Gautam Mukunda said:
> country that uses any type of weapon of mass destruction against the United
> States will receive a nuclear response. Now, initial casualty estimates
> were 20,000-30,000 people. I think that qualifies as mass destruction.
It's not quite the same, though, is it? While the destruction caused
by the hijacked airplanes was indeed massive, the airplanes themselves
aren't actually classified as weapons of mass destruction. I think it's
nothing compared to what a nuclear bomb exploded above Manhattan
would have done. Or the release of biologic agents into the air. We
could be dealing with millions of deaths, not just thousands.
> Now, I _am_ talking about war. As are our leaders. Of course our nation
> is talking about war. 5000 of our citizens are dead. Do you want us to
> bake cookies and sing kumbaya? If a foreign government was responsible for
> what happened, we're going to war. If a foreign government killed 5000
What about the degrees inbetween? There are many more options than
"bake cookies and sing kumbaya" and "blast the ****ers off the face
of the planet" (that one's not intended to be a quote from anyone or
directed at anyone . . . please don't take offense). I don't think
anyone's advocating that the U.S. sit down and do nothing, but
I'd like to see the dial turned up very slowly, as opposed to lashing
out immediately.
> what would _you_ have the United States do?
I know that this question wasn't actually directed at me, but
I'll give it a shot anyway. Note that everything from this
point forward is being proposed by somebody who really doesn't
have any experience in international releations . . .
First, we have to know without a doubt who was behind this.
Absolute proof. When we've got that, we restrict our operations
to those people.
If it's just a group of terrorists (ie: not a government):
In this case, we have to find out where they're hiding
and demand their release for trial. This is where things
have perhaps the greatest opportunity to go bad. If the
country flat-out refuses to do so in the face of overwhelming
evidence, we've probably got little choice but to continue
as if it's the government itself that was behind the plot.
As much pressure as possible has to be applied if the country
is resisting. The Bush administration has been doing an
awful lot of posturing that's probably actually good for
this purpose. I know if I were in charge of a country
holding whoever is responsible for this that I'd certainly
think twice before keeping the guilty parties in my borders.
Once those responsible are in custody, I say
put them on trial. Have it out in Europe; not even a single
American on the jury. (Does the man who had his house
broken into get to have a deciding vote in the trial?)
Since NATO's evidentally willing to support us in this
venture, we could divide up the jury between all participating
nations somehow. (I'm not trying to downplay other nations'
support of us [speaking specifically of Australia here, but
I know there's more], that just seemed convenient.)
Then, when judgement has been passed, accept it. This
way, we've brought justice to the people who deserve it,
we can't be accused later of doing anything out of pure
revenge, and we can begin to work towards healing the
hatred that helps kindle terrorism.
If it's a government:
First off, while I understand the Bush administration's
desire to group all countries sympathetic to terrorism
together in this struggle, I just don't think it's right to
start going after anyone who COULD have done it or wanted
to. I may WANT to do something illegal, but what seperates
me from the person who actually DOES that thing entitles
me to remain free from punishment from the deed. That said,
there's probably little to do at this point other than
staging military operations to deal with the problem. If it
comes to this, I'd like to see VERY surgical strikes at
effective military targets of the countries responsible.
Something that minimizes civilian involvement as much as
possible. It seems that a large portion of citizens living
in countries that might have done this are, as a whole,
somewhat unhappy with their current situation. If we avoid
doing civilian damage as much as possible, there's a chance
that we could be seen, perhaps for the first time, in a
positive light by these people, which would help us avoid
potential conflicts in the future.
Well, there we have it. The undeniable Solution To All
Our Problems. :)
I'm sure that there are parts of my scenario that are
foolishly optimistic at best, but in an ideal world this
is what I'd like to see the U.S. do.
-CJ
