Rep. Buyer Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer says that the United States should use tactical nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden's terrorist network in Afghanistan if it is linked to recent anthrax incidents in the United States. The Indiana Republican said that small, specialized nuclear weapons -- not as powerful as the atom bombs that were used in World War II -- could be used on the caves where members of bin Laden's network have taken shelter. Buyer, a Gulf War veteran, said that the use of the weapons would 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," Buyer said. "We'd be very naïve 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." Buyer said that he hadn't talked with other lawmakers or the Bush administration about the idea, and didn't know how many in the government would support it. Buyer stresses that he doesn't advocate the use of full-power nuclear bombs, but he acknowledged that much of the world wouldn't see the difference. "I just want the (Bush) administration to know that I think the United States needs to send a message to the world that we are prepared to do that," Buyer said. ================================== I ain't going to Afghanistan anytime soon, bomb away... rH
No! No! No! We use nukes, they use nukes or other dangerous means! We contaminate the area or "plug" up these holes we might need in the future. This is the same stupid idea they used many years ago in aiding and training Bin Laden to combat the USSR. Think ahead, people, think ahead!
The problem is Space Ghost is that they don't have nuclear weapons, so they can't use it back on the U.S. And they are already using dangerous means, killing 6,000 people is dangerous enough. I'm not condoning using nuclear weapons though.
The other problem is that even if they did, our reluctance to use nuclear force wouldn't necessarily make them reluctant to use it. We armed up as a means of defense...if you strike us, this is what you'll get...they've armed up as a means of offense.
I think Afghanistan has enough trouble as it is, in terms of nation-building, to not have to deal with the after-effects of nuclear strikes as well. And I would point out that in Afghanistan -- and many other places around the world where caves are common -- caves are used by many people for shelter. And not as some make-shift, but because it's better suited than anything you could build.
Juan - that's a fair point...perhaps a nuclear response of any kind is overkill for terrorists living in caves....if anthrax and/or Sept 11 are tied back to Baghdad, however........
Only if you can put all their leaders in one spot away from their civilians, so I don't think that will happen.
cohen -- ummmm..i disagree...war is war. if they've demonstrated willingness to use these weapons and we know they're developing chemical/biological/nuclear weapons there, i think that's fair game. i don't see how that differs from the decision to drop the bomb in japan. except that ultimately we dropped the bomb to save the lives of our american troops as opposed to here where it might be use to save american civlian lives and infrastructure.
So I guess durringh WWII since the Germans demonstrated a willingness to kill POWs we should have killed German POW's, because war is war? Following this logic, where the value of an American life so outways the life of a non-american life that we should do horible things to prevent any possible loss of life, we might as well launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the rest of the world right now! Kill'em all 'cause you never know who might be plotting againgst you. Droping the bomb on Japan can be chaulked up to lack of forsight. This was an attack on exclusively civilian targets, and the aftereffects were not properly understood. Though it was war, I'd hope that if we'd understood everything with total forsight, we'd have modified our targeting slightly. here's a quote from an editorial about the situation: The whole editorial can be found here. While I disagree with the article's conclusion, I do believe that the use of the 2 nuclear weapons on Japan has somehow become a matter of national pride, when it should, instead, be a constant reminder of the overwhelming destructive power we hold, and how great a decision it is to unleash this 'angel of death'. It's a line that should be crossed with great fear.
Ottomaton, Although they clearly have a bias, their is still interesting information in the commentary. One of the most disturbing points, if true, is that the cities were not bombed with conventional weapons since they would be 'test sites' for the atom bomb. Could you imagine how many people probably moved there to get away from cities being bombed? Just a few converntional bombs the night before would have led to far fewer civilian casualties. Then again, we all use hindsight now. WWII was in many people's minds, a war for survival between countries, and the Japanese were certainly renowned for their brutality. I am not rationalizing the use of the bomb, but we must put in in the perspective of the times. Complicating things. Most Americans don't know what we did that helped lead to war with Japan. Many hear about the economic causes, i.e. Japan's need for raw materials, but there was another cause. We helped broker a truce between Russia and Japan, but the Japanese got screwed. They felt, and probably rightly so, that the US sided with the Russians for racist reasons. That led to very bitter feelings on the Japanese side. I don't know if we would have had a war even without the crappy treaty, but if that essentially caused the war then the US's action is particularly heinous in my mind.
Two things: 1) Dammmmmmn. Okay three things. 2) Does anyone know the validity of the quote by Eisenhower? How about the validity of any of those quotes? 3) MadMax, If you were Muslim and you watched thousands of kids starve in Iraq, you might think US civilians are fair game. War is War. I find that interesting. If you were the manager of the terrorists, what would you suggest at this point? War is War. I'm just curious. For example, the only thing that makes sense to me now, is that terrorists would use our 'loop holes'. i.e. terrorists would walk into McD's w/ perfectly legal guns and kill 25-30 of us. War is War. Isn't that interesting how your quote has given legitimacey to the terrorists' acts of 09/11? They have some set of objectives... we don't listen when they kill a few sailors or men in Somalia, or hundreds of our African friends working at the embassies, so they take the battle to our soil. They kill civilians... six thousand of us. BTW MadMax, or any other biblical 'scholar' (I consider the bible a fanciful history book, but unfortunately I know little of it), are there any particular battles where God or anybody in his gang insinuates that innocent people are an afterthought in war? How about in the Koran? Hopefully those questions don't become a battle of whose book is the most honorable or anything... I'm just trying to find the rational of the disjunct between what many of my Christian peers/friends believe, (i.e. "behold the beauty of this merciful God" and now "oh, catch this 5,000 lb. bomb, little innocent person"). Those views seem to be at odds with one another. Am I mistaken?
Using nukes sets a very dangerous precedent. We're trying to get the world on our side, look like the good guys, we use nukes and we will start WWIII. Even small nukes. If we use nukes what prevents Israel from using their nukes on the terrorists of Palestine Once that happens, and it could, you have full on WWIII. The stakes go waayyyyy up. We can win the war without nukes.
achebe, there are instances in the old testament where God condones war of the most brutal kind. He instructs the armies of Israel to kill entire cities and races, women and children included. 1 Samuel 15:17-19 "The Lord anointed you king over Israel. And he sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out..' that's just one example. I know there are others. I know that david was often chastised by the Lord because we would win victories, but he would leave some of the enemy living. it is up to you to decide whether you would consider those killed "innocent". in terms of what I believe, there has only been one innocent person who was ever killed, and he was God's son. and it was God who decided to do that, too. but that's more than you asked. the answer to your question is yes, God has not only "insinuated" that "innocent" people are an afterthought; He has called for their outright destruction. not just armies but non-fighting women, children and servants. do with that what you will.
well damn again. Thanks chievous. That reminds me of a class in Human Nature in college. We discussed the different approaches taken between the Old Testament and the New Testament, based on the conditions of the people at the time of the writings. Your info stirs a bit of those neurons, but not enough for me to pull out any great stories.
Are you sure about that? I have heard that when Soviet Union broke up 20 or so small nuclear bombs are missing from its "inventory". I think the Russian mafia had gotten their hands on some of those and God knows who they would sell it to? I am of course not certain about this.
I didn't address this before. I don't think they are at odds. although, sure, I can see how they would seem to be at odds. to me, they are not at odds because of what I believe to be true. I will try to quickly articulate why I do not necessarily believe those two statements to be true: 1) I believe that there is a God. 2) I believe that God created all things, including people. 3) I believe that God created Man in a particular fashion, giving us the choice to either love God or to rebel against Him. [this is usually the point that hangs people up the most. any thinking person would ask, as I have: "why would a loving God give us the ability to rebel against Him, knowing that would lead to our destruction?". the best answer I can come up with to that question is: have I ever created a world? a humanity? do I know what way is the best way to do that? no, I don't. so I'm really not in a position to question God about why God does anything.] 4) I believe that Man chose to sin against God. 5) I believe that, since then, Man is essentially evil. therefore, there is no such thing as an "innocent" person. I believe that, before men, there is such a thing as relative innocence. a person who cuts in line is relatively more innocent than a person who flies a plane into a skyscraper. but I believe that, before God, no one is innocent, except. . . 6) I believe that God, in His infinite mercy, desired for Humankind to be saved from itself. 7) I believe that He sent His Son [in a way that no human mind could ever fully comprehend] to live as a human being, part God and part Human, on earth. 8) I believe that he lived on earth to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament that foretold of a Messiah or a savior. 9) I believe that, according to those prophecies, He was killed and was raised from the dead 3 days later. 10) I believe that he lived without sin, the only human ever to do so, and that by his death he took on the sins of all humankind for all of time. 11) I believe that, by his resurrection, he opened up a door through which all could be saved and put back into a right relationship with God [after having sinned and fallen out of that relationship]. I believe that him doing was this was according to God's merciful purpose. so, in order for those two comments above not to be contradictory, I think you would have to be able to believe all of the things I've just mentioned. if you fall off at any point, then I think those two comments will continue to look contradictory. I can believe in God's mercy because I believe that He has gone to extraordinary lengths to show His love to me and to every other human being on the planet. and I can believe in God's wrath [the 5,000 lb. bomb comment] because I believe that God has shown throughout history that there are times when He decides to stop being so nice and to punish mankind for its continued willful evilness. the only contradiction I see in those comments is the "little, innocent person" part. I think "innocent" and "person" are inherently contradictory terms. but I also think, just for the record, that there are many, many, many people making those kinds of comments [perhaps even myself included, since I am just as inherently human and evil as anyone] who contradict themselves all the time in regards to their comments about God's mercy and their unmerciful behavior. I didn't show very much mercy to The Voice of Reason last night when I made my comments to him concerning the Controversial Manny thread. and that was me being evil. I was wrong to do that. I hope that my actions last night will not have completely obliterated any credibility I might have now in trying to answer a question in connection with my faith or with Christianity in general. take that for whatever it's worth.
