I've recently read a number of articles by a man named Wilson C. Lucom who is a former assistant to the U.S. secretary of state during the Roosevelt administration as well as holds a number of other titles. He makes a number of good points (although many seem to be less than moral). He suggests that the use of neutron bombs would end the situation overnight and I agree.

The use of nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki both saved tens of thousands of Allied lives as well as probably saved millions of Japanese lives. Now, Japan is one of the most populous and thriving civilizations on the face of the planet.

Neutron bombs have a very small blast radius yet release a wave of x-ray and gamma radiation I believe. The radiation levels drop off quickly and only damage a fairly small area of land. They can even be launched in an 8 inch Howizter. Not only could we dispose of ENTIRE terrorist cells with a single strike, but the long term damage would be minimal, civilian cities would most likely not be affected at all, we could strike at the terrorists so hard and fast that those who weren't immediately obliterated would most likely submit and we could display our vast superiority once more lol. The fact that we've been so civil so far is the main reason that the fighting continues.

Terrorists cannot be reasoned with. War is ugly, but sometimes a massive display of power is the only way to really save lives. Some cultures respect NOTHING but strength and power... as sad as that may be.

edited for grammatical error

[edit on 24-9-2004 by veritas93]

in reply to veritas93 post, you want to drop a Neutron bomb on terrorist cell may i ask on which country would you do this? I bet you cant answer, now if you were going to drop a bomb on a terrorist. Then you must know that cell is up to something, cell is usally about 10+ to drop a bomb that big on 10 people on a country is crazy, how about if the cell is hiding in a suburb with other normal familes would you drop it then?

What a normal person would do is if they knew a cell existed in their suburb would shut area down, ask familes to leave then the nice army can play cowboys and indians with them. Damage would be lot less.

But in the case for terrorists in isreal / palestine. What isreal is doing their is working to an extent sure they build walls and block them off, what will happen what its all completed? I bet isreal will feel more secure and not watch palestine everyday, palestine will become a civilisied country. I bet it will make weapons/missles that would have made suicide bombers look like children, just you wait and see.

My solution, would it harmanyone if we actually sat down and talked with terrorists? Seriously what is the terrorist main demand? Not death to amercia or isreal, Its for a free palestine, american troops to leave middle east and maybe russia to leave checnya. Why cant these demands be meet? I bet if it was meet terrorists attacks would cease so simple.

Final note: Why isnt george bush jr, colin powel, donald rumsfeld, tony blair being charged for war crimes? I dont understand what makes them so innocent to get away with it ? Can you tell me that hitler is not differnt to bush in how many people he has killed due to his wars ?

Interesting piece. Didn't know Gorbachev still had the world stage. As to the reporter's comparing what Pres. Bush has done to what Gorbachev wants to do- if that is true then hell will reign on earth.

Bush's tactics have failed. He has no grand strategic solution or goal. Terrorism is more prevalent than than ever and Iraq/Afghanistan are not going away any time soon.

Poverty- poverty!

a neutron bomb is, well just a little overkill. I agree you can not deal with terrorists. that is a no win situation. Put we must get to the real proplems and eliminate them. End world poverty.

you can not rid the world of terrorists, for each one you kill their are ten to replace that one person. Each terrorists you kill creates more hatred, have a look at isreal / palestine.

You have the hamas leader appearing in cario, you know why he is their? He is trying to make palestine a better place he is sitting down talking with leaders, its right thing to do.

Do you people remeber before the iraq war, saddam hussien wanted to have a live tv interview with george bush jr. Guess who rejected it george bush you know why? The truth would have come out and george bush would have looked bad. How does george bush tell media he doesnt want to do it ? Saddam hussien is a liar and this is a waste of my time.

I feel sorry for troops in iraq, because when iraq war is completed these 150,000 soldiers will be forced to attack iran than syria. Cmon people do you actually think an army that big is their for one country?

Throwing more weapons at the situation is not the answer.
The current American administration and their gung-ho approach has not reduced the threat of terrorism and the world is not a safer place.
Iraq has become a breeding ground for sentiment against the West with actual lies and abuse to fuel their causes.

Gorbachev shows a refreshing thought-out approach to the 'war on terror', dealing with the root issues that have created the environment for terrorism to flourish.
A political solution is the only way to fight terrorism, showing the world what democracy is capable of - compassion, understanding and a fair hand.

If Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, then why isn't he in custody after a well thought-out and executed operation to apprehend him, why did we have to invade two countries which just happened to be strategically and economically valuable assets on the global stage regardless of the current situation?

We need to show the world that we are not knee-jerk, brain dead monsters who will stoop to any tactics to win our cause, because that is the way of the terrorist.

To get rid of most of the world's terrorism you'd have to eliminate the US, Israeli, and Russian governments. Not gonna happen anytime soon methinks.

In response to udsad1... I'd probably drop one in Syria, one in Iran and then wait for everyone to catch onto the fact that WE aren't willing to back down either. We may never be able to get rid of terrorists, but we can convince those who harbor them to think twice before picking sides. It may sound a bit harsh, but it'd work better than what we're doing now. If the terrorists had no safe-haven then they'd soon vanish. We honestly wouldn't have to attack that many people, as the extremist Muslims truly represent the VAST minority of Muslims in the world. I'm talking tens of thousands. The only reason this fighting continues is because they are convinced that they CAN defeat us. We can show them otherwise lol.

In response to shanti23... I didn't suggests throwing MORE weapons at the situation... I'm suggesting throwing much fewer yet much NASTIER weapons at the situation.
As far as being "knee-jerk brain dead monsters who will stoop to any tactics to win our cause,"... I used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples because those attacks most likely prevented millions of more casualties on both sides, which is why they were used. The only difference now is that the neutron bombs are incredibly accurate, have only a 100 yard blast radius, the radiation drop-off levels are high and they can be used to avoid civilian casualties just as well as any other piece of hardware that we're using... all while carrying a giant banner that reads... WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BY A FEW THOUSAND WHACK-JOBS! lol

[edit on 24-9-2004 by veritas93]

I used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples because those attacks most likely prevented millions of more casualties on both sides, which is why they were used. The only difference now is that the neutron bombs are incredibly accurate, have only a 100 yard blast radius, the radiation drop-off levels are high and they can be used to avoid civilian casualties just as well as any other piece of hardware that we're using...

There are a few more differences now then the yield and accuracy of the weapons. You cannot compare the current situation and WW2 with regards to ending the conflicts using WMD due the the simple fact that we knew the Japanese did not have any comparable response to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was the reason for their defeat. Using WMD against the terrorists would surely have the opposite effect and serve to escalate the situation through retaliation with a WMD of their own on a US city.

He suggests that the use of neutron bombs would end the situation overnight and I agree.

This is one risk that cannot be taken out of the fear of equally or greater retaliation and escalation, something that was not present with the Japanese during WW2.

-raven