Arguments for using Strategic Weapons (Nuclear)...

Anonymous posts on a military forum

October 1, 2001

Share this story by E-mail

[Ed. Note: The series of posts below are reproduced unedited, as-is, and contain shocking language and views that we do not support or advocate.]

Military.com Forums > How Should the U.S. Respond? > Arguments for using Strategic Weapons (Nuclear)... Topic Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

All times are PST.


Author: TLDavis - Junior Member
posted Wednesday, 19 September 2001 11:50
Subject: Arguments for using Strategic Weapons (Nuclear)...

I would like to speak out in favor of using nuclear weapons in retaliation for the dastardly events of September 11th. American citizens have been attacked and killed on American soil using weapons of mass destruction (if multiple 100,000 lb. fuel-air explosive cruise missiles guided into a population center killing thousands of people isn't a WMD, you have a strange definition of "weapon", "mass", or "destruction"). These weapons were also aimed at and delivered upon uniformed military personnel. Our national policy for the last fifty years has been that such an attack on the United States would result in the annihilation of the attacking state or states with assured destruction with nuclear weapons. This policy does not require the attacker to have used nuclear weapons themselves, and, in fact, is designed to prevent the first-use of WMD's by the opposing forces. If another country had launched purpose-built missiles into New York, would we hesitate to use the means that would bring about the surest end to the conflict? How many more citizens must be killed before we cross the threshold from limited to full response and pull out all the stops? If we start a limited (in the sense of not using nuclear weapons), conventional military campaign and another terrorist attack occurs, what do you say to the dead? That we thought it was BETTER not do EVERYTHING we could to deter another attack?

Looking at the psychological warfare standpoint, I believe that letting the world know that someone's gonna get it and get it bad will have harboring nations turning over every rock to turn out the perps (not that that should make any difference). If we say we're targeting locations in the terrorist-supporting countries, just looking for a reason to turn their countryside into green glass, then they will stop supporting the thugs. Tell the world if we have to do it twice, the next one's headed to Mecca; that will get the Muslims to turn against the terrorists themselves. Who cares what Saudia Arabia thinks, since our relationship with them hasn't brought about stability or respect in the region or protected our interests (that is, kept us alive and un-attacked) and we shouldn't be willing to let Americans die in their offices to protect the people who live over there? But we have to pull the trigger. If we limit our response in any way, the persons that would commit the types of crimes committed September 11th will simply say, hey, that wasn't too bad; they could have used nukes!

If we limit our response to not use nuclear weapons against the organizers of these terrorist acts and the countries that cashed their checks for fear of retaliation or escalation, then the mere possibility that they have developed chemical or biological weapons will have meant that THEIR strategic weapons have worked and ours have failed and we will have lost the war right then and there. As for any other country that objects to the U.S. protecting our strategic position (i.e., don't attack us or we'll nuke you), let's just look them dead in the eye and say again: you are either one of us or one of them, take your pick now.

The vision of a nuclear attack spawning all-out annihilation is a relic of the cold war. We have nukes of all shapes and sizes, clean and dirty, some just right for surgical city killing. The alternative is a long, drawn-out tactical war without a tactical objective, no targets or armies to take or defeat, and sending in worldcops won't kill the cause. So we go in and invade Afghanistan (for example). What next? Do we occupy them forever, with our soldiers dying every time they turn their back on a local? Do we move in, look at the rubble, then just go home? How does that prevent another strike? Since this cannot be won as a tactical war, it must be fought as a strategic one. We face the same crossroads we were at towards the end of WWII in the Pacific theater: to invade Japan would have required taking every island, every cave, every town, village, and city, and either "arresting" or killing every citizen, and that still wouldn't have taken the fight out of them. We must influence their thinking an a way that conventional means cannot, especially since conventional U.S. military presence in the region is one of their chief grievances. At the same time, we cannot protect the safety of each airliner or building from suicidal maniacs without compromising our liberty too greatly for a free people to bear. We ourselves must become the bringers of Terror, a Terror too unspeakable to contemplate ever bringing down upon themselves again.

We must send the message now that we won't pull any punches in response to the use of four WMD's inside our borders. To do any less is to simply leave the door open to another attack. The world may say "but they used nukes!", but the world will also say that we were never attacked that way again.


Author: galloglas - Member
posted Wednesday, 19 September 2001 11:57
Subject: how about

The Neutron bomb? three days after dropping end of problem.


Author: 26v20 - Member
posted Wednesday, 19 September 2001 12:02
Subject: nukes

I agree with you totally, TL...too bad the *****s in Wash. DC don't...you don't expect them to give up their gravy-train, do you?


[Source: http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=78919038&f=1741941282&m=3381915982 ]


       From Military.com, "The Trusted Online Home For America's Military Community," "The most popular military-related Web site in the world with over 2 million unique visitors each month. Military.com newsletters reach more than 4 million people each month." ("In the United States, the entire military community is 80 million strong.")

       Published under the provision of U.S. Code, Title 17, section 107.

                                  E-mail this article to someone
       Enter her/his E-mail address: 


Related Internal Links

This Week's Internal Links

Freedom of Speech and Swans - by Gilles d'Aymery

Memorial - by Alma A. Hromic

For Washington, A Lining Of Black Gold In This Dark Cloud? - by Stephen Gowans

Anarchy Is Loosed Upon The World - by Alma A. Hromic

The Enduring Reign of the Shruggers - by Antony C. Black

Soldier, Can You Hear? - by Andreas Toupadakis

Can We Change? - by Michael W. Stowell

Remember What Makes Us Great - by Eli Beckerman

My Letter To Government Officials - by Helen L. H. Mader

Questions and Answers on Achieving Peace - by Andreas Toupadakis

Media Pundits Advocate Civilian Targets - by FAIR

Bring Back Napalm - by Anonymous posters on a military forum

The Armagheddon Game - by Anonymous posters on a community forum

If Dr. Seuss Was On This Plane... - by Aleksandra Priestfield

The War Prayer - by Mark Twain



Published October 1, 2001
[Copyright]-[Archives]-[Resources]-[Main Page]