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.

Pastimes : AMAT Off-Topic Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (19)	10/24/2001 9:57:48 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 786

I don't know if I can give you a simple yes/no answer to every scenario, but I will answer your questions to the best of my ability. 1. I consider the postulated situation to be a combination of very unlikely scenarios. All of the expert opinion I've seen is that chemical warfare is not that easy to do effectively. Assuming the first attack actually succeeded in killing thousands, then after that everyone would be on the lookout. How the heck would they move the required volume of material around without being spotted? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they somehow pulled it off, the first concern should be to stop the attacks. Nuking Bin Laden's hole would not accomplish that. The immediate chain of attacks at home would have to be dealt with first at home. Just look at how the airliner attacks were stopped. There is evidence that more were imminent, and that they were thwarted not only by the bravery of the people on the Pennsylvania plane, but also by the immediate grounding of all aircraft nationwide. There are all kinds of things that would not ordinarily be done, that can be done in a state of national emergency. We are not so helpless that we have to resort to nukes the first time the going gets rough. Now with regard to getting bin Laden and crew, I would not go nuclear in this scenario, for the reasons I have already outlined. I think that using nukes for anything other than deterring others' use of nukes would dilute the effectiveness of the deterrence. Nuclear exchanges are a great enough evil that I think we should avoid them by every means possible. If in fact we did "conclude that there is no way to get to him with troops or with Conventional weapons," then I think we would be wrong in that conclusion and would need to think about means that might have been overlooked. That would be a situation where responding in kind (by flooding the caves with chemicals) could be justified, but I doubt that it would be the most effective means. Maybe filling them with a mixture of oxygen and jet fuel and igniting it would be appropriate. Or just find all the entrances and wait. There are always more alternatives than you thought when things get desperate enough. In the event that my viewpoint does not prevail, and it is decided to use nukes for other than deterring nukes, then Bush should do as his father did in the Gulf war, when he gave unmistakable warning that use of chemical or biological weapons by Saddam Hussein would have the severest consequences. Unfortunately, it is too late to issue such a warning in this war, because the biological weapons use has already started. 2. If we are nuked, we must nuke in return, and we must make sure that everyone knows that we will do so. That is the essence of nuclear deterrence. I don't believe I said anything to the contrary. Any target or targets should be chosen so as to punish the guilty and spare the innocent as much as possible. 3. I don't claim to know how our military would have responded in that scenario, but I never said anything about calling off retaliatory strikes to nuclear attacks. We must not underestimate the enemy, but at the same time we must not build him up in our minds into some kind of undefeatable god. BTW, here is a good editorial on some of what may be needed to enhance homeland security. opinionjournal.com