The United States should retaliate with nuclear weapons if terrorists launch chemical or germ warfare against the nation, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Friday during a town hall meeting. "I can't think of any other appropriate response in the case of a massive attack with biological weapons. We have to let terrorist states know that nothing is off the table."
And just when the rest of the world was marvelling that we've apparently actually been thinking about our response, too.
To be sure, massive attack with biological weapons is much more likely to be a state action rather than a simple terrorist action. Depending on your definition of "Massive", of course.
Still, it seems rather excessive to say, in essence, "You've killed many of our people with biological weapons; therefore, we will make of your country a glowing cinder that poisons a goodly chunk of the planet for the foreseeable future, including possibly the land of allied countries who have helped us in the past." Just a bit.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!