You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
U.S. Considered Using Nukes Against Afghanistan After 9/11
2015-08-29
[Haaretz]
After 9/11 all sorts of possible responses were considered, including nukes, according to the still-distressed leftwinger who was chancellor of Germany at the time. Der Spiegel, which published the interview, and Ha'aretz, the self-proclaimed "New York Times of Israel" share his distress at the things those dangerous Republicans consider. We'll be seeing more of these backward-looking warnings against voting for the candidate of the party being positioned by its opponents as The Party of Evil, I suspect.
Posted by:Elmerert Hupens2660

#6  As was said by some I know "We went to war, America went to the mall"
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-08-29 23:21  

#5  Add FBI and Justice to that mix as well.
Posted by: Pappy   2015-08-29 19:32  

#4  The real surprise was that the Bush administration a few weeks after 9/11 made a conscious effort to convince the world, including enemies and potential enemies that even after an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor there would be business as usual.

....and nobody within the Intelligence Community was fired, even though the Memorial Bridge should have been lined with their heads.
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-08-29 16:52  

#3  Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack.

That nukes were considered isn't a surprise. That the Bush admin would rather not cross the nuclear threshold isn't a surprise either.

The real surprise was that the Bush administration a few weeks after 9/11 made a conscious effort to convince the world, including enemies and potential enemies that even after an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor there would be business as usual.

There would be a therapeutic intervention, first in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and Taliban ideology would be included in the future Afghan government.
Afghanistan would receive lavish aid. The West symbolically accepted Islamic states' dominance in the international pecking order. etc etc

If the goal had been to erase "the fear to attack" from the minds of real and potential enemies then what would they have done differently?
Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660   2015-08-29 16:49  

#2  backward-looking warnings against voting for the candidate of the party being positioned by its opponents as The Party of Evil

Thus the recent 'boxcar' comment. Just more Freudian Projection. It's clear, they do not consider this 'politics', but war.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-08-29 14:18  

#1  ...It's no secret - though DEFINITELY not talked about much - that on the night of 9/11/01, President Bush specifically asked his military advisors to determine whether or not the force of the towers coming down was equal to that of a nuclear weapon. The result, had the answer been yes - and it was - went unsaid. Except President Bush decided that he would rather fight it out the old fashioned way than glass a hole in Afghanistan and kill mostly people who may never have even heard of New York, much less been part of the plot. Won't ever hear much about that part; doesn't fit the narrative of the nuclear-armed cowboy.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2015-08-29 12:31  

00:00