"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> At 11:11 PM 9/14/01 -0700 Christopher Gwyn wrote:
{snip}
>> ?!?!?! How is it that you think a nuclear response will not slay
>> masses of innocents???
> A tactical nuclear strike against an isolated military facility would not
> necessarily kill masses of innocents.
1.) "not necessarily kill masses of innocents"
2.) and what if they are hiding anonymously in a city?
> Think of a tactical nuke being launched against a US military base in Nevada.
the U.S. response to such a thing would be...? why would the
response of any surviving terrorist group (and there would be
terrorists who weren't at that base) be any different? and world
opinion of the use of nuclear weapons would be...? (i suspect that it
would be seen as disproportionate and the discomfort over it would
obscure the reasons why the U.S. thought it was necessary or
reasonable.)
any actions by the U.S. that are perceived as reasons to use
terrorist techniques against the U.S. - or tolerate those who do - is
a counter-productive action, even if the basis of that perception is
illogical or unreasonable in U.S. eyes.
>> {snip}
>>> If a foreign government was responsible for
>>> what happened, we're going to war. If a foreign government killed 5000
>>> American citizens and we _aren't_ supposed to go to war over that, when the
>>> hell are we supposed to go to war?
>> And if no foreign government was behind the attacks?
> This seems extremely unlikely at this point.
i haven't heard or seen any evidence in the press. plenty of
reasonable speculation, but no evidence.
> It is unlikely that an attack like this could be coordinated, prepared, and
> executed without, at the very least, a safe haven.
it may seem unlikely to you, but it certainly isn't impossible.
dealing with the last point first - a safe haven doesn't have to mean
that the government is in cahoots with them, only that neither the
government or anyone else is interfering with them. i can't think of
anything about the co-ordination, preparation, or execution of these
attacks that _requires_ actual government involvement. businesses all
over the world routinely handle much more complex training, shipping
and staffing arrangements without direct government involvement -
dedicated people can do quite a lot...whether it be good or evil.
(that this _could_ be a non-governmental action also leaves open a
somewhat disquieting possibility - that the apparently most effective
long-term anti-terrorist actions might require not looking too
closely at evidence which perhaps seems to implicate certain members
of a particular government... if there was no way that such an attack
could be done without a government then that hypothetical evidence
would have to be looked at in order to 'find the answer' - but if it
is possible that this hypothetical government wasn't involved, and
implicating them would seriously damage the anti-terrorism effort...)
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
