RE: Afghanistani Warfare.

["Dom de Bechi" <dddl21455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A strong reaction will be counter-productive, even if you do manage to hit
the right spot with surgical precision. However, you're quite right: if you
don't react then you're perceived as being weak. That's the shield that
terrorists hide behind. They are cowards,  but extremely dangerous ones.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen R. Wilcoxon [mailto:wilcoxon@citilink.com]
Sent: 14 September 2001 20:37
To: millenniums-end-l@firedrake.org
Subject: Re: Afghanistani Warfare.


>        I know we WON'T do this, but seriously, percentage scale....what do
> you guys and gals think the world reaction would be if we nuked the SOB??
>        I think 80% would be with us...

I think it would be more like 50% -- too many people/countries are
horrified at the mere thought of a nuke.

Anybody else think it looks like we're in a lose-lose situation?  If we
don't do enough, we're "weak" and get hit by more terrorists.  If we do
enough, other groups "see, they are the aggressor" and we get hit by more
terrorists.  The only solution (not much of one) I can see is to react so
strongly no country or group would consider harboring any terrorists that
attack the US.  As an example (the only one I could come up with that I
think has any chance (of course, I'm not a military/political strategist)),
cruise missiles with tactical nukes against every camp of every terrorist
group that has attacked the US).  One of the problems being that some of
the "camps" are in the middle of cities (specifically so that we can't
bomb them).


--
Millennium's End list: mail millenniums-end-l-request@firedrake.org with
subject "unsubscribe" to leave