What if Bush nuked Afghanistan after 9/11?

[SouthoftheAndes]

You need to gtfo with your zionist crap. Nobody takes you seriously.

I never agreed with nuking Afghanistan I merely said I could see the logicality of such a strike. Furthermore, I advocate the destruction of heroin which is one of the worlds greatest evils.

Also, why is it that you think Iran is NOT a threat?

It's useful to remember and it can't be stated enough that SouthoftheAndes is a strawman account. All of the positions he takes are done with the intent of undermining that position by making especially outrageous statements and claims. He used to be even less subtle, believe it or not. Look at his older posts.

Only partially true.

I am mostly always honest and my posts are reflective of my actual views. The exceptions are when I ask "questions" in threads. For instance look at the thread "The Netherlands withdraw food & Shelter from Failed Asylum Seekers". I ask the following question.

1) Why should Germany remain white majority white or Christian?

I asked that not because I genuinely want to know, but rather because I wanted to get a response from people that is defensive. Personally I think Germany should remain majority white and largely ethnically homogeneous but I wanted to stir the pot by getting people to think deeply about that statement. Why shouldn't Germany remain majority white? Why can other nations remain majority whatever they are and why is it mainly white nations that are hit with the "guilt, shame" and insane multiculturalism and radical egalitarian principles?

 

[KILL KILL]

Anytime the U.S. is in some sort of conflict, they draw up plans for EVERY possible situation. The government likely has plans in place for Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and even Syria. It doesn't mean that it would actually occur.

Let's pretend that one day, GW woke up and was feeling groggy and ordered a nuclear attack on Afghanistan. Within 24 hours, all credibility that the U.S. had would go out the window. It would be disastrous internationally as well as domestically. The president would likely end up on trial.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Anytime the U.S. is in some sort of conflict, they draw up plans for EVERY possible situation. The government likely has plans in place for Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and even Syria. It doesn't mean that it would actually occur.

Let's pretend that one day, GW woke up and was feeling groggy and ordered a nuclear attack on Afghanistan. Within 24 hours, all credibility that the U.S. had would go out the window. It would be disastrous internationally as well as domestically. The president would likely end up on trial.

I really doubt that. I could easily see the Canadians and Brits among others going a long with it.

 

[cabear]

Nuke Afghanistan? Which rock do you choose to destroy? Plus I doubt itd do anything other then make the dead martyrs

 

[KILL KILL]

I really doubt that. I could easily see the Canadians and Brits among others going a long with it.

I don't think anyone would defend the use of a nuclear weapon.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Being "on the table" really isn't anything. I highly doubt it was ever a real consideration. It makes no sense to nuke an entire country over the action of a terror group.

 

[JosephDredd]

@Dredd, links from mainstream news websites. One before, and one after.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/the_us_refuses_to_negotiate_with_the_taliban

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...bin-laden-for-trial-before-911/1#.VeQUJPntlBc

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/ (this one discusses the assassination of Bin Laden)

Those were phenomenal. Thank you.

So the Taliban did offer to kill Bin Laden for America as early as 1998 and the Taliban was trying to turn him over before 9/11 happened.

One thing I don't understand is in the Charlie Rose interview you posted: I would have liked to have the Pakistani (Taliban?) man explain more thoroughly his thoughts on how he does not think Bin Laden has ever been a terrorist even though Bin Laden claimed responsibility for many terrorist acts before 9/11.

 

[JosephDredd]

The military draws up plans for all kinds of situations just for the mental gymnastics of it.

They have always played with what if situations even against our best allies as a learning tool.

I'm well aware of that and I know that America's allies, like Canada, have drafted plans to attack America just for that reason. However, since this is such a common practice I would not expect German allies to be disturbed if these nuclear talks were taking place in that context.

That's what made the difference to me as I read this article.

 

[My Spot]

Those were phenomenal. Thank you.

So the Taliban did offer to kill Bin Laden for America as early as 1998 and the Taliban was trying to turn him over before 9/11 happened.

One thing I don't understand is in the Charlie Rose interview you posted: I would have liked to have the Pakistani (Taliban?) man explain more thoroughly his thoughts on how he does not think Bin Laden has ever been a terrorist even though Bin Laden claimed responsibility for many terrorist acts before 9/11.

That still would've left KSM (who was also responsible for the first attack on the WTC in 93).

 

[JosephDredd]

As soon as the mushroom clouds blossomed I would have bought up every Afghan rug I could find and sell them for ten times the price.

I'd be rich.

Someone should look into if Netanyahu cornered the Persian Rug market.

 

[JosephDredd]

That still would've left KSM (who was also responsible for the first attack on the WTC in 93).

Good point. Would a world without Bin Laden in 1998 have taken a different path? Or would someone else have stepped up and done the job? It's an especially interesting question if we accept Bin Laden's claims that 9/11 was the one terrorist attack he did not claim.

 

[Strychnine]

I'm the last person to defend Bush on anything but I seriously doubt the Taliban would give up Bin Laden for trial in Saudi Arabia if the thing wasn't rigged in advance. Just a ploy to get sanctions lifted imo. Although who knows with Bush, he never seemed to care much about who actually was behind the attacks in the first place.

Bush suggested in a press conference that Bin Laden was not a top priority for his administration.

"

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I don't think anyone would defend the use of a nuclear weapon.

I misread. I thought he meant a legitimate scenario/use for a nuclear weapon. In the case of Bush going nuts and ordering random nuclear strike then I agree with you. Nobody would support that.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I can't even wrap my head around how enormously wrong it would have been to use nuclear weapons as a response.

 

[Vitamin C]

Where would you drop the nuke? The Taliban seems spread out throughout the mountains and in Pakistan.

Nuke Afghanistan? Which rock do you choose to destroy? Plus I doubt itd do anything other then make the dead martyrs

I would imagine that at this point in history, technologically, the plan would have been to use tactical nukes rather than the strategic nukes you'd normally think of, such as those used on Japan.

I remember reading during the early Afghanistan war about tactical "bunker buster" type nukes that were designed to penetrate deep layers of rock or concrete, and the idea would be that these could be used with precision and efficiency against the caves that were being used by the Taliban, which conventional ordinance wouldn't be able to touch.

I'd guess these would be the nuclear weapons that plans were drafted around. I very much doubt anyone would seriously forward the idea of dropping high yield nuclear bombs in Afghanistan simply because it makes no sense politically, strategically, or tactically.