"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. If we fell victim to an attack
like 9/11, or Spain/Britain's railway bombings, I'd favor a Tomahawk missile
response with conventional warheads (MOABs). So I'd venture to say that
your and my positions don't vary by very much.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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. If we fell
victim to an attack like 9/11, or Spain/Britain's railway bombings, I'd
favor a Tomahawk missile response with conventional warheads (MOABs). So
I'd venture to say that your and my positions don't vary by very much.

The problem with a nuclear response is that there's no reason to victimize
people hundreds or thousands of miles away in countries which are in no way
involved with this mess. As far as putting our soldiers at risk, we can
deliver guided conventional missiles from B-52s at altitudes where they're
untouchable.

Your comment about cost is most certainly a joke. The cost of a few missiles
pales in comparison to what we're spending every day in Iraq, with a goal
which could be reached with a handful of Viagra correctly distributed within
the beltway.