Thursday October 18 04:05 PM EDT

Rep. Buyer Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation

U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer says that the United States should use tactical nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden's terrorist network in Afghanistan if it is linked to recent anthrax incidents in the United States.

The Indiana Republican said that small, specialized nuclear weapons -- not as powerful as the atom bombs that were used in World War II -- could be used on the caves where members of bin Laden's network have taken shelter.

Buyer, a Gulf War veteran, said that the use of the weapons would be a proper response if bin Laden's people are linked to the anthrax cases in Florida, Washington, New York and elsewhere in the United States.

"Don't send special forces in there to sweep," Buyer said. "We'd be very naïve to believe that biotoxins and chemical agents were not in these caves. Put a tactical nuclear device in, and close these caves for a thousand years."

Buyer said that he hadn't talked with other lawmakers or the Bush administration about the idea, and didn't know how many in the government would support it.

Buyer stresses that he doesn't advocate the use of full-power nuclear bombs, but he acknowledged that much of the world wouldn't see the difference.

"I just want the (Bush) administration to know that I think the United States needs to send a message to the world that we are prepared to do that," Buyer said.

-- PHO (owennos@bigfoot.com), October 19, 2001

Answers

"I just want the (Bush) administration to know that I think the United States needs to send a message to the world that we are prepared to do that," Buyer said."

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!!!

-- Steve McClendon (ke6bjd@yahoo.com), October 19, 2001.

No matter how "small" these "tactical" nuclear weapons may be, the line between Newtonian fire and Eiensteinian fire is clear cut. If that bright line in the sand is crossed, Arab and worldwide anti- Americanism will escalate sharply. It's not worth the political price.

There are conventional alternatives for cave and tunnel warfare, which may include chemical weapons. Limited use of chemical weapons as needed against military targets in cave and tunnel situations would be a "proportionate" response to the small-scale bioterror attacks inflicted on the U.S. --- if there is proof that the Al- Quaeda terrorist network is responsible. As of now, this proof is lacking, so the investigation and determination should be made as quickly as possible, consistent with accuracy.

-- Robert Riggs (rxr.999@worldnet.att.net), October 19, 2001.

I find it hard to believe that any RATIONAL human being would think that nuclear weapons were an option. Clearly that would change everything even more dramatically than events so far. Why ever would we set that precedent??

-- notelling (alwayswatching@psychowatch.com), October 19, 2001.

Do you think Osama would hesitate for one moment to use them on us or anybody else for that matter?

The caves need to be done in regardless. How that is accomplished is relevant per Robert. If we did tactical nuke, does it matter what response is received from the so called muslim world? I would think we should only concern ourselves with the reactions of the EU, UN Security Council and the G-7, et al.

-- Steve McClendon (ke6bjd@yahoo.com), October 19, 2001.

Any use of nukes in this conflict is unjustifiable, IMO, but we should remember that for decades the official policy of the United States has been that any use of WMD -- chemical, biological, or nuclear -- against the U.S. would be answered with nuclear weapons because we (supposedly) don't have or use the other two methods. Buyer may be nuts for suggesting we go nuclear, but he's on solid policy ground.

-- Cash (Cash@andcarry.com), October 19, 2001.

We use depleted uranium in Iraq and what good did it do. Only sickness resulted.

-- David Williams (DAVIDWILL@prodigy.net), October 19, 2001.