we do?"
"Nuke'em!"

---

Well, in the case of Sethan and myself, I don't believe we've looked at anything BUT consequences. That's how we've arrived at the very painful decision that 26 million people might have to die.

We've asked people to provide alternatives that haven't already been tried, and look at the consequences of those alternatives. They've really not been able to do the former, and they've blithely ignored the consequences of their proposals.

------------------
Khoros