Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/19/2001 8:03:46 AM EDT
Congressman Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation Jim Burns, CNSNews.com Friday, Oct. 19, 2001 Emphasizing that his idea is just an option, Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., believes the United States should consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden's terrorist network in Afghanistan if that network is linked to the recent anthrax incidents in the United States. Buyer, a Persian Gulf War veteran and member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, thinks small, specialized nuclear weapons, not as powerful as the atom bombs that were dropped on Japan in World War II, could be used on the caves where members of bin Laden's network have taken shelter. However, Buyer emphasized that the use of the weapons would only 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. We'd be very naive 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," said Buyer in an interview with Indianapolis television station WRTV. Buyer stressed that he did not advocate the use of full-power nuclear bombs, but acknowledged that much of the world wouldn't see the difference. Buyer's press secretary, Laura Zuckerman, told CNSNews.com Thursday: "This is not an option that the congressman has called upon the White House or anybody of the military operations to take. He is just saying he would support it, if this an option that they would like to take. "He's not advocating nuclear war. He's a Gulf War veteran, he knows the horrors of war and he would never look to escalate something in this way. If they [were] quelled somewhat by the threat of a nuclear attack, then the threat itself might be enough," said Zuckerman. Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the United States would remain on high alert for some time although there were no specific terrorist threats, she said, nor any evidence that terrorists had gotten their hands on nuclear weapons. "There are reports of all kinds of things, some true and some not. But there's no reason for the American people at this point to fear a specific threat of that kind. We have no credible evidence of a specific threat of that kind," Rice said.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:06:57 AM EDT
I think I need to move to Indiana so I can vote for this guy when I turn 18. That's what I have been saying all along. A couple W-90 detonated on their 'holy land' and turning it into a massive glass plate would be fitting.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:07:54 AM EDT
I can hear the Libs now: Liberal Asshole: "Damned Redneck Hick Republican Militiaman Thinks We Oughta Bomb Those Poor Innocent Afghanis and Osama Bin Laden before He Is Convicted By The Supreme U.N."
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:09:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/19/2001 8:09:03 AM EDT by redray]
us foreign policy dictates that we respond with OUR weapon of mass destruction when attacked with the enemy's version, whatever that may be. im with the congressman. we would be foolish not to. personally, im getting quite tired of listening to the goddamned talking heads on the news, repeating the same shit over and over, drawing their own conclusions, editing reports... lets get this shit over with; defeat the fuckers quickly, thoroughly, and without remorse. now is not the time to be pussyfooting around.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:10:18 AM EDT
My Hero! [IMG]http://www.data-techniques.net/cwm/otn/other/Sun-1.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:23:06 AM EDT
I like it. No reason to play "tunnel rat" in these Taliban caves. Just make these caves a "permanent home" for the vermin that infest them.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:35:34 AM EDT
Nuke em and let Allah sort em out.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 10:25:08 AM EDT
Man am I glad I live in Indiana. Decent gun laws, and great congressmen. We have another rep who talked about "bombing terrorists back to the stone age" about 5 months ago. I'm glad to have him in office.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 12:19:49 PM EDT
Light the silly shitheads up and watch them bake. Payback is a bitch.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 12:35:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Smeghead: Congressman Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation
View Quote
Is there really any such thing as a "limited" nuclear retaliation?
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 1:40:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LongIslandShooter:
Originally Posted By Smeghead: Congressman Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation
View Quote
Is there really any such thing as a "limited" nuclear retaliation?
View Quote
Yeah, it means we only pop a few nukes and hope no one shoots back.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 4:43:56 PM EDT
Dumbest idea I've ever heard. Fear drives paranoia, paranoia drives a person to act foolishly without weighing the consequences of such action. He is a fool. Just think about the repercussions.... This is not a way to lead the world. We have much more to loose than gain by this.... Just think, that tiny thread that holds rogue nations from giving terrorists access to their nukes will get that much thinner if we act this way. It is again our nation's fear of american GI casualty that breeds these foolish thoughts.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 7:51:43 PM EDT
Just think about the repercussions....
View Quote
OK, I've thought about it — and I still like the idea. The "tiny thread" you mention is virtually non-existant already. The chances of terrorists obtaining nukes grow stronger every day (with or without the help of cooperative nations), and no "gentleman's agreement" is going to stop them from using them. The sole advantage we currently enjoy is in superior numbers and delivery systems. We should exploit every advantage we have, including this one.
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:07:50 PM EDT
Nuke them now or nuke them later after they use bio weapons or nukes on us. They started this 20 years ago with the US iranian embassy takeover and have been at it ever since, we've yet to really respond! These people only understand total domination, there's no reasoning or civilized way to deal with them. It's them or our freedoms. NUKE THEM!!!
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:08:10 PM EDT
I agree, Nuke'em![img]http://wsphotofews.excite.com/002/CT/JG/Vq/lZ42358.jpg[/img] The Peacekeeper's and Minuteman III's are ready! [img]http://www.stratcom.mil/Forces/LGM_118a.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:14:37 PM EDT
Another vote for the Atomic Boogie...
Link Posted: 10/19/2001 8:23:05 PM EDT
So you propose using nukes?? Great, guaranteed to receive condemnation and alienate even some of our closest allies. Think about it.... Going down this path is dangerous for all involved. Yes, our response should be methodical, systematic, and disproportionate but going the route of nukes is elevating the situation that will cause even some of our allies to fear us. Not because we have the most powerful weapons/armed forces in the world (the world knows this already), but they will (justifiably so) marginal threshold to resort to nukes. We need the cooperation of as many countries as we can get to face this enemy. I am so proud of our leadership so far in planning and going at this at all possible angles (military, financial, political etc.). Resort to your nuke-em strategy and see how soon we'll spiral into WW III. Remember, the foe we face now is not like Japan/Germany during WW II where we had nukes and they didn't. We don't have that luxury anymore. We need to have and sustain active cooperation of as many nations as possible. We can deal with those that don't cooperate and are suspected of producing WOMD forcefully as strategically appropriate.
Top Top