"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

I proposed a similar scenario a couple of years ago.

Link each US city up with an equal-sized city in a "Muslim-dominant"
country. For example, if NY gets hit (population 8.1 million),
buh-bye to 3/4 of Tehran (population 12 million).

But I favored nukes over conventional weapons. They're cheaper and
put US forces at less risk.
Only stupid people would actually advocate the use of nuclear weapons.
They're cheaper and put US forces at less risk.



How do you figure?

A nuke costs far less than the material costs of multiple
precision-guided warheads delivered by multiple aircraft sorties. And
the nuke can be delivered by a submarine beneath the sea hundreds of
miles away...putting our troops at zero risk against a country like Iran.

Let me clarify my position a little bit, because I certainly don't favor
a nuke retaliation against a country as a first choice. *IF* one of our
cities is hit by a WMD attack (nuclear, or large-scale
chemical/biological), *THEN* I would favor a nuclear response.





Yeah, which country would you target, Dr. Happy Tooth?

And how would you know whether *any* country had
anything to do with it?

After all, Presidummy claimed Iraq had a hand in 9-11, and it didn't.

I'd put Tehran and Damascus on the top of any list. Prior to Operation
Iraqi Freedom, I'd have had Baghdad on my list.