Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (8668)	9/26/2001 12:21:52 AM
From: Area51	Respond to of 23153

I don't think we should fight this thing with one hand tied behind our backs. I think there is no weapon that is too cruel to be used on these pathetic creatures that think it is fun to fly planeloads of civilians into the WTC. Unlike our opponents I do agree that we should try to avoid civilian casualties or else we lower ourselves to their level. Message 16359903

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (8668)	9/26/2001 8:17:45 AM
From: Malcolm Winfield	Respond to of 23153

Kodiak, The thought of losing the 7001st person in a ground war makes me sick. So nukes do sound attractive at first blush, but the lasting ramifications would be huge. If we don't already have extremists walking into Ohio Taco Bells and blowing themselves up, we certainly would after a nuclear strike. It's all political. We can drop literally tons of ordinance on the Taliban and accomplish the same thing and it will be considered fair play. I heard Bush saying that his goal was not to "topple" the Taliban. I hope that we can interpret that statement as "By the time we're finished, there won't be a Taliban". There's a lot of work to be done here. We still have the chief rat to take out, Saddam. Without removing Saddam, I believe this war will be completely worthless. And I mean completely worthless. Malcolm.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (8668)	9/26/2001 10:44:29 AM
From: JungleInvestor	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 23153

Re: <<But if we cock up this war and manage not only to NOT destroy this evil but somehow do something (drop tacticals) to make it bigger and stronger, then we have signed the death warrant for many many more of our own>> kb, I usually agree with your thoughtful posts, but this time I strongly disagree. Terrorists are not people who you can reason with! They are going to continue attacking to win with any weapons at their disposal, no matter what weapons we use against them. Do you not think that they are planning right now attacks with non-conventional weapons (aka nuclear, biological, chemical)? Do you think the hijackers who were interested in U.S. cropdusters were performing their last humanitarian act - a crop duster technological transfer to the MidEast to rid their crops of locust plagues? We are at war. If there is anything that we should have learned from the Vietnam War, it's that we should not go to war if we do not have the intention of winning, and this means not pulling any punches. This means using, intelligently, any weapons at our disposal to gain the upper hand. Sam Cohen makes excellent points on just how a small neutron bomb could be used to gain an advantage in war, by effectively destroying miltary sites/personnel AND LIMITING CIVILIAN LOSS. He said the Gulf War, in which conventional bombs were used, cost more civilian lives than soldiers lives. A small neutron bomb can be used to destroy training camps and to target leaders (Taliban, Osama bin Laden, etc.) based on intelligence. Intelligence already knows where the Taliban are busily building bunkers. A neutron bomb would destroy these and anyone around them. Saddam Hussein is surely involved in this tragedy and he also certainly is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against us and other countries. IMO, the U.S. should use neutron bombs to destroy the Republican Guard when they are away from population centers - they do a lot of travelling in the desert. Other potential neutron bomb targets would be training centers in countries who give safe harbor to terrorists (e.g., Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, Libya, Syria, Palestinian lands, etc.) as long as they were isolated from population centers. We are at war! Destroying terrorists and preventing loss of life among our soldiers and innocent civilians should be the objective. Let's learn from the past and NOT tie our hands behind our backs by limiting the weapons we use so as not to make terrorists angry and vengeful!! Terrorists are already, by definition, angry and vengeful and they will use weapons of mass destruction whenever they can no matter what we do!!