Article

2003-08-29 Home Front

Newly Released Trade Center Transcripts Provide Real-Time Narrative to Sept. 11 Attacks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-08-29 12:50:53 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Steve, I think Ms. Alderman agrees with you; she is saying it is not "just" a mass murder.

This is why we need to exterminate the militant Islamic extremists, especially those who may have WMD'S, or we'll have another 9/11, or worse.

Posted by Uncle Joe 2003-8-29 1:17:34 AM|| 2003-8-29 1:17:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Joe -- you're right, I did mis-read it. Thanks.

Posted by Steve White 2003-8-29 2:40:39 AM|| 2003-8-29 2:40:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Show no mercy where none was shown. Give them no quarter as none will be given us. Wipe them out.

Posted by Anon1 2003-8-29 3:34:40 AM|| 2003-8-29 3:34:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 It brings it all back again, and my resolve remains firm. The animals who did this need to be put down permanently,

Posted by Douglas De Bono 2003-8-29 8:06:08 AM|| [http://www.douglasdebono.com] 2003-8-29 8:06:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I try to be a rational person. But God bless George Bush. On that day, if I were President... the old phrase "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out" would have been so tempting.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-8-29 8:52:32 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-8-29 8:52:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I'll admit that I occasionally find it necessary to visit one of the websites that contain graphic images of people falling from the towers... not pleasant, but it renews my ire supply.

Posted by snellenr 2003-8-29 9:21:23 AM|| 2003-8-29 9:21:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Chuck, I disagree. If 3000 die and it doesn't elicit a nuclear response, what will it take? That macabre game is probably now being played in Riyadh and a War Academy outside of Beijing. Bush may have introduced a credibility gap into the use of the American nuclear arsenal.

Posted by Brian 2003-8-29 11:20:46 AM|| 2003-8-29 11:20:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Brian, I don't believe that any United States government has ever intended to use nuclear weapons. The only stated reason to use them is the use of WMD on us. I believe that this is a gun we have never intended to draw from its holster. I think it's a consensus, Packs and Donks, no use of nukes for any reason, unless we're hit with WMD. Even then, the definition of WMD will become very fluid.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-8-29 11:52:51 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-8-29 11:52:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't have a reference to hand, but I thought the pentagon intended to use tactical nukes first, should soviet troops have invaded western Europe back in the fifties.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-8-29 12:15:20 PM|| 2003-8-29 12:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Bulldog,

That was true in the old days when we had a Strategic Air Command too. Today Mr. Simmins is correct. Nukes are an expensive and useless albatross around our neck that deprive usable weapons systems and troops of adequate funding. The sooner we figure this out and deal with it, the sooner we'll have enough troops for Iraq.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2003-8-29 12:18:46 PM|| 2003-8-29 12:18:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Bulldog, the Pentagon has plans for everything. The issue is, would Ike have authorized first use of nukes to repel a Soviet invasion? Would any President?

Mr. Davis, I advocate a few nukes, 500 =/-, all sizes and shapes, just for any emergency. Maintaining an arsenal of the size that we currently have is hard to justify. But we should have some, top-of-the-line, current science nukes. If nothing more than to impress the wogs.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-8-29 1:26:32 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-8-29 1:26:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Chuck, I think it was the preferred, if not reflex, response, given the overwhelming strength of the soviet ground forces compared with those the west could muster. It was the only chance of stopping the Ruskies rolling to the Atlantic within in a fortnight.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-8-29 1:36:09 PM|| 2003-8-29 1:36:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 There was certainly no first strike tactical plan in the 70s. We gamed it over and over from Fulda to the Rhine... tac nukes were only occasionally gamed, and then we only responded to Russki first-use.

With 5:1 Soviet tank superiority we planned conventional defense-in-depth, with air power as the equalizer. Sometimes it worked. Nukes always worked out better for the Soviets, once they got introduced.

Brian, I seem to remember this came up before... just whom should GWB have nuked? Your whole nuclear credibility argument is very weak, IMO. If nothing else, it shows that the US is one of the better choices, if you have to have nuclear states.

The US was not in peril of its national existence, and I don't think there is much doubt in anyone's mind about our willingness to use nuclear weapons in that unlikely event.

I would like every jihadi, and every coy little millionaire jihadi financier, drawn and quartered and fed to hogs. But I don't understand how incinerating foreign capitals would have helped the WTC/Pentagon victims or the US, at all. It would also have lowered the standards for atomic warfare by all parties, which would be a highly stupid thing to do.

Posted by Mark IV 2003-8-29 2:47:11 PM|| 2003-8-29 2:47:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 9/11 warranted a lot of things, a tactical NUKE
strike wasn't one of them. I believe the calculus
and the formulas for when and how to justify
a first strike exist.

I think NK, Iran and Syria are all more lilely
candidates for first strike.

But remember we must maintain the double standard
(we can have'em they can't) so we clearly use them
with far more discretion.

Remember the benefits of using the nukes must outweight the economic shockwave induced.

Posted by J.H. 2003-8-29 3:42:03 PM|| 2003-8-29 3:42:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Tora Bora for the hell of it, Mark IV.

I do believe though that if I was in the Forbidden City, looking over war plans with Taiwan, I'd be a shitload more adventerous knowing the Americans lose 3000 people without a nuclear counterresponse.

Posted by Brian 2003-8-29 8:32:43 PM|| 2003-8-29 8:32:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Mr. Davis,
What a bullshit response. We already have "enough" troops in Iraq. We only have to use them correctly.

Posted by Uncle Joe 2003-8-29 11:15:56 PM|| 2003-8-29 11:15:56 PM|| Front Page Top

20:20 Billy Bloggs
15:42 Bulldog
15:29 Ernest Brown
13:11 Bulldog
10:39 Aris Katsaris
09:39 raptor
09:01 raptor
08:00 raptor
07:59 raptor
02:17 Baba Yaga
00:32 Mike Kozlowski
00:31 Bomb-a-rama
00:23 Frank G
23:15 Uncle Joe
23:12 tu3031
22:54 Alaska Paul
22:47 Zhang Fei
22:43 Aris Katsaris
22:36 Aris Katsaris
22:30 eLarson
22:30 tu3031
22:25 Zhang Fei
22:19 tu3031
21:52 tu3031