From the news reports we got back during the battle of Tora Bora there was substantial signal intelligence to suggest that Usama bin Ladin was in that region.
That is a fact. Now, the assumptions begin.
Assuming task force gray fox or other intelligence assets could have fixed his position to within one grid square in a remote region, why didn’t we order an immediate nuclear strike?
The region is isolated, predominantly unpopluated and not that sensitive to environmental issues. Also, the area in the path of fall out cloud could have been effectively administered for evacuation.
It would seem that three warheads would have likely done the job of eliminating the target. Tora Bora mountain range would now be Tora Bora valley and a very, very clear message would have been sent to terrorists around the world.
We maintain a nuclear arsenal but it is a white elephant. It is too powerful to use, but too useful to ignore.
How would things be different now if we had used nuclear weapons at Tora Bora? What would Kim Jong Il do if he saw the U.S. had the resolve to use any means to combat terrorism. How would terrorists and nations who risk harboring them have responded if America “took off the gloves” when they felt they had Bin Ladin cornered?
I think you are spot on with the utility argument: nukes are a very efficient way to turn mountains into valleys.
The trouble is that nukes are primarily a political weapon. (thank you cold war and MAD)
“What would Kim Jong Il do if he saw the U.S. had the resolve to use any means to combat terrorism.”
Probably make an assessment the likelihood of getting enough concessions to continue in power v. the personal satisfaction of nuking South Korea as he goes out in a cloud of radioactive dust.
"How would terrorists and nations who risk harboring them have responded if America “took off the gloves” when they felt they had Bin Ladin cornered? "
Terrorists would react be moving into population centers.
Terrorist supporting states would start wailing about the Great Satan to whip up the non-aligned small fry nations.
The medium sized would start looking at France who would start screeching about how a new alliance was needed to counter balance the US.
Russia would start nuking Cheneyans using the US example as would China in Taiwan.
India and Pakistan would start glowing in the dark.
And finally, a Congressional investigation would establish that OBL had left the region well in advance of the initial bombing and recommend new intelligence reforms.
“The region is predominantly unpopulated and not that sensitive to environmental issues.” WHAT?! So it’s cool to kill a few unsuspecting people? Also, you talk as if there is a place on Earth that it is OK to detonate a nuclear bomb, which conveniently enough is about as far from Michigan as possible. I don’t believe there is even one place on this entire planet that is not sensitive to a nuclear detonation.
“It would seem that three warheads would have likely done the job of eliminating the target. Tora Bora mountain range would now be Tora Bora valley and a very, very clear meassage would have been sent to terrorists around the world.” That mountain range is probably millions of years old, and there is likely to be species that are native to that range that would then face extinction. Fallout is worldwide, especially when detonation occurs at altitude. It’s not acceptable to me to be dropping bombs in mountains, nor any place for that matter, as they are one of the most pristine places we have left. And for what? Because we think that some lunatic MIGHT be there? You can kill OBL with guns, or even nuclear weapons, but you absolutely can NOT bring light into a world of darkness by such means. Killing people that kill people to show that killing people is wrong is not the answer. The only thing this would really tell the “terrorists” is to hide out in big cities.
How would things be different you ask? I can’t say exactly of course, but I’m sure the global community and a large part of the US population would be unglued. Mayhem, for sure. The marches for peace that we saw before the buildup to the war/invasion would be tiny in comparison to marches that would occurr if the US had used a nuclear bomb in Afghanistan.
**The marches for peace that we saw before the buildup to the war/invasion would be tiny in comparison to marches that would occurr if the US had used a nuclear bomb in Afghanistan. **
When have peace marches ever stopped a war from occurring? I’m not being a smart-ass. Just asking a question about the realities of the world we live in.
**The marches for peace that we saw before the buildup to the war/invasion would be tiny in comparison to marches that would occurr if the US had used a nuclear bomb in Afghanistan. **
When have peace marches ever stopped a war from occurring? I’m not being a smart-ass. Just asking a question about the realities of the world we live in.
Mahatma Kahuna
How can I point to a war that never occurred? You are right though, the people marching are generally not in a position of power to stop or start a war. I assume most of the peoples of the world have never seen Lethal Weapon and don’t really give a shit about Danny Glover being at the head of some march. The point I was trying to make is that the world is more connected than it has ever been, mainly because of the internet, and I believe the global population would freak out. Ironically enough, the world would be in a state of unity against the United States.
Tom, I don’t necessarily disagree with your implication that it may have been justified to respond with nukes if the intel was firm enough to determine that OSBL was there.
I do think that politically, using nukes would have been a hard sell for the US. I mean, for all the power the US wields, it is a long way from being a rogue state - it is on pretty good terms with most of the other countries in the world and I think those relationships, with solid countries, may have been jeapordised.
Look at the controversy, still, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peaceniks the world over still point the finger at the US for using nukes on the Japanese. Something that always astonishes me, but there you go. Funny, really - if someone starts a fight with me they can’t really quibble about how I choose to finish it.
I remember before invasion of Afghanistan there was an interview with a former USSR soldier who had fought there and he mentioned the best weapon for this type of terrain would be a very small nuclear weapon…one that has a much smaller destruction range than the one that hit Hiroshima. Because the size there would much less evironmental effect etc…
I think that it would have been well suited but because nuclear weapons haven’t been used since WWII it probably would have caused a great deal of international controversy. Also it probably would have fostered an even greater widespread hate of the US and created support for the Taliban and al quaeda within the middle east.
The point I was trying to make is that the world is more connected than it has ever been, mainly because of the internet, and I believe the global population would freak out.
You mean the same people who “rioted” in Seattle a couple of years ago against the WTO and the globalization of the world economy, and the globalization of the world in general?
Using Nukes to kill one guy is a staggeringly disproportionate response. As tempting as it may be to use nukes, part of the reason we don’t use them is so as not to lend legitimacy to using them. We don’t want other coutnries to think it’s ok to use nukes to take care of minor problems here and there, and let’s face it, bin Laden himself is a minor problem relative to the greater whole of the terrorism problem. In order to fix his position, you have to have guys on the ground. That means they get nuked too, and we don’t nuke our own guys. If we let them leave to get out of the way, then we no longer have any certainty that he’s still there. As far as evacuating people in the area, I don’t think there’s anyone who will tell you that you can accurately predict the fallout pattern of a nuke. Also, even if you evacuate all the people in the way of the blast and the fallout, and you do it in time, without letting bin Laden know something is going on, then you’ve still rendered the region uninhabitable for years after. Nukes are not a military option, they are a political tool. I don’t think Kim Jong Il would give two craps about us using nukes on terrorists, because he’s itching to use nukes himself. And the deterrence factor for a terrorist just doesn’t exist like it does for a national govt. Terrorists are fine with becoming martyrs for the cause, and a quick death by incineration isn’t that bad in the scheme of things. Basically, nukes would maybe get OBL, probably not deter further attacks, probably hurt massive amounts of civilians, definitely damage the region for years to come, and generally lose us a lot of political capital and face worldwide.
Lots of good responses. Especially Tri N OC. You guys could be on my Cabinet any day.
I tend to agree with the political “fallout” Tri N OC mentions. And also that it would legitimize an agenda for nuclear terrorism among splinter groups.
Probably be a mess.
It would be nice to catch the guy though. He’s created a lot of problems.
Dear G_d are you serious??? I was going to write you in, but not now.
I think as soon as we kill Osama someone else will take his place. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t kill him.
I don’t think Tom was ready to pull the trigger, nor would he have after talking to his newly formed cabinet. It was just one of the potential options of infinity that laid before him and he wanted to get an opinion on why it was or was not a viable option. You voted Badnarik anyway didn’t you?
Nukes were a very drastic way to end a world war, to use them to assassinate one bloke would be outrageous. However, assuming you wanted to do it that way, it would be because you didn’t have exact intelligence that he was, say, in a given building at a given time, just that he was in a specific area. Now nobody has pointed out that the nuke will remove all evidence of who was there beforehand. So you won’t have a body, and Usama will be like Elvis, there will be sightings and rumours forever. I think it’s important that everyone be certain that we got him, because he’s no longer really a major threat to our security, but more of a symbol.
OK newly appointed cabinet, this is what I want, and I want it fast gentlemen. This is my best case scenario:
Get these Gray Fox blockheads to find OBL. I want his location pinned down, zero/zero, to within one meter. No mistakes gentlemen, no embarrasments.
When Gray Fox finds him, use a low key, non-attributable asset to fix him. I prefer government men, you pick- no rivalries. Please do not use hired help and for God sake gentlemen, no outside help. That didn’t work for us in the first place.
Once you fix him I want flexy cuffs and no orange jumpsuits. They have already extracted too much political capitol from the orange jumpsuits. Just put him in flexi cuffs, get him into a bird and out to a carrier. Hold him off shore. Now that he has taken credit for 9/11 on video we’ll let the courts deal with him.
Bring him back alive, low key, no fanfare, in flexicuffs, no orange jumpsuit. Do not- I repeat- do not shave his beard. That will be construed as a religious affront during Ramadan. Tell your men to style his hair if necessary, but do not touch that beard.
Assuming task force gray fox or other intelligence assets could have fixed his position to within one grid square in a remote region, why didn’t we order an immediate nuclear strike?
Assuming that we could fix his position that accurately, and assuming the rest of the conditions you laid out, I’d support the use of nukes. The political fall-out would be bad, but I think we could weather it, if we could demonstrate that the only people anywhere near the area were terrorist forces.
But if we were wrong, and bin Laden turned up alive three months later, good grief. Disaster.
Darn. OK, well, sometimes you’ll have that. At least you got him. Way to go. Clean up some of those photos and get those over to the Press Secretary.
No speeches on this one. No press conference for me. We’re playing this like it is just business as ususal, all part of the plan. Typical day. Another day at the office in the fight against terror.
Oh, and those guys who got him- whoever those fellas are. Give 'em whatever they want.
