posted on September 13, 2001 09:17:20 AM new
I'm sure they've been said before, but..
1. There isn't $0.30 worth of difference between what Bush or Gore would have done or will do regarding the terrorists. Bush and Gore are both Amreicans. And Bill Clinton, for that matter.
2. At the core of why terrorism is effective is that it is a refusal to play by civilized rules. During the 20th century, and intensely do after WWII, the western world has held itself to civilized standards of international conflict. Those who have not held themselves to such standards have exposed this rigidity as a weakness. We need to reduce this exposure.
3. When civilized standards of international conflict break down, two lines become decisions rather than givens: nuclear bombs and what we have come to call genocide. We don't have to go back very far in history to see where little or no thought would have been given to such decisions, both would have been implemented quickly during any part of the 19th century.
4. Our current abhorrence toward genocide is directly traceable to the holocaust. This attitude is based on two facts which are odd enough in history that I don't think any close parellel exists at all:
a. European Jews hadn't done anything to deserve such treatment, as judged by world opinion. If Jews perpetrated any offensive actions against German gentiles preceding the holocaust, they were not well publicized.
b. The Nazis lost the war. Historically, the implementors of genocide were the winners of wars.
Needless to say, the current terrorists miss badly in comparison.
5. Never before this week (since 1945) has the public sentiment toward the use of nuclear weapons been as high as it is right now. A substantial percentage of Americans would support the nuclear destruction of Kabul. I don't know if it's 50-50, but it's close.
6. Kabul isn't the core of the problem. My guess is that if the informed decision makers believed that Islamic extremists would be wiped out by nuking Kabul, it would have happened by now. The more difficult stories involve Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, all of which are ostensibly our allies. If we're going to solve the problem with nukes, and we probably can, then we need to nuke these three countries, hard and broad, with Iraq, Iran, and Syria thrown in. Technologically, we could literally kill the vast majority of Muslims, enough to eliminate them as a serious threat. I don't see much support for that.
Next:
Curiously enough, within civilized rules as we have them, it is perfectly acceptable to declare war on a country, invade it, and execute its government.
posted on September 13, 2001 09:34:02 AM new
Right now America has the sympathy of many if not most nations of the world. I wonder how much sympathy there would be if America was to use nukes? What would the world reaction be?
posted on September 13, 2001 09:50:44 AM new
More than the sympathy. The UN has passed a proclamation that any attack on one member of that organization is an attack on all, and is pledged to assit the US in tracking down and prosecuting the perpetrators of this crime.
But roofguy, where are you coming from with talk of nuclear weapons? That won't be done, nor could it be without the full support of the congress in a declared war.
Bush has not declared war, he needs congress for that. He has said that these atrocities are acts of war but that's not the same thing.
Your premise that "Curiously enough, within civilized rules as we have them, it is perfectly acceptable to declare war on a country, invade it, and execute its government" is not true. The united nations has repeatedly sanctioned countries that have done even parts of those things, as happened to Irag over Kuwait.
posted on September 13, 2001 10:02:00 AM newThe united nations has repeatedly sanctioned countries that have done even parts of those things, as happened to Irag over Kuwait.
The United Nations does not define civilized international relations. The behavior of countries with important military power does.
posted on September 13, 2001 10:10:43 AM new
krs is correct roofguy - as soon as they started talking about bringing in allies I knew any use of nukes was right out the window. The thing that is really attractive about nukes is it would give a huge win with very little in the way of casualties. The scasualties would probably be a statistical raise in cancer deaths in the US for the next 20 years from the fall out. Hitting Kabul alone would not do enough. If they want to stop terrorism it would be better to hit any target with more than about 5000 people in the whole country - literally remove it from the map. And also deliberatly ground burst all the targets on the west side of the country to maximize the fallout - which would make most of the rural areas uninhabitable. You could end up with a few hundred goat herders in remote areas as the only survivors. Now that MIGHT give a strong enough message to anyone wanting to attack Americans as to what the consequenses would be. If you needed to do Iran and Iraq also they have THOUSANDS of warheads. It should please Russia to see the US reduce the inventory.
posted on September 13, 2001 10:54:15 AM new
There's no such thing as civilized war. We don't practice it, we never have, there's no such animal. We say we do, but it's just one of the things that countries say.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:36:49 PM new
Eagleberger, former cabinet member used a veiled reference to use of nuclear weapons on Hiraldo Rivera on Wed night.
He said that some countries must remember we had already used nuclear weapons on 2 cities in the past.
