Let me begin by making it clear that I’m not suggesting the following idea should be adopted or that it would work, I merely offer it as an interesting hypothetical. So please skip if you can comments on that angle.

It came to me via a radio show I was listening to on the way home from running errands. The host was discussing the bizzare rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan which, according to this host, require an enemy to point his gun at a soldier before the solider is allowed to respond in kind. I’m not sure that this is true but certainly if it is that would be ridiculous.

He discussed that had we adopted a similar policy in World War Two we might never have won and cited the very difficult decision to drop the atomic bombs (and let us please also avoid the debate over that decision). He doubted whether a similar choice could or would be made today.

Again I’m not sure that using such weapons would do anything to end the war, but let us just assume it would. Assume we knew for relative certainty (the same level of certainty we had in WW2) that using one or two bombs would end the war on Terror, eliminate Al Qaeda as a force, etc.

Would we actually do it or is the world now to a point that we have to fight ‘non lethal’ wars ?

Worth a thought or two I think (though I am quite sure there will be some dissent both as to the need for thought and indeed the idea I ever think <G>)