US considered nuking Afghanistan after 9/11: report

[Jaanbaz]

Well they still justify their nuke attack on Japan and insult the dead Japanese civilians, nothing new here. Only problem would have been throwing nuke on a country near China would have been problematic for USA.

 

[PDF]

 

[Falcon29]

Stupid if true, that's good we have counter balance with Russian nukes otherwise they would use them all over the place.

 

[Abdullah S.]

Warhead exist in US current arsenal.
Nevertheless around 1,000,000 causalities on a single day not to count the fallout effect can bring any country to it's knees.

Afghanistan was always on its knees.

 

[Levina]

The George W Bush-led US government considered using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, according to a report published by a leading German news magazine.

An aide to former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder told Der Spiegelin an interview that nuclear option was one of the possibilities examined by the US administration of former US president George W Bush and then-vice president Dick Cheney.

“They had really played through all possibilities,” Michael Steiner, Schroder’s political adviser, was quoted as saying in the report.

Read: Wars in Pakistan, Afghanistan killed 150,000 since 9/11: Study

The German official stated that Schroder had feared that the US would overreact to 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda that killed nearly 3,000 people and caused about $10 billion worth of property and infrastructure damage.

Steiner is a senior German diplomat who has been serving the German ambassador to India since March 2012.

This article originally appeared on Press TV.

US considered nuking Afghanistan after 9/11: report - The Express Tribune

I am not sure if this news is true because America had not located OBL at that point of time, so where exactly would they have used nukes??

 

[Side-Winder]

I am not sure if this news is true because America had not located OBL at that point of time, so where exactly would they have used nukes??

They knew he was in afghanistan but not the exact location. US had made a formal request to afghan taliban to hand over OBL followed by the Taliban's refusal. A single trident Missile could have evaporized most of the afghanistan.

P.S the news was shared by RT too

US considered nuking Afghanistan after 9/11 – German diplomat — RT News
PressTV- ‘US considered using nukes after 9/11'

 

[Levina]

They knew he was in afghanistan but not the exact location. US had made a formal request to afghan taliban to hand over OBL followed by the Taliban's refusal. A single trident Missile could have evaporized most of the afghanistan.

P.S the news was shared by RT too

US considered nuking Afghanistan after 9/11 – German diplomat — RT News
PressTV- ‘US considered using nukes after 9/11'

My point is that it was merely mooted and there were definitely no plans to carry out this ops, because it's not a pragmatic solution at all.

 

[Side-Winder]

My point is that it was merely mooted and there were definitely no plans to carry out this ops, because it's not a pragmatic solution at all.

Loosing 3,000 lives all of sudden at the hands of some lunatics, for a super power, was enough to cross any threshold. They wouldn't even have spared pakistan had we sided with afghan taliban.

 

[Levina]

Loosing 3,000 lives all of sudden at the hands of some lunatics, for a super power, was enough to cross any threshold. They wouldn't even have spared pakistan had we sided with afghan taliban.

True that!
Pakistan would have had to face the wrath of US had it supported Taliban.That makes sense!
But it is fatous to assume that they would have nuked a country, at the most U.S. would have threatened Afghanistan. If they really had to nuke a country then it would have been Iraq.

 

[James David]

Would have saved the world trillions in lives and property though.

It would have I suppose but the nuclear fallout will affect not just Afghanistan but the neighboring countries as well. I am not familiar with all the techno stuff I maybe wrong. @gambit , sir may you please enlighten us with the nuke stuff.

 

[third eye]

Loosing 3,000 lives all of sudden at the hands of some lunatics, for a super power, was enough to cross any threshold. They wouldn't even have spared pakistan had we sided with afghan taliban.

Mush chose wisely , after all Discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[HariPrasad]

US did a wise thing by not doing that How can anybody nuke a beautiful country like Afghanistan which has no nuclear weapon to retaliate. Many innocents would have died.

 

[Indika]

US did a wise thing by not doing that How can anybody nuke a beautiful country like Afghanistan which has no nuclear weapon to retaliate. Many innocents would have died.

Yeah , again there was dictator running the show not any democratically elected leader. Why kill innocents for no fault of their own?

 

[Viny]

Nuke could have never been an option, few reasons

1. It was not a state sponsored activity, its was done by a terrorist organization and Afghanistan as country has no role in it. There was no direct war between two countries or any history of animosity.
2. Global world would have never supported a nuclear attack on Afganisthan, as its government didnt pose any risk to US or global world at large. This could have lead to isolation of USA and causing global power shifts.
3. Response from Russia and China would have been massive in terms of global fall outs on diplomatic channels. Neither NATO or Eurozone could support this.
4. Immediate action from OIC would have been cutting of the relationships with US and thus making it energy and market deprived.
5. JAPAN would have moved out of US basket and Germany would have gain more control in decision making in Eurozone, making it tough for UK to stand with US.
6. Nuclear fallouts could have affected Russia, China, Iran or Pakistan, which would not be in US interest.
7. Economic Sanctions and pushed of from NSA, UN Security Council was on cards.
8. There was no sure shot chance of getting OSAMA with Nuclear Attack, the carpet bombing exercise revealed that very early.
9. This could have raised the internal conflict and not all of 50 states would go with the US Opinion. Secession demands of states like Texas, Alabama Florida would have rose.
10. Obama could not justify it to anyone.

Unlike many here who thinks Nukes are like some Diwali phataka, that you would go and just burst and enjoy it, its much more complex decision in current era.

Usage of Nuke has no place in modern world.

 

[gambit]

Is a nuke with localized fallout possible?

Yes, it is possible.

When I was stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, our Victor Alert jets were armed with B61s, which are considered to be 'tactical' low yield nuclear bombs. The bomb was actually variable yield but its lowest setting are useful for when there is a desire to minimize radiation fallout.

The lack of details in that article make the subject wide open for fantastic speculations. But if one is willing to take a deep breath, exercise some critical thinking skills, and asks what kind of nuclear weapons were optioned for Afghanistan post 9/11, it is doubtful that something large like an ICBM type was considered when a much more flexible option like the B61 was available.

What need is there for an ICBM type nuclear weapons, or rather what are in Afghanistan that would be classified as 'strategic', as in meaningful to wage a war against the US, that the US must retaliate via strategic level weapons like a nuclear ICBM ?

Answer: None.

However, that does not mean there are no targets in Afghanistan that a nuclear destruction level would not be useful. In other words, there are plenty of targets in Afghanistan that a low yield tactical weapon like the B61 can destroy without creating high level fallout in terms of dispersal that will cross national borders.

The lack of strategic targets in Afghanistan means that IF nuclear weapons were optioned for Afghanistan, it would not be in the immediate aftermath of Sept 11, 2001.

Sept 11 and Spying through the Eyes of Ex Schröder Advisor - SPIEGEL ONLINE

SPIEGEL: The Americans had developed concrete plans for the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan?

Steiner: They really had thought through all scenarios. The papers had been written.

The lack of strategic targets in Afghanistan means that the US would wait and see that if during the progress of the ground war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, targets became available that conventional weapons would not work, or that would require repeated attempts, a low yield tactical choice like the B61 would be used. It does not mean the US would blanket Afghanistan with nuclear destruction, although that would make such an absurd scenario useful for the typical anti-US personality, like the few in this thread already, to further entrench his mind that the US is truly the 'Great Satan'.

So let us speculate that as the ground war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda progresses, the thugs retreats to deep and hardened caves where conventional weapons and ground troops assaults would not be successful. A B61 dialed to its lowest yield and modified to become a 'bunker buster' or earth penetrator would be used. Yes, there would be a nuclear explosion visible but the bulk of the radiation fallout would be contained by the collapsed hill or mountain top. The local area would be stigmatized, in the real estate business it would be called 'psychologically distressed property', hence tactically denied to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Putting all available options on the table is wise decision making, not that 9/11 somehow made Bush and his National Security team nuclear weapons vengeance mad, so spare US the insinuation that we were not of sane minds on that day and days later. If sanity is wanted, then search for it among the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for attacking the most powerful country on the planet without considering the consequences.