Originally Posted By gadzuux You unleash nuclear warfare and you may end up turning the planet into a big lifeless radioactive cinder. Life itself is extinguished, but you can still score it in the win column.
Originally Posted By Mr X Unlikely. Tactical nukes would scare other countries into submission...it's too late now but if this had happened within a month of September 11th, I think noone would have condemned it. In fact, as far as I can see, it was the one and only oportunity to use nukes and get away with it since 1950. My point it, the fact that we DIDN'T is cool. Mutually Assured Destruction is a non-issue when you're talking about the middle east, most countries don't like them anyway, and would definitely not fight back on their behalf with nukes.
Originally Posted By DlandJB America will survive Bush. We are almost there. I don't happen to think he is evil -- but I do think he squandered good will after 9-11 by an opportunistic attack on Iraq. I almost want it to be true that he lied about Iraq, because the alternative is that our national intelligence is frightenly poor. I think the truth is, they believed what they wanted to be true. They were counseled by politicos and not policy wonks. Hopefully, by now something has been learned by all of this. I hope it won't be too late. Oh -- but I still remain 100% patriotic. As someone else said - Our country transends its leaders.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 X, you are talking crazy again. There is no way bystanders around the globe would just sit back and watch us unleash nukes. There would be hell to pay and the world would cry foul. Bear with me on this crude analogy. If the punk kid down the street intentionally threw a rock through our window and we retaliated by burning down his house with his entire family inside the rest of the block will want retribution and justice. No more block party BBQ's for us. And if our toilet backs up do you really think that the local plumber will make a house call? Trust me, she won't. Moreover, don't even think about parking our car in the driveway or street because we'll have sugar poured in our gas tank. On a separate note nukes are obsolete from a country's point of view but not obsolete if in the hands of a rogue organization.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<There is no way bystanders around the globe would just sit back and watch us unleash nukes. There would be hell to pay and the world would cry foul.>> I don't think so. Truth be know, most of the World would LIKE to see the Middle East nuked into oblivion or would not care enough to try to stop us.
Originally Posted By jonvn What would they do? Launch weapons at us? If we had gone so nuts as to fire nuclear weapons already, that'd pretty much silence anyone else. Especially if we started firing them at nations giving us any lip.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The United States showed great restraint after 9/11. Perhaps too much. The U.S. is without a doubt the strongest nation on earth militarily. But Iraq has revealed us to be a paper tiger. We may have the power, but we don't have the political will to use it. 30,000 insurgents with IED's have opened a big old can of Whoop-ass on us. We should have never gone into Iraq. But if we did we should have used whatever force it took to win. You don't fight wars (at least successfully) without targeting civilians. That should be the final test for any pre-emptive U.S. military action. If we aren't willing to target civilians, we shouldn't go there.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes. Yes. Yes. When we went in with the "hearts and minds" crapola, I knew we lost right there. That was it, and all it takes is a little bit of resistance to pull that down. When they didn't simply blow up al-sadr right away they knew just we were made of. It was only a matter of time. We actually can still win in Iraq. All we have to do is start ripping into the population and killing every last stinking one of the people who are either causing trouble, assisting people who cause trouble, or look like they may in some way ever assist someone to cause trouble. All of them. We won't do that. So we've lost.
Originally Posted By gadzuux We couldn't do that - we were never "at war" with the citizens of iraq. As douglas is only too happy to tell you, we're "liberating" them. >> Especially if we started firing them at nations giving us any lip. << We're not the only nation with a nuclear arsenal. If we start lobbing them at other nations, it wouldn't be surprising if they started hitting back.
Originally Posted By jonvn We have more than they do, and submarines that float right next to their country. IF they did mouth off, it'd be at their own peril. Once we launched them, of course. Which would mean we had lost all sense.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 // Truth be know, most of the World would LIKE to see the Middle East nuked into oblivion or would not care enough to try to stop us./// And I though X was talking crazy. If we would have "carpet nuked" the Middle East half of Africa would have risen up as well as as southern Meterranea. And Indonesia would start sending waves of trouble makers throughout the region. Even inside the US those who were on the fence about strapping bombs and running into school gyms during "spirit week" will do it. The world would be in chaos and the US would pay one way or another. I think you and X have not factored in the "age" we are in. We are in the age of communication and information coupled with political correctness, a deadly combo if you are trying to invade or destroy others. And yes, the PC movement is running rampant ouside the US too.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm not saying "carpet nuked". Drop a couple for shock and awe, and a quick surrender. Take over the rest of the country (I'm talking initially about Afghanistan), with massive force. And, like I said, it ONLY would have worked in the weeks following the terrorist attacks. But anyway, like Jon said, instead of a powerful country taking swift and brutal action...we were "liberators" that were going to get rid of that nasty taliban. I don't care WHAT country you're talking about, if you tell them "hand over Bin Laden" and they say "no" after what happened...they are an enemy to be dealt with, occupied, and completely re-arranged (like Germany after WWII kind of re-arranged if necessary...make it into 6 seperate countries with an American General as supreme commander of each...etc...). But it didn't go down like that (should have...we had almost universal support back then before Bush squandered it all).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If we would have "carpet nuked" the Middle East half of Africa would have risen up as well as as southern Meterranea.>> I didn't say we SHOULD. I said I didn't think most of the world would mind or do anything to stop us. I stand by my original statement that the U.S. should not get involved in a conflict (especially START one) unless they are willing to do WHATEVER it takes to win. As it is now, our great military power is completely wasted.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Take over the rest of the country (I'm talking initially about Afghanistan), with massive force.> This is much easier said than done, though. It's very easy to SAY "just go in with massive force and take over the whole damn place." But every country is different, each has its own geography, cultural and tribal structures and loyalties (and internal divisions), etc. etc. In the case of Afghanistan, the British (then the world's most powerful nation) could never really subdue it. Neither could the late 20th Century Soviets - who didn't have any of the "PC constraints" that are supposedly hampering us. I know the "just go in and nuke 'em/subdue 'em all if they give you any trouble" is more an academic exercise here than anything, but still it's best to look at these places realistically. The fact that Bush and Co. didn't is a big part of why invading Iraq was so unwise. They basically looked at Iraq from OUR perspective - who wouldn't be glad to be rid of Saddam? - rather than from the more thoughtful view that this was an artificial construct of a country to begin with, cobbled together by the British in the 20th Century from peoples who hated each other and had warred for centuries, and that when you remove the strongman, however heinous, you're almost certainly going to open up a power struggle that will result in countless thousands of deaths... all of this quite apart from (yet sometimes merging with) any insurgency opposing the American occupation. We essentially were going to unleash a civil war, and even a brutal occupation couldn't have prevented that - if we were as repressive as possible, it would still break out after we left, and we can't stay forever. This is what people looking at Iraq as a PARTICULAR place were saying in 2002-03, but were not listened to.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>In the case of Afghanistan, the British (then the world's most powerful nation) could never really subdue it. Neither could the late 20th Century Soviets - who didn't have any of the "PC constraints" that are supposedly hampering us.<<< Yes, I agree. That's why I said a show of nuclear force would have been necessary for it to succeed (sure as hell pacified the Japanese...and they were a MUCH more crazy and formidable enemy imo).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << That's why I said a show of nuclear force would have been necessary for it to succeed (sure as hell pacified the Japanese...and they were a MUCH more crazy and formidable enemy imo).>> Yes... a Jihadist may be willing to sacrifice his own life for Allah. But is he willing to see his parents and wife and children and sisters etc. all die in the name of Jihad? I doubt it. When you make the price of fighting too horrific to imagine people lay down their arms pretty quickly.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know. A bona fide jihadist is looking for something akin to armageddon anyway. Let everybody die and let Allah sort them out, with the righteous living in Paradise for eternity. The afterlife is the goal; our lives here are a blip on the eternity scale. What do you think bin laden's reaction, let's say, would have been to a nuked Afghani city? "Oh, okay, we give up?" I don't think so. More likely "This is why we need to resist the Great Satan, everyone; see what he does?" As for the rest of the people of Afghanistan, what does a "show of nuclear force" mean? Since everyone knows we've got them, I guess it means dropping one or more on Afghani cities. Despite the backing we had after 9/11, I think that would have ended it instantly. I think world opinion would have been "why did you kill 500,000 civilians? There was already the Northern Alliance fighting the government; why didn't you put in with them and topple the government?" (i.e. what we did, albeit diverting attention to Iraq much too soon.) It also would have made us look like the ruthless murderers the jihadis always say we are, and radicalized millions of Muslims in a way that even Iraq couldn't do, and probably strengthened the idea that there's no way to fight the Great Satan except with nukes of their own. Not a good outcome.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> A bona fide jihadist is looking for something akin to armageddon anyway. << So are evangelicals, who boast that they "have an office inside the white house".
Originally Posted By SuperDry If we had used all of the US forces that have been used in Iraq to go after Bin Laden, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have been located or killed by now. But instead of going after the guy responsible for 9/11, most forces were reserved for the invasion of Iraq in an action that not only had nothing to do with 9/11, but was in fact planned long before it (which kind of proves that it had nothing to do with 9/11).
Originally Posted By gadzuux It also kind of proves that they have no interest in going after bin laden. I wonder why?
