"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.


No one is going to let anyone pull a Presidummy Bush again. You have to be
able to prove complicity of a foreign power.

So, I ask you again:

How would you know?

I wouldn't care because it doesn't matter. Consider my method the RICO
version of combatting terrorism. Guilt by association.

All three countries that I mentioned openly aid (or aided) terrorist groups
that have killed Americans and Israelis. They're all guilty.