Napalm is now banned (in the west at least).

I'm talking tactical use, not bombing wholesale. We should try to flesh them out of caves and lawless tribal areas whether they're hiding under burquas or behind children--war is tough. If we continue to pussyfoot then we should leave or establish a tight enclave round the capital and outskirts of legitimacy.

Steven with all due respect, this is absurd. Once fighters take to mountains, they cant simply be 'fleshed out' with napalm. The Soviets used every weapon imaginable to kill fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan and to no avail. Storming is virtually impossible as well becuase military experts consider this terrain indefensible. It's kind of abstract to read a thread with liberals suddenly advocating the use of Naplam bombs. A bit cranky are we?

I think you mean the opposite. It is highly defensible, but almost impregnable.

There is a weapon the Soviets didn't have at the time that is now available to the US, it's called a Thermobaric weapon. It basically cause a vacuum inside enclosed spaces (ideal for caves). There are two problems here though: one) locating the caves and two) bombing Pakistan. Both touchy especially when the hideouts (caves) are in Pakistan and they don't like us infidels bombing their Muslim brothers.

Look, as an old marine, I admit I can't get my head around these half-assed wars. If we had to worry about the unarmed and civilians in impreganble caves and Nambu nests, we'd still be island hopping minus flamethrowers. Today we carry a big stick but don't have the will to decisive war making. We should really hang it up.

Well, not exactly in Pakistan, but the so-called neutral tribal mountainous spine should either be taken over by Pakistan or be smoked out by us. In real terms we should throw up our hands and come home. Afghanistan is not only impregnable topographically, it is in culture as well and we shouldn't mess with it as much as we'd like to free the women there.

Amen!

Yes, I've heard of that and it sounds like itcould probably work, but it presents a problem of its own.  Weapons like that can pulverize bodies beyond any hope of identification, and we need to keep the remains intact.  If such high level targets were killed without confirmation, the authorities would have to continue on as though they were still alive. Presumed dead wouldnt be good enough.

I think the effect on the human body would cause it to crush (like an aluminum can in deep water) so I think identification though DNA would be possible. Of course nearer the explosion he bodies would be charred pretty bad (no denying the heat factor, as it is basically a Fuel Air Explosive (FAE) with a guidance system). They are making the warheads small enough to be fired in a Hellfire missile and even shoulder launched, perfect fr this type of environment. The large ones would still be needed for large cave complexes in order to be effective I would think.

Those wierd double-post pigeons are at it again.

Oh... I forgot to answer the question directly.

What would FDR do?  -  Have a stroke & die.

Air attacks--the old dive bomber technique--should work.

Ah, Semper FI!

What would FDR do?  He'd start a lot of expensive and ulitimately wasteful "work" programs that propagandists would later claim "saved the country".  He would get the US into a war where thousands of troops die in a single battle.. with many many battles.  He would begin a change among Americans from charity is an embarrassment to a feeling of entitlement that would later weaken us as a nation and as individuals.

 

 

Well, that's what he DID do, so what would make anyone think he'd do differently now?