posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:34 PM
If the US is hit with wmd, at home or in the field, it has to consider using nukes. Its an escalation of the violence that has to be addressed. The
detterence effect of nukes also has to be preserved, it can't be permited for someone to try to wipe out a battalion or unit with mustard gas and not
expect to be vapourized in return.
The problem, of course, is how to use them. If the US was hit with chemical weapons during either iraq war, then the iraqi cities would be nuked. But
what if it was just a terror attack? If it was, say, based out of afghanistan, even if it still had actual cities, it wouldn't be appropriate to
nuke all of them, perhaps just the ones supporting the attack. But if it was, say, out of syria, then it would warrant hitting damascus and the like.
We might have to, in such a situation, nuke the iranian cities too, since they have a military pact to come to each other's aid, and are clearly
against us anyway.
If it was, say, France, then we can be sure to find out that it was a terror group, not the actions of the french government or done with their
knowledge (even if franks carried it out).