what would be a proportional response??

[PlatinumGold]

Have you heard the term "Proportional Response"?

given the events of yesterday, what would be considered a proportional response?? can there be such a thing? can anything really make up for what happened yesterday?

people talk about revenge not being good, about not killing innocents, etc.

it isn't about revenge, it's about preventing this from happening again, our response must be so deadly that anyone who would even consider doing something like this again will shake in fear.

it's no longer about peoples rights, it's about making it very clear that reprisal will be swift and deadly to any terrorist who attempts to attack americans.

it was mentioned on the forum earlier that romans in the days of the roman empire could go anywhere in the empire in safety because EVERYONE knew, if you attacked a roman citizen, you would be found and you would pay.

edited for spelling

 

[Jokeram]

we are the Romans of today..

They will be found.. they will pay

 

[AlfredWhite]

What will happen is that the US will bomb some terrorist targets, ignorantly believing that they've destroyed the terrorists completely. It is tactically impossible for the US to hunt down and destroy the entire terrorist group that was responsible for this act because they exist in independent cells, not directly linked to each other.

The US can bomb all they want. Unfortunately, I doubt it will do anything but fuel future terrorist hatred towards the US.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

There will be no porportional response. The governments that provide haven Bin Ladin are in jeopardy of being desroyed completely. Pres Bush has to build a coalition of world leaders. It is shameful that it takes something like this to make the guy start acting like the president of the United States. His previous behavior internationally is going to hinder his efforts. I would not want to be an Afghani right now.

 

[GalenOfEdgewood]

<< I would not want to be an Afghani right now. >>



I don't think that the government of Afghanastan wants to be either....

 

[TonTo]

proportiinal to what?
i say this
whoever did this, put alot of thier money into it, cost them alot,
so, i say america does the same, we get a bunch of bombs, so much so that it's proportional to the amount they paid,

if they paid 70% of thier annual budget,
we should pay 70% of our military's annual budget, oh, lets be nice, lets just use less than that

and BOMB THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THEM

now THAT'S proportional

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

<< What will happen is that the US will bomb some terrorist targets, ignorantly believing that they've destroyed the terrorists completely. It is tactically impossible for the US to hunt down and destroy the entire terrorist group that was responsible for this act because they exist in independent cells, not directly linked to each other.

The US can bomb all they want. Unfortunately, I doubt it will do anything but fuel future terrorist hatred towards the US. >>



Kinda like Kadafi did when we bombed him. Hasnt been a peep since.

 

[GasX]

Proportional is a relative term.

~2400 Men died at Pearl Harbor. Our response was Fat Man and Little Boy.


Perhaps our response should be proportional to the last sneak attack on American soil.

Of course, we have to know exactly who to bomb and where to bomb them (even though we have a pretty good idea already).

 

[gil11542]

Mwilding I agree they will die for there cause to the last man , women , and Child.I watched children dancing in the streets because of our inoccent people being killed.

To sum up porportional response-NUKE. Let them learn the lesson the hard way. This is AMERICA and we will not stand for this type of attack on our soil.

 

[rickn]

Mwilding: Nukes don't fly now that China, Russia, and many other nation have them. During WW2 there was no threat from other nations when we used it, there certainly is now. You think Afghanistan neighbors want to live with nuclear fall out? A bomb that goes off-course?

You people don't think. Thank god you are not the decision makers for this country

 

[b0mbrman]

Hmmm...If only you could kill a terrorist 10,000 times :<

 

[NetGuySC]

I think the only proportional response is a Nuclear weapon, but it is not the smartest weopon. If we did go Nuclear, I am pretty certain it would not end there, someone else would launch one in response...Pakistan...India....before long we will have dozens if not hundreds of Nukes crisscrossing the earth then billions of lives would be lost. The following devestation and loss of life would make the Trade Centers look extremely insignificant in comparison.

Let's face it..there will be no proportional response...we will get who is respoonsible...Afghanistan will probably wished they weren't harboring Bin Laden once the bombs begin falling.....Yes we could take out Afghanistans financial district..I am sure it would not take us long to find out which tent it is..I do not see us gooing Nuclear though...too risky..once one starts flying..many more are sure to follow.

The only positive I see coming out of this is that this got America off it ass, we have have become to complacent concerning intelligence gathering, defense and unity. Yes things will change..maybe it will take a little longer at the airport...yes taxes may rise ( which is fine with me if it makes a stronger America) but we will come out of this a stronger nation

 

[Stark]

rickn,

Both China and Russia hate Afghanistan. They will not object.

If Pakistan even thinks about launching a nuke, they will be destroyed as well.

When we respond, it should send a message to the rest of the world that the United States will not tolerate being attacked. We nuked Japan after they attacked our shores. We should do the same to these terrorist-supporting nations.

 

[CocaCola5]

I would support a few Nuke attack if they are quartered away as much as possible from poplulated area, for populated area more precision weapons should be used to take out financial and government buildings. As a note, Nukes are not limitless in there destruction as they're portrayed, so its not as though if you drop one it will take out the whole Middle East region, they do have their range as great as it may be. A nuclear fall-out is not an issue unless you're dropping hundreds of warheads for example in an area the size of the Middle East.

 

[gopunk]

well if you want eye for an eye, i guess we could fly a few planes into their buildings. but i dont' think that's going to happen.... i think we should just get the people responsible and try them in a court of law.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Now why on earth do you want to bring nuclear weapons into this??? We can handle the problem without nukes. I just don't want to see innocent civilians dying for things they did not committ. It saddens me that this is probably going to be the outcome though. I guess you gotta sacrifice a part to save the whole.

 

[rickn]

<< Both China and Russia hate Afghanistan. They will not object >>



Are you really that dense? Who cares if they dont like Afghanistan, they certainly do not want nukes flying along their borders. You are crazy if you think that the international community would accept the use of nuclear weapons

 

[CocaCola5]

I also don't like Nukes but I think these people have seen enough cruise missles already and it don't scare them one bit any more. I am for Nukes as a "look we're pissed" type weapon not a kill everyone weapon, and if place strategically and well away from poplulated areas this can be done actually with very small casualties on innocent people.

 

[desy]

Nukes what a stupid thing to say.
We don't live in 1945 any more sorry.
The question is a proportional response.
Firstly those responsible are brought to justice and the penalty for terrorism is death. Those who help terrorists can should and will be no longer tolerated by the democratic world. I fully think assasination is justifiable covertly, openly.
Which if any of you have been paying attention I'm against the death penalty so this is a troubling contradiction.
Bur war and terrorism are different crime with different penalties.
Economic sanctions are dicey because you create victims of the innocent.
The world is a complicated place but this should strengthen resolve to ferret out and remove threats before they become a problem.

All the attack did to Khadfi is quell the rhetoric and make him subtle instead, already they are pointing to Lybian connections in this.

 

[SJ]

China and Russia are really behind the US in this instance. Why? Both countries had people in the WTC. China is said to of have 30-50 Chinese nationals there, Russia hasnt disclosed a number. China is pissed off, as are all the non 3rd world non arab countries.

 

[gil11542]

OK nukes are not poitically correct for you enviromentalists due to fallout of the surronding areas or countries , but we can drop enough nonukes to make them wish they had been nuked.

Carpet bombing 24-7 at least 30 days worth,take back to the stone ages and leave them there.

 

[CocaCola5]

Man, 24/7 carpet bombing on civilians is too cruel, much worst than a strategically placed Nuke.

 

[konichiwa]

Carpet bombing?

 

[Squisher]

Nuke'm til they glow----shoot'm in the dark

 

[EagleKeeper]

Carpet Bombing will get the civilians. The target will need to be the political/tactical leadership.

IF the target is in Afganistan, remember that the USSR with the Spetnaz troops did not survive.
Yes, the Afgans had help, however their terrain favors the defenders of the land.
Carpet bombing works well on flat areas, when the target goes underground the effect is much less (Vietnam). Afganistan is not a flat area like Kuwait where tanks were effective.

Also, other anti-US countries will support the terrorists, just as we support the Afgan rebels against the USSR.

A surgical strike (multiple) will have to be done at the given target and the supporting politcal/tactical leaderships. Broad destruction of any country will not succeed.