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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nite-Man who wrote (193770)	10/19/2001 2:35:20 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

retaliate with same If the U.S. wants to take on the world-wide reaction that would come from using weapons of mass destruction then it ought to at least get the best "bang for the buck". A tactical nuke is showy, loud, and makes the statement that we have even bigger nukes at home, but it really is not a good weapon against entrenched troops in scattered locations. U.S. troops used to sit in trenches just over a mile from ground zero on some Nevada tests and managed to live long enough to put up a good fight (many years in fact). The ground however remains radioactive for a long time and the radiation drifts into friendly skies as well as foes. It seems that if the U.S. is going to get condemmed anyway it would go ahead and drop a few million gallons of chemical agents, sarin and heavy gasses that would seep into caves. This would exterminate whole mountain ranges. Either one would make the U.S. a pariah so it is stupid to pick nukes. For the U.S. to eliminate terrorism in the long term, it will have to lead by example. TP