Ed Rasimus wrote:

I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

I remember that post.

Surely you will admit that nuclear weaponry comes with a lot of
political "baggage". Just having them is a real turn off to many
people, not necessarily our enemies.

If the US were to use nukes, say in the tactical role in eastern
Afghanistan in busting bunkers and caves, do you think the political
fallout (no pun intended) would be worth being concerned about? Would
it be no worse than our current political situation where it *seems*
multilaterists define the politcal, anti-American, climate?

Do you have nay concerns over "slippery slope" arguments of nuke use?
The US used them for tactical purposes (perhaps with good result), so
now it's "not so bad" using nukes. Eventually, it becomes "not so bad"
to use them to level Samarra, or Tikrit, and on from there? Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

There may be little destructive difference between the use of many
non-nuke bombs versus a single atomic one (i.e. Hiroshima versus
Tokyo or Dresden), but I think anything that undermines the "too terrible
to use" belief in nuke use doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.
(Not that I actually believe a full scale nuclear war would necessarily
destroy humanity).


SMH