The aftermath: Total destruction ...
... what should be the extent of our military response?
by the people of Melrose
Assuming that you support military action, what should be the extent of the response?
While no one espoused use of nuclear weapons, specifically, several danced around the issue with such as "Whatever it takes."
"If they are going to use military force, they should use it fully, excluding nuclear weapons."
"Total destruction of the persons/groups responsible."
"... to the extent that we can feel confident that the nucleus of those terrorist groups are removed from operation."
"Fight until we make sure the root of the problem is eliminated, then maybe other countries and peoples will not have to endure the pain and suffering we have dealt with thus far."
"This will not be a battle or even a series of battles. The most effective action would be to infiltrate the major terrorist organizations as well as sleeper cells around the world -- not just bin Laden's -- and neutralize them by the most effective means necessary with the least collateral damage. However, I do not know what that is -- I imagine it would be different depending on geography, environment, and politcal support within the nation harboring them."
"... sufficient to stop the perpetrators of these crimes. I have no idea what that is, and I might stop well short of achieving that goal if the cost in innocent lives are too great."
"Use the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and its recognized legal government as the launching pad with ours, NATO support."
"As far as possible, capture the people involved and the support teams of whatever countries who support those individuals."
"Full." (No further explanation).
"Fight until we are victors."
"What our President and his cabinet and advisers are studying right now."
"The response should be, WHATEVER IT TAKES."
"I have no idea right now."
"The objective should be to wipe out the overall infrastructure of the party responsible. This would mean any and all training facilities-- leaders headquarters, anywhere in the world. In addition the financial support needs to dry up. This would affect the future ability to recruit."
"On military response -- if friends of America could find and arrest extremists, then we might attack selected targets with little or no collateral damage."
"Target those responsible and not just take random action."
"Honestly I am not informed enough to say. Just the fact that the enemy is not a single country or population assaulting us, is problematic. I do not know who we can 'flush out' the terrorist and attack just them. It is a total 'leap of faith' on my part to support our president and government in righting this terrible act against us."
"I believe," a respondent said, "we should attack hard and long and not give up like we did in Iraq."