SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (2113)9/12/2001 6:50:26 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 51717
 
I don't think we should blow up Afghanistan for having harbored him. I do however think that if we get evidence that it was a Bin Ladin operation that harboring him is no longer acceptable and that continuing to do so would make the Taliban as much our enemy as he is.

I personally would prefer surgical raids,or hit teams- but I don't know whether that is possible Bombs are notoriously unreliable for killing the people you really want to kill

If we could putt off a surgical raid, or a hit team or even the more difficult snatch team, then that would be good. If we bomb Bin Laden's compound we are unlikely to hit many innocent civilians. Unfortunately we are also unlikely to get Bin Laden. The area he controls is decently large and doesn't have any important obvious targets. Unless we use tac nukes or massive carpet bombing we would be blowing up tents with $2mil cruise missiles. With a cruise missile attack like our last attack against Bin Ladin we would probably take out a couple of dozen of his soldiers and use a half million dollars worth of ordinance (or even more) for each without getting anyone high in his command structure. Even if we did carpet bomb the compound there is a good chance that Bin Ladin would be somewhere else. If they would only conveniently concentrate in identifiable target areas like the Iraqis did it would be a lot easier...

Tim