Pentagon bombed...

[Guest Kurgan]

Yes, but what do you propose instead, bombing the hell out of the country the terrorists are hiding in, killing every man woman and child for what a handfull of barbarians did?

 

Wouldn't that make us just as guilty as the terrorists, who struck at their enemy America by killing thousands of innocent people?

 

Then what happens next is that since we killed innocents, somebody else desires revenge, and attacks us again in kind, and it never ends.

 

This kind of mentality is why we still have people fighting in Northern Ireland, in Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere. If we put and end to it fairly and justly, then there is less chance of this simply continuing.

 

Oh sure, we could kill everyone in the country that supports the terrorists. But what about their allies? So we kill all of them too, and so somebody sees our mass slaughter and disagrees with it. What do we do, kill them next? Pretty soon we'll have to just kill everyone off in order to justify what we did. I don't think that's the answer. I don't want to use the slipperly slope fallacy, but basically what's been shown time and again in history is that violence merely begets violence.

 

If we bring the terrorists to justice (I know, easier said than done, but we have to try) then justice will be served. That is what we should be after, not simply vengance at random (like the terrorists).

 

Kurgan

[Wilhuf]

Or, perhaps the allies of said obliterated nation will realize the extraordinary cost of terrorism against the US, and in a fit of rational thought, cease violence.

 

Sure a warcrimes trial would be a good way to demonstrate that democracies give the accused fair trial. But, as I said, the US conducted a federal (not warcrime) trial on the original WTC bombing. What good did the trials really do? The WTC no longer exists.

 

Of course, a warcrimes trial would also act as a great forum (maybe not as effective as actual deeds of terrorism, or course), for terrorists to build global sympathy.

 

And of course we could see a followup wave of terrorism in retaliation for the trial verdicts. This is no better than terrorist retaliation in response to US military action.

 

I don't agree that retaliation is a form of barbarism. I see it as a form of self-defense and deterrence, and a means of improving national security. If the terror organizations' means of support, infrastructure, funding, leadership, safe havens, and membership are wiped off the face of the earth, and it leads to a cessation of these attacks, then there's really no downside to retaliation, other than the extraordinary effort it will take to accomplish this.

 

I have no problem trading the lives of these terrorist cowards for my, my family and friends security.

 

No I do not, nor have I ever proposed killing innocent civilians. I have warned that 'collateral damage,' as the Pentagon calls it, could very easily become an unfortunate side effect of retaliation. If the US is going to retaliate effectively, we're going to have face that there could be innocents who are harmed.

[Guest Kurgan]

Perhaps, but was this act of awakening the sleeping giant a "rational act" do you think?

 

Somehow I doubt it will work, unless, as I said earlier in different words, we simply 'kill everyone and let God sort them out.' *

 

* Note, I would find this policy utterly depraved and would never support it.

 

I still think the War Crimes Tribunal would be better. It just seems a lot more just (even if you feel they don't deserve justice) than random bombing, and it would give us more report with the rest of the world.

 

Now let me just pose a hypothetical question to you:

 

Let's say we find out that there are 20 confirmed terrorists hiding out in some country. Let's say we estimate that if we attack, we'll kill 10,000 civilians but also wipe out all of the terrorists, would you consider it wortwhile to go through with the campaign?

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Wilhuf]

Sadly it might be worth the civillian casualties in that scenario.

 

An unconfirmed estimate I just heard now for WTC is fourty-thousand dead. This number could be complete bunk, it could be much less, 'only' 5,000. No official number is available yet, but it was one unofficial number that National Public Radio just gave out.

 

Moreover, we would have to add in to this hypothetical equation the additional lives saved from future terrorism by the 20 terrorists.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I think Kurgan's approach is helpful in clearly seperating the need for retribution from an all out abandonment of human decency, if anything.

 

From Colin Powell:

 

Just got on saying it was not helpful at this point to give anything like a precentage estimation of who is responsible. They still don't know and he mentioned that such guessing might just serve falsely identify people in the end.

 

Also: White House has said that the White House itself might have been original target of the plane that crashed into the pentagon. That and Air Force One might have been also been targeted that day.

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>I don't agree that retaliation is a form of barbarism. I see it as a form of self-defense and deterrence, and a means of improving national security. If the terror organizations' means of support, infrastructure, funding, leadership, safe havens, and membership are wiped off the face of the earth, and it leads to a cessation of these attacks, then there's really no downside to retaliation, other than the extraordinary effort it will take to accomplish this.</STRONG>

 

So what you are saying, Wilhuf, is that because some people in America have financed and in other ways supported the IRA to conduct their terrorist acts in Great Britain for the past 25 years, part of the USA should be wiped off the face of the earth?

 

Forgive me, my friend, but I absolutely reject that comment. You cannot simply tar everyone with the same brush. I totally understand your feelings, but you must realise that many other countries around the world have suffered at the hands of terrorists for many years - and that support for these terrorist groups can come from minorities from within any country. How can people who hold fundraising parties for the IRA, for example, justify their actions in light of all the pain and suffering caused? I don't know - but it still goes on.

 

I agree that all of the things you have mentioned need to be dealt with - but you must realise that these things are also closer to home than you may think - and intertwined with our everyday lives.

 

And as for any form of nuclear strike, I am totally 100 per cent against it. It does not matter how small a tactical nuke may seem - it's effects will always be far-reaching.

 

I know because my own country still insists on using depleted Uranium in it's weapons during recent conflicts. The majority of scientific opinion is that these weapons have led to deaths/long-term illnesses of service-men, and are still killing innocent people in the areas they were used. Such weapons should be totally banned from use, IMO.

 

Full-blown nuclear weapons are obviously worse, because the fallout area would be far-reaching, and not only impact the country attacked.

 

Cast your mind back to the Chernobyl incident. The fallout from that disaster reached Great Britain, and probably even further afield.

 

The Middle East is not isolated - these countries are situated not far from those countries that make up Europe. So the use of a nuclear device anywhere in the Middle East could potentially impact the whole of Europe - your allies.

 

I fully agree that there needs to be action - but then everyone must consider that it is not simply one terrorist group you are talking about. There are many terrorist groups worldwide who, with the right financing and support from other countries, could potentially commit similar atrocities anywhere in the world - including the USA once more.

 

As one of your officials (can't remember which one) said, this is going to lead to a very long and bloody conflict. It will happen on a worldwide scale. It will, in effect, be a World War because it will be fought on all fronts in many countries, although not as openly as past conflicts. Throwing a tactical nuke at every possible region containing a terrorist group will rapidly make large areas uninhabitable, and cost a vast (incalculable) number of innocent lives.

 

Make no mistake - I want to see these ba$turds brought to justice for what they have done. They are nothing but cowardly murderers who use politics as an excuse for committing atrocities. But they hide themselves and their infrastructures away in the hearts of countries where the majority of people are decent, and ultimately innocent - and fundraise for their activities even in the very hearts of free, democratic lands.

 

It is not simply a case of looking outward to tackle the problem of terrorists - but to look inwards, and see how they pervade the countries in which we live, and what we can do about the infrastructure they have built within our own countries as well.

 

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: StormHammer ]

[Wilhuf]

So what you are saying, Wilhuf, is that because some people in America have financed and in other ways supported the IRA to conduct their terrorist acts in Great Britain for the past 25 years, part of the USA should be wiped off the face of the earth?

 

No, you would have to wipe out the specific individuals responsible. My Ireland/Ulster/Northern Ireland history is a bit hazy. Did Americans ever fund an IRA operation to slam two aircraft into two 110 story buildings?

 

A tactical nuclear weapon dropped, say on Afghanistan, would not effect western Europe.

 

The US will have to look and act globally to address this attack.

 

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Darien]

We need a way to keep control of terrorism better, so i propose that after we bring these terrorists to justice, we start a international counter-terrorist group like rainbow.

 

All the counter-terror groups, SAS, CIA etc., combined could help stop tradgedys like these.

[Rancor]

I would normally steer clear of this sort of thing, but I'd like to suggest that when the US suggests treating countries that are harbouring the terrorists as if they were the terrosists..they are in no way suggesting blowing said country up. Rather, they would probably do what they did in the Gulf War--target key military installations, bridges, airstrips with pinpoint accuracy in an attempt to prevent any sort of civillian casualty if possible...but still make the point that Hussy's tactics were not acceptable.

 

And therein lies the difference with these types of scumbags...they purposely took a cheap shot in a location that could in no way defend itself. It's akin to people keying someones car, egging it, or slashing the tyres...they aren't able to confront a situation in an adult fashion, so they lurk in the shadows and resort to cheesy hit and run tactics. Obviously this incident is a whole new atrocious level of this, but all the same....I have absolutely no respect for any person who would even contemplate such a thing.

 

---end of rant...

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>

 

No, you would have to wipe out the specific individuals responsible.</STRONG>

 

I think that is the point I was trying to make. If that is the case within American borders, then should it not also be true outside of those borders? Invading another country using full tactical force as some have suggested should not really be an option for this very reason - unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that the majority of that country is involved in the terrorist acts we have witnessed.

 

<STRONG>

My Ireland/Ulster/Northern Ireland history is a bit hazy. Did Americans ever fund an IRA operation to slam two aircraft into two 110 story buildings?</STRONG>

 

No, the IRA have not managed to destroy two skyscrapers using aircraft yet - although I am sure one day they will attempt it if they are not stopped. Having said that, I believe in one way that the USA has left itself open to attack from within, by not implementing much tighter security protocols for internal flights. I know that we have very strict security on all flights in the UK, and perhaps if such protocols had been in place, it would at least have made it much, much more difficult to launch such a co-oridnated attack within the US.

 

The IRA have let off many bombs (including one at Canary Wharf - London's tallest tower-building), and shot down many people. As I said, I am fully aware of your feelings, Wilhuf. Many, many people have died, and a great many more will suffer because of this. It is a vast human tragedy, and I am weeping inside because of it.

 

I can only hope that any action that is taken is very carefully considered, in terms of it's impact not only on the country in question, but on those countries that are it's neighbours, and those that are America's allies.

 

You must also understand that in the United Kingdom 55 million people have been living under the shadow of terrorism for a very long time. Many, many hundreds of people have died, impacting many thousands of other lives in this country. Our tragedy may be on a smaller scale - but it has the same root. This is why I can wholly identify with the majority of American feeling, and the absolute need for justice

 

Any funds raised in America (and other countries) have been used to buy weapons/bomb materials to kill innocent people. It does not matter how many - only that terrorists have been murdering innocents for many years. And they have been funded from other countries (not just America) for many years. This tragedy in the USA has simply brought home the fact that no country is free from terrorist attack, or free of supporting the terrorist infrastructure, on whatever scale.

 

<STRONG>

A tactical nuclear weapon dropped, say on Afghanistan, would not effect western Europe.</STRONG>

 

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

 

<STRONG>

The US will have to look and act globally to address this attack.</STRONG>

 

I totally agree. All democratic countries, not just the USA, need to work together, throughout the world, to stamp out terrorist activity. It must stop. But I am afraid that many people within these countries may be unwilling to accept the cost of stopping it, because inevitably it must place some restrictions on the freedom we cherish so much.

[Wilhuf]

I'm reasonably familiar with the problems of terrorism in Europe, having lived there for eight years myself. I remember we couldn't eat home-grown tomatoes for awhile because of fears of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.

 

If that is the case within American borders, then should it not also be true outside of those borders?

 

You cannot expect the US to attack itself, even if the enemy may exist within its own boundaries, as a matter of course! Nor would the US ever attack Britain should it find that terrorists had somehow conducted a clandestine operation there, prior to the attack. Especially so since we can have every confidence that Britain would do everything in its power to assist the US!

 

Already, there are theories that some of the hijakers traveled in to the US via Canada. Does this mean the US will level Toronto? Invading a country with which the US shares the longest unfortified international boundary in the world? Of course not!

 

Now contrast Canada and Britain with Afghanistan, which is already confirmed to have harbored terrorist camps, has imprisoned US aid workers, and has no formal diplomatic relations with the United States, much less is a partner in the Atlantic Treaty! Does the US conduct its relations across each of these countries in exactly the same way? Of course not.

 

After all, would the US give free trade status and reduced tariffs to, say Iran, placing Iran on equal footing as, say EU countries? No way, sir.

 

Most Americans would agree that a war on terrorism should be directed against those responsible. Last poll I read said 80% of Americans would even risk war to retaliate. This is in the context of the specific events that took place yesterday. A team of hijakers essentially commandeered four human piloted missiles and attacked the pentagon and the World Trade Center.

 

The US legislature and executive branches are now agreed that these were acts of war. The US president and secretary of state have both stated that the US will respond as if these were acts of war.

 

NATO executives has determined that this attack is indeed an attack on NATO members, under Article V of the Atlantic treaty. How this all translates into cooperation of course remains to be seen.

 

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Vagabond]

I have to cast my lot in with my esteemed colleague, Wilhuf. A low-yield tactical nuke would totally obliterate a terrorist training camp, with negligible radiation. And if they can't go near that spot of barren, radioactive desert for 10,000 years, then so much the better - they won't be able to use it as a terrorist base anymore.

 

Barring the nuclear option, then I'm for an all-out, full-scale war, complete with all the ground-troop trimmings. We've already lost several thousand lives at this point, so what's a few more in the name of justice? The appetite for revenge has been wetted, a feast on their destruction the only cure.

[access_flux]

Hell, compared to whats just happened the IRA is like pushing some kid over in the playground.lets not stray from the issue here.

 

Recap: 2 of the worlds tallest buildings have been leveled by terrorists taking over planes and ramming them into the WTC. They also dropped in on the Pentagon, which was actually supposed to be the White house, i just heard. they also were going for Camp David. but crashed into a field. 2 out of 4? thats pretty low. there is still a large loss of life and they should hang the b*st*rds, but i doubt they will the main point is that they get all the survivors and bodies out so they can put the dead to rest and get the living to move on, then we get the b*st*rds who did it and make them suffer.

 

 

Access_fluX

[Guest Argath]

CNN.com recently posted a video of the plane hitting the first tower, and another angle of the plane crashing into the second. The crash looks even more horrible close-up; you can actually see the second plane leave a hole in its shape in the side of the building before it explodes.

[StormHammer]

Access-Flux:

 

<STRONG>

Hell, compared to whats just happened the IRA is like pushing some kid over in the playground.lets not stray from the issue here.

</STRONG>

 

I do not see how you can say I am straying from the issue. The issue here is terrorism, and the IRA is a terrorist organisation of long standing.

 

This attack on the US must be viewed in the proper context - it cannot be taken in isolation. As everyone has been saying over and over...this is not simply an attack against the US, but against the free and democratic world. Even if that were not the case, I still have a vested interest, because my nephew is a US citizen - my sister and brother-in-law lived there for more than 3 years. My brother-in-law still often travels to the US on business. In fact, I thought he was out there when this happened - but it turns out he is due to go out to the US in a week or so.

 

The immense human tragedy that is unfolding in New York and Washington could potentially happen on this scale in the UK or anywhere else. We do not know yet that this campaign of atrocities is even over. Also, I understand that a few hundred British people are probably among the dead. So I can assure you I have not lost sight of the issue.

 

I totally agree that the ba$turds responsible should be made to suffer. The co-ordinated response should be as swift as possible.

 

Wilhuf:

 

<STRONG>You cannot expect the US to attack itself, even if the enemy may exist within its own boundaries, as a matter of course! Nor would the US ever attack Britain should it find that terrorists had somehow conducted a clandestine operation there, prior to the attack. Especially so since we can have every confidence that Britain would do everything in its power to assist the US!

 

Already, there are theories that some of the hijakers traveled in to the US via Canada. Does this mean the US will level Toronto? Invading a country with which the US shares the longest unfortified international boundary in the world? Of course not!</STRONG>

 

Wilhuf, I know. I was not suggesting that the US would attack it's allies - sorry if you misunderstood me. My primary concern is over the use of nuclear weapons, and the far-reaching impact of such weapons.

 

<STRONG>Now contrast Canada and Britain with Afghanistan, which is already confirmed to have harbored terrorist camps, has imprisoned US aid workers, and has no formal diplomatic relations with the United States, much less is a partner in the Atlantic Treaty! Does the US conduct its relations across each of these countries in exactly the same way? Of course not.</STRONG>

 

Yes, I am fully aware of the situation with Afghanistan. And yes, I totally agree that any terrorist groups, or terrorist support in that region should be dealt with. But you must remember that the previous missile attack to destroy these murderers only partially succeeded. I do not think a similar attack would be any more effective - so the only alternative is to increase the nuclear payload (a bad idea for neighbouring countries), or as Vagabond has suggested, going for a full-scale ground assault.

 

The latter option could be far more effective, but it will probably result in greater loss of life for the US and it's allies.

 

<STRONG>Most Americans would agree that a war on terrorism should be directed against those responsible. Last poll I read said 80% of Americans would even risk war to retaliate. This is in the context of the specific events that took place yesterday. A team of hijakers essentially commandeered four human piloted missiles and attacked the pentagon and the World Trade Center.

 

The US legislature and executive branches are now agreed that these were acts of war. The US president and secretary of state have both stated that the US will respond as if these were acts of war.

 

NATO executives has determined that this attack is indeed an attack on NATO members, under Article V of the Atlantic treaty. How this all translates into cooperation of course remains to be seen.</STRONG>

 

Yes, it was an act of war. But my own view is that many terrorist groups have always considered themselves to be at war with the countries they have targeted. I think the governments of both the UK and the US have perhaps been a little naive in the past by not treating these acts of terrorism as acts of war.

 

The major problem with this war, however, is that there are multiple targets in multiple countries - and the people of those countries may not necessarily sympathise with the cause of the terrorists. They should at least be given the chance to surrender any terrorists within their borders.

 

If they choose not to do so, then there may be no other option but to make a full-scale assault.

 

But we should not be under any illusion here. If it comes to a full-scale assault to reach and tear down these terrorists in certain countries, then other countries will inevitably be drawn into the conflict.

 

Already we are seeing attacks against Islam and Muslims in the US, and I have no doubts we will see the same in the UK.

 

If we are not careful, it will escalate into a full-scale World War...and that is a terrible thing to contemplate.

 

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: StormHammer ]

[Guest Argath]

I'm not sure it would be wise to use nukes, even just tactical ones. Fuel-air explosives do just as well as tactical nukes at leveling small areas, and they don't emit any radiation. Using nukes, no matter how small, could conceivably damage US foreign relations; nuclear weapons are a very taboo topic, and I don't know if it would be a good idea to use them when other methods work just as well.

 

Personally, I have no qualms with eradicating terrorist camps, whether with nuclear weapons or by overrunning them and gouging their eyes out with spoons. I just think it would be a better idea to incinerate the terrorists with cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives, and other more conventional weapons. They'll be dead either way, and conventional weapons don't carry the same stigma as nuclear warheads.

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Argath ]

[Guest Kurgan]

I guess my honest opinion, is that, though I am against the dealth penalty in principle, if anyone deserves death in this case, it's the ones guilty of planning and ordering this attack.

 

Those are the ones who should be tried and sentenced before the world for their crimes.

 

Though it may satisfy many Americans who want revenge with a full assault and utter destruction (to what extent?) of whatever countries are involved, I don't think that's the answer. Besides, in a war we're bound to lose some of our own soldiers as well. How many are willing to go die for this cause of retribution? I'm as angry as anyone, but I'm not looking forward to getting killed to satisfy someone's bloodlust.

 

We'll end up killing many more people that had nothing to do with this event (civilians/non-terrorists), who just happened to live nearby the terrorists, probably didn't even know them or what they were about. The poor confused souls who might support them in principle didn't actually carry out the act, so are we justified in killing them too?

 

Sure you have people living in a nation with the terrorists most likely, but the same rationale is probably what the terrorists used. Are we to trade terror with terror? If that is so, then how can we possibly decry what they did as wrong, if we ourselves do the same thing? Does anyone else see the logic in this?

 

It's kind of like those who deny the holocaust happened. Maybe there are some holocaust survivors who hate them and want them dead. But the point is that though their opinion might seem horrible in light of our experience, it doesn't give us a right to take their life.

 

So I vote no on retribution, the only retribution we should take is against the terrorists themselves. Certainly if some gov't officials agreed to protect the terrorists, knowing full well what they had done, those should also be prosecuted for participating in War Crimes.

 

Bring them in.. let them stand trial for their crimes. Let them be sentenced, and the sentence carried out.

 

That to me, is justice. That's American justice.

 

The last thing I want is a world war, that would cost millions upon millions of lives, if the other world wars of our past our any indication, and moreso with the weaponry and potential for human suffering we now possess today. I've talked to some people who DON'T SEEM TO CARE if this happens. They act like it's a necessary risk. I highly disagree, of course.

 

Kurgan

 

[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

The stigma that comes with nukes is indeed a huge problem. We are in an age where we have pledged and acted to drastically reduce our nuclear arsenals (let alone not to USE them!), deliberately coming to look down upon and minimize any potential role of these destructive weapons (at least as far as some of the leading nations are concerned).

 

The use of any nuclear devices by the US as a form of retaliation will further betray anything we have worked towards in this area. Our need for vengeance in a big way as expressed by using some of the most destructive technology available at our disposal (even on a "tactical" level) is our real vunerability. Ironically enough in our darkest hour it our potentialy greatest sign of weakness.

 

The US has been dealt a nasty hand. Now is not the time to simply slam our cards down on the table, flip the table over, and start a fight in the Bar of the World. It is now in our moment of tragedy that we need to show the restraint necessary to not only do what's best for us but what's best for the world. The general notion floating around that we cannot be effective against terrorists without 'Nuking Them All' is pure bullcrap. If we abandon our desire to all but eliminate the nuclear element from war we lose on so many other levels.

 

I cannot see us nuking anything and for good reason.

[Wilhuf]

I haven't heard anything about attacks on Muslims in the US in reaction to this attack. I'll listen for news. If it's true, its deplorable.

 

Excuse me while I wax Machiavellian for a moment here...

 

Argath has brought up exactly the point I was really trying to get to. The nuclear option is taboo.

 

Tuesday's events have illustrated that the US needs to consider that which was previously untinkable (well, actually the US already used atomic weapons sixty years ago, so it's definitely not unthinkable).

 

In the arena of international relations, retaliation is expected to be proportional to the provoking act. Perhaps the US needs to raise the stakes to an entirely new level about how serious it is in dealing with terrorism. The US needs to demonstrate resolve. Nuclear weapons make this demonstration cyrstal clear.

 

Recall that during the cold war, NATO policy in dealing with the threat of Soviet invasion of Europe was the deliberate escalation of the conflict to the nuclear level. Like it or not, this policy worked as a deterrent. Obviously there is more to deterrence and the end of the cold war than just nuclear weapons, but suffice it to say the Soviets had to pay attention to the reality that NATO nuclear weapons could be used to destroy their country in event of an attack.

 

Will the implied threat of US nuclear weapons stop terrorism? No. We saw that on Tuesday. But what if that threat is actually demonstrated?

 

As far as atomic fallout and impact on Europe goes for a limited nuclear engagement, please consider the following. Throughout the cold war era, the Soviet Union dropped dozens of extremely high-yield hydrogen bombs in Soviet Central Asia. The testings took place closer to western Europe than Afghanistan is to Western Europe. There was no nuclear winter, no widespread nuclear fallout to harm Western Europe. And no long term effect on Europe.

 

We cannot realistically expect that even dozens of low-yield tactical nukes in Afghanistan (for example) will have any greater affect on Europe than did Soviet above-ground high-yield hydrogen bomb testing.

 

So the calculation on whether or not to use nuclear weapons will be based on many factors that are difficult to quantify: is there an identifiable, valid target suitable for nuclear attack? Is the nuclear attack likely to further any military and political objective? What are the costs (political, military, collateral damage, and to a lesser degree environmental) of using these weapons?

 

I would suggest that since some nuclear weapons are as low-yield as conventional weapons, their use is actually conceivable because 1. the physical risks are really no worse than conventional weapons

2. the dramatic political message they deliver

 

I also agree that aerial or missile bombardment alone is not going to end the problem of terrorism. It's going to be a down-and-dirty house-to-house ground war, probably on several fronts. Anything short of assault, and we are kidding ourselves into a false sense of security.

 

The Pentagon today is led by many who served in the Vietnam conflict. In that war, at times it could be difficult to tell who the enemy was. Superficially at least, the Vietnam war could work as an anology to a war against terrorism. The 'conventional wisdom' is that the US 'lost' the Vietnam conflict because of the failure to fully prosecute the war in areas where it needed to be fought. There is a lot more to it than this, but suffice it to say that lesson is absolutely on the minds of Pentagon leadership today.

[ed_silvergun]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>I haven't heard anything about attacks on Muslims in the US in reaction to this attack. I'll listen for news. If it's true, its deplorable.</STRONG>

 

Read <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551257,00.html">this</A>.

 

<STRONG>Argath has brought up exactly the point I was really trying to get to. The nuclear option is taboo.

 

Tuesday's events have illustrated that the US needs to consider that which was previously untinkable (well, actually the US already used atomic weapons sixty years ago, so it's definitely not unthinkable).</STRONG>

 

Well said. The use of nukes right now would demonstrate that since 1945, the western world has learnt precisely dick.

 

<STRONG>Will the implied threat of US nuclear weapons stop terrorism? No. We saw that on Tuesday. But what if that threat is actually demonstrated?</STRONG>

 

A) You risk retaliation from someone like Saddam - we all know he's got more up his sleeve than he lets on.

 

B) The US can kiss goodbye to public support in Europe. Everyone here is right behind you to the point of supporting military action, so long as it stops short of using nuclear weapons. There's some pretty strong anti-nuke feeling over here.

 

<STRONG>What are the costs (political, military, collateral damage, and to a lesser degree environmental) of using these weapons?</STRONG>

 

To a lesser degree? Excuse me, I'm no tree-hugger, but the environmental costs of nuking things is a pretty important factor that needs to be thought through carefully before anything is done.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

The nuclear issue carries a lot more weight than some Societal Hush-Hush Non-PC "taboo." There is plenty of logic behind not developing increasingly powerful weapons of mass destruction along those or any lines as well as curbing or completely eliminating their use. Such importance is either being ignored, denied or dismissed here. I definitely don't agree with such statements supporting the use of nuclear weapons; resulting non-factual speculation of such is certainly not even remotely conclusive in my mind, especially when so many lives are at stake globally.

 

I only hope cooler heads and better judgement will prevail in the actions of our own military and nation. I trust that they will and we will not be seeing any nukes used.

 

It is unlikely that a miriad of history scraps and personal opinion woven together are likely to change my stance on this, unless I come across a revelation shocking beyond the realm of what I thought possible.

[StormHammer]

Sorry, Wilhuf my friend, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of nuclear weapons.

 

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>I haven't heard anything about attacks on Muslims in the US in reaction to this attack. I'll listen for news. If it's true, its deplorable.</STRONG>

 

I heard about it on the BBC TV news. Unfortunately their web site is getting hammered at the moment, so I don't know if you can access any information from it.

 

I agree that is is utterly deplorable. Fortunately the police have acted swiftly in response to reported attacks.

 

In a way, I guess this is a repeat of what happened during World War II, when many people of particular origins were persecuted and treated as potential enemies. Make no mistake, I'm not just talking about what happened after Pearl Harbour. This sort of thing happened in the UK in relation to Germans living here, and anyone else considered to be a risk.

 

It is a knee-jerk reaction - only these days it seems to be perpetrated by extreme nationalists, or rascists, rather than governments. I am expecting race riots in the UK over this, because these sorts of things already go on now, and I fear they will escalate. The ripples from the aftermath of this tragedy will be felt around the world for a very long time.

 

<STRONG>Recall that during the cold war, NATO policy in dealing with the threat of Soviet invasion of Europe was the deliberate escalation of the conflict to the nuclear level. Like it or not, this policy worked as a deterrent. Obviously there is more to deterrence and the end of the cold war than just nuclear weapons, but suffice it to say the Soviets had to pay attention to the reality that NATO nuclear weapons could be used to destroy their country in event of an attack.</STRONG>

 

There is a fundamental difference here, though, Wilhuf. The Soviets were defending their country - these terrorists are taking action to defend their beliefs. They do not need to remain in any particular country, or defend any particular territory. They can move their bases of operations almost at will, because the infrastructure that supports them still remains.

 

<STRONG>Will the implied threat of US nuclear weapons stop terrorism? No. We saw that on Tuesday. But what if that threat is actually demonstrated?</STRONG>

 

It would still not stop terrorism. These people are fanatical in their beliefs. They will not back down. You will not be able to eradicate every member of a terrorist group, because the more heads you cut off, the more heads will grow back. Those that are killed will be made into martyrs of their cause, and continue to fuel the fire of their activities.

 

This is why I feel that Tony Blair in his speech was a bit naive, when he said this evil had to be eradicated from the world. It will never be eradicated from the world while extremists feel they have legitimate causes, and while others support them to fight for those causes.

 

A key thing that can be done is rooting out those centres of support, and nullifying them. Without finance, these people would not be able to accomplish half as much.

 

<STRONG>As far as atomic fallout and impact on Europe goes for a limited nuclear engagement, please consider the following. Throughout the cold war era, the Soviet Union dropped dozens of extremely high-yield hydrogen bombs in Soviet Central Asia. The testings took place closer to western Europe than Afghanistan is to Western Europe. There was no nuclear winter, no widespread nuclear fallout to harm Western Europe. And no long term effect on Europe.</STRONG>

 

That is highly debatable. For example, many European countries (including the UK) have seen increases in the incidence of cancer over the years. Sometimes the effects are more subtle, and take a long time to be truly felt.

 

<STRONG>The Pentagon today is led by many who served in the Vietnam conflict. In that war, at times it could be difficult to tell who the enemy was. Superficially at least, the Vietnam war could work as an anology to a war against terrorism. The 'conventional wisdom' is that the US 'lost' the Vietnam conflict because of the failure to fully prosecute the war in areas where it needed to be fought. There is a lot more to it than this, but suffice it to say that lesson is absolutely on the minds of Pentagon leadership today.</STRONG>

 

Yes, I agree. Terrorists can potentially hide in any country - and are certainly not readily identifiable. It is going to take a very long time to hunt them all down and bring them to justice. And make no mistake, I strongly feel that terrorists should no longer simply be put in prisons. In the past couple of years we in the UK have seen the release of many IRA terrorists in the name of "peace" and ensuring a "way forward".

 

They can now potentially kill again.

 

I would hate to think this could happen again. These people should be killed - either out in the field, or executed at home. I have never supported capital punishment in my life - but I now find myself advocating it if used against terrorists. Making martyrs of them no longer matters - because it should be obvious by now that terrorist groups will continue in their activities no matter how we treat those who are captured.

 

Terrorists are a growing cancer in our world, and we should show no mercy in totally cutting it out and destroying it.

[Wilhuf]

What retaliation from Saddam? For all we know, Saddam masterminded the WTC attack.

 

Although right now Bin-Laden is at the top of the list.

 

As things stand, if Saddam pulls a move, he, his government and infrastrucutre will be the dust and ashes of history.

 

Why should the US or NATO be intimidated by fear of retaliation from terrorist sponsoring states? That is exactly what these organizations want!

 

Yes there is a lot of fear over nuclear weapons in Europe, I know. Many Americans have a general distaste for nuclear war as well. As I said, it's yet to be seen just how far NATO allies are willing to go to defend themselves against terrorism.

 

Yes, 'to a lesser degree.' That is exactly what I meant. I'm no multinational corporate polluter, but at this point, domestic security is going to have to take a little more priority over environmental conditions in terrorist base camps.

[ed_silvergun]

StormHammer, I posted reports from The Guardian confirming rumours of anti-Muslim events across the world in my last post. I couldn't find any info on it on the BBC website.

[ed_silvergun]

Originally posted by Wilhuf:

<STRONG>What retaliation from Saddam? For all we know, Saddam masterminded the WTC attack.</STRONG>

 

Yeah... quite possibly. So let's not go handing out excuses for him to use nukes.

 

They want us to be scared... but more than that they want an excuse to escalate this even further. I don't think nukes are the answer. We need a precise, surgical strike aimed to take out those responsible.

 

We need to show the world that whilst terrorists are prepared to put civilians on the firing line, we won't stoop that low.