[Aragorn]

Although I'm totally for a STRONG, DECISIVE, and FINAL strike against those who are(and those who harbor) terrorists, the 6th option scares me a little:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/u...ons010914.html

Thoughts?

[Ltspd]

I agree.

#6 shouldnt be a option IMO.

[Bamm Bamm]

Nah we won't use Nuclear weapons over this.. We will blow the Heck out of whoever we deem necessary I heard on the radio on the way to work that ..the telebahn??I dunno the afghanistan government has declared a holy war on the u.s.

[scubadude]

It is my understanding that we will only use Nuclear warfare on flash-style bombs (If we do) these are not like the nukes we dropped on hiroshima or nagasakie (sp?) they are generally small platformed and disipate rather quickly, It is my understanding that we will ONLY use nukes if we are threatened by Bio-Chemical warfare as it will kill our troops too if we have any on ground zero or immediate area, but I believe the option to use these nukes will be killing our troops which would be dead anyway if we didnt (kinda putting them out of their misery, and at same time killing our opponents, if you will) this is all speculation, and heresay of course! Im sure nukes is a last resort! There is Sooo much that the government is NOT telling us, which you cant blame them, Im sure even though ppl like Bin Ladan, Sadam Hussein, and others are probably down in a well protected bunker, but whos to say they dont have a TV and are watching CNN right now?

[icemark]

Everyone, the sixth option is actually about number three on the list.

We are as close to nuclear war as we were in the early 60s.

Both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. And we told Pakistan that we will forgive some of there debts and give them additional aid if the get Bin Laden for us.

Pakistan is at war with India and has also been sending in insertion teams into India just in the last couple of weeks.

What happens if some hot head in India or Pakistan gets pissed, and presses a button? We have pledged to help defend Pakistan. China has pledged to help India. I am less worried about a hot head in our government than one of theirs.

All it takes is one small battlefield nuke to get this whole thing going. If the Taliban placed one in an Indian or Pakistani city right now and set it off, Afghanistan would be the least trouble.

All these idiots saying we need to go to war with Afghanistan, are missing this. Nuclear war is very likely, simply because there is nothing there already (unlike the oil fields in the last war). Furthermore it I have no reservations about the idea that if Laden or anyone of those fanatics actually had a nuclear weapon, they would use it against the west the minute we start bombing.

[Trapper]

I just hope one of these fanatics don't have a nuclear device here in the USA. I have a bad feeling about those other possible suspect's here in the USA. I'm sure they will try to wreak havoc on our infrastructure somehow. Well were all just along for the ride it's all up to Bush and his advisors now. Hope it goes well for all of us.

[SPasse]

Hi All,

Here are some scattered thoughts of mine, in no particular order:

1 We should use every possible effort to get the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden.

2 He should be tried by an Islamic Court. There have been enough Islamic clerics (Holy Men) that have condemned his attach on the US that I believe that this would be possible. As he is a Saudi Arabian by birth, I would suggest that country as a possibility. This touches on another premise on mine, we must do everything in our power to prevent this from “really” becoming a “holy war” i.e. Islam vs. the west. Many would say that Americans deserve to see him stand trial in the US, but remember the Saudi Arabians would certainly meat out severe justice.

3 Some kind of conventional ground operation to get Osama bin Laden if options 1 & 2 above, fail. Hopefully, this would not involve carpet bombing population centers in Afghanistan, as it was pointed out in another post, we would only be “making the rubble jump” and there is little “infrastructure” to speak of.

4 We should defiantly not be the first power to use nuclear weapons. This is indeed a very scary “area” as I remember reading, some years ago that the former Soviet Union lost track of some of its tactical nuclear weapons during its breakup. I also have no allusions about the availability of terrorist fanatics required to “deliver” such a weapon. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate two-edged sword, On the one hand they are capable of causing our extinction as a species, but I also believe that they kept us from being involved in a conventional war with the Soviets that would have been unimaginably bloody. And I mean bloody in numbers equal to the millions of people that perished in WWII. Also high on the “scary” list would be a chemical or biological attack on the US mainland.

5 Do the Americans have the stomach for a bloody conventional war? Well, throughout our history, our enemies have written us off as soft, pleasure loving, and unwilling to shed blood. They have been generally proven wrong. Remember, Vietnam did not attack the US.

The Chinese have a proverb, which is also a curse, “May you live in interesting times”

I fear that these are going to be very “interesting times” indeed.

My God grant us his mercy.

Regards,

Scott Passe

[organicreefer]

nuclear attack not likely at all,and dont worry pakistan does have nuclear weapons,but they certainly dont have anything at all that can reach north america.



-----------------------------------------------------------------
3 Some kind of conventional ground operation to get Osama bin Laden if options 1 & 2 above, fail. Hopefully, this would not involve carpet bombing population centers in Afghanistan, as it was pointed out in another post, we would only be “making the rubble jump” and there is little “infrastructure” to speak of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
spasse had to jump on this one i hope youre not actually hoping for a ground assault the afhghans would eat our poor "green "soldiers for lunch.there is no way we would ever win .talk about another vietnam.the russians couldnt beat these in ten years ,and you think well do any better?personally i think "carpet bombing "is a WAY better option.

unfortunately none of these things are gonna happen ,imo.this is all gonna be intelligence gathering,strategic bombing,and special ops missions.

[Aragorn]

Organicreefer,

The point(s) you raise, IMHO, may have been valid during the Soviet Occupation...but not today...IMHO. The way I see it, the reason the Soviet were unsuccessful was due to their belief that if they controlled the cities, they could control the country. Most of Afghanistan's population do not reside within city boundaries. Additionally, the Soviet Union did not have internal support. Today however, The Northern Alliance has pledged 15,000 "battle hardened" soldiers to assist the United States. These "freedom fighters" know the terrain and locations of "The Enemy". This group would be a tremendous benefit to the U.S. in a ground invasion/occupation. Anyway, back to the Soviets: Another reason for the USSR's loss came from the fact that the opposition had resources from the U.S. in the form of training, funding, and alot of weaponry. I believe a ground invasion, supported by air strikes, is the only way to get Osama Bin Laden...while dismantling the Taliban and giving Afghanistan back to the people. Of course, these are just my thoughts.

[organicreefer]

aragorn,
imho,i beleive the reason the russians couldnt beat them is because it was jahid.muslims from all over the middle east came to help expell the infidels.certainly the us gave billions of dollars woth of weapons,but i would hardly take credit for their victoryif american troops go into afghanistan,imo it will be jahid again.really hard to go half way around the world and beat someone on their own turf,they are defending their homes,from infidels at that i can guarantee that they will accept FAR more casualties than we ever will.i sincerely hope they stick to special forces operations,remeber what happened when our marines took a few blows in somalia?thier hasty retreat didnt make me any more confident about the bravery of our ground troops.mark my words,if we send a bunch of grunts in there they will get chewed up and spit out.

[SPasse]

Organicreefer,

“spasse had to jump on this one i hope youre not actually hoping for a ground assault.”

1 By “ground assault” I am talking about a limited, targeted assault that attack an identified hideout of Osama bin Laden. I agree identifying his current hideout is highly problematic. If you want to think of this as a special ops, that’s fine. I agree that a conventional ground war could/would be a bloodbath.

2 “personally i think "carpet bombing "is a WAY better option.” Carpet bomb what? There are no significant targets to bomb. The Russians leveled anything even remotely resembling “infrastructure”. Carpet bomb the poor, starving Afghani civilians? Talk about a recipe for a “real” Moslem holy war! We abandoned the Afghans after supplying them with arms so that they could give the Soviets a bloody nose. One million dead Afghanis later, we said thanks a lot, now just go starve.

3 We should have supported the “northern alliance” a long time ago. This was that element of the “freedom fighters” that would have been an alternative to the current Taliban. The “norther alliance” still exists, but has been on the loosing end of the current Afghan civil war. Their leader was also recently assinated. Perhaps the northern alliance, with substantial aid from the US, could help us out a lot.

Regards,

Scott Passe

[icemark]

organicreefer you said

nuclear attack not likely at all,and dont worry pakistan does have nuclear weapons,but they certainly dont have anything at all that can reach north america.

What you said doesn't make sense, Pakistan has been bought onto our side (key word Alliance). Their Nuclear weapons can bomb India which they might do if they thought they had enough support... India and China's ICBMs could reach the USA just fine on retaliation if we are supporting Pakistan.

[SPasse]

Icemark,

The coalition that we are putting together would include (as strange as it sounds) India and Pakistan. (Yes I know about their on going conflicts with each other) If we supported Pakistan against India or China, I could envision your scenario. But I can’t imagine that happening.

What scares me is the thought of one of the terrorists or terrorist allied organizations introducing a one of those “missing” Russian tactical nuclear weapons. (Maybe even on US soil)

Once the “nuclear threshold” has been crossed, you are on a very slippery slope indeed.

Regards,

Scott Passe

[Ninong]

Originally posted by Bamm Bamm
the telebahn??

The telebahn is the cellular phone subsidiary of Deutsch Telekom.

Ninong

Taliban = an extremely repressive Islamic splinter group that controls the country of Afghanistan with financial support from the government of Pakistan and wealthy arabs worldwide. A theocracy in the worst possible sense of the word. A group of clerics that openly supports and encourages jihad (holy war) against infidels and has done so for years. A regime that denies education or employment to women. For something similar in western countries, think of the Spanish Inquisition, or for something a bit more current, check this out: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...otes091901.DTL

[organicreefer]

icemark,of the three,china ,pakistan and india,id say the biggest threat would be pakistan.you said"We are as close to nuclear war as we were in the early 60s"and i wholeheartedly agree,were at least 40 years or so from it

[mrok12]

I beleive that we are very close to "the point of no return". If we must defend pakistan and China is Sworn to defend India, my god. It is my understanding that both India and Pakistan have become members of the nuclear club but lack a delivery system or means of detonation independant from human control, that is they have no "bullet" to start the nuclear reaction remotly. China however does posses this capability although i am not sure to the extent of long range, or intercontienental capability.

We should all be aware that Pakistan and India have been fighting for control of the Kashmir plain for sometime now. I do not trust Pakistan to protect our troops from attacks by it's own people or India not to strike Pakistan Or vice versa.

The tacticle nuke thing is also frieghtening.

"It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine?"
MROK12

[ranaman]

I found this article on options http://reason.com/hod/jw092101.html
What bothers me is describing the jets as weapons of mass destuction, if they were weapons of mass destruction there would be more damage and death. Some pundit was saying these attacks were equivalent to a one or two kiloton explosion.
Let us hope we don't go beyond the Bugs Bunny approach, after all Bugs never hurt anyone who didn't desevere it.
BTW India does have its own sattelite launch vehicles so they should be able to have a home brew rocket that could reach Pakistan. Remember SCUDS are a modernized V-2 so are basically old technology. We came close to causing awar here, flying cruise missles over Paki territory unannounced is not something smart to do, Mr. Clinton.