What should be done if Manhattan is nuked by terrorists?

[Quoth The Raven]

Come now Quoth... the panda told me that by Texas standards he's honour roll material.

This coming from something that's biologically a carnivore but lives solely on plant matter...hang on, I see what you mean.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

We can have enough conventional force to reduce a nation to rubble. We don't need to use nukes that will spread radiation all over the place, even over into neighboring countries. "Measured response" is sufficient.

Not to mention the ... uh...<expletive deleted> storm that would come at us if we did such a thing. Can you imagine how the world would react if we nuked someone in response when there were other non-nuclear options?

Also, I would point out that the deterrent effect of our nuclear arsenal was effective during the Cold War, even though we didn't use it. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) worked during the Cold War. Thankfully.

Of course, we were dealing with nation states that were not interested in martyrdom, so one could argut that MAD may not work against non-state actors.

It's unlikely that people who blow themselves up are going to be deterred by the prospect of civilians being killed in any way, shape or form, including nuclear. All just martyrs to the cause, aren't they?

 

[Booko]

It's unlikely that people who blow themselves up are going to be deterred by the prospect of civilians being killed in any way, shape or form, including nuclear. All just martyrs to the cause, aren't they?

Which is why I doubt MAD would have much effect. Fortunately, nukes are a very expensive and testy option for terrorists. It's much easier to use basic explosives and chemicals that produce poisonous gas (like Aum Shinrikyo).

 

[RCD1950]

I try not to think of scenarios like that; what is already reality is bad enough; I don't want to start thinking about what "might" happen...........

"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial that shall try your faith". We all should check the 'oil in our lamps' and prepare ourselves (psychologically) for such an eventuality...whether we choose to turn our cheeks, or fight against what obviously is evil purportrated by the angels of 'anti-Christ'. It's all for a glorious purpose. The hardest things are always the most rewarding and character building.

God speed

 

[Comprehend]

a surprisingly on topic article today on www.americanthinker.org

exerpt:

[FONT=times new roman,times]

The surreal debate about Iraq is a thin veil covering the real political preoccupation of our time - the competition to assign blame for the next terrorist attack to somebody else. Democrats are setting themselves up to argue that the Republican administration is at fault because it hasn't been diligent enough about homeland security and because it has fanned the flames of Islamofascism by fighting in Iraq. Republicans are setting themselves up to argue that Democrats are at fault for refusing to take militant Islam seriously and working to frustrate our every effort to confront it.

[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Who wins this cat fight? Probably nobody. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]The next terrorist attack should give us a relatively lucid moment. It will strike us like a bolt of lightening and illuminate the geopolitical landscape. Even without leadership the American people might see Iraq in context, if only for a moment They may suddenly see that our entire political class has been indulging itself in meaningless partisan disputes when it should have been teaching our Arab and Persian enemies a bitter lesson about the consequences of messing with the eagle. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]It isn't a forgone conclusion that any attack, no matter how savage, would make most Americans understand that we are fighting for our lives and doing so blindfolded with our hands in our pockets. Many, perhaps most, of us would react to another assault by redoubling their already heroic efforts to ignore unpleasant realities. But it is also possible that most of us might suddenly see just how feckless and irresponsible America's politicians have been since 9/11.[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]If we wake up one morning to find that one of our great cities is a smoking ruin or that our children are dying by the million from some mysterious disease, the odds are that America's contempt for its leaders of both parties will know no bounds. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]What then?[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Something similar happened to Britain at the outset of World War II when the people woke up to discover that their leaders had blundered into a war which they were utterly unprepared to fight. Most of Britain's leaders were thoroughly discredited by the events leading up to the war, but there was one important exception. Winston Churchill had spent a decade warning that war was coming and urging his country to head it off or, failing that, to be ready. When war came, he was the logical person to lead the government. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Where is our Churchill?

[/FONT]

Do you think the comparison of the war on terror to WWII is fair? Accurate?

 

[lilithu]

Given that it is nearly impossible to stop every single terrorist attack that might be brought against the US. It is in all likelihood an inevitability that we will be attacked again.

On this much we agree.

Hypothetically, lets say agents from Iran and Saudi Arabia are able to detonate a suitcase nuke in Manhattan and kill 2 million people.

What should the U.S. do?

1. Care for our sick and dying. Relocate those who need it. Provide counseling. Mourn for our dead. For those of us who do it, pray...

2. Figure out what to do with a radio-active island.

3. If something like that should happen to us, we would have the sympathy and good will of most all of the world. Yes, we've created a lot of animosity by our actions but ... from my observations it's almost universal that people's hearts are softened when they see disproportionate suffering. After 9/11, we had most of the world on our side, and we squandered it.

If something like what you describe should happen to us we should use that opportunity to build alliances, inspire countries to work together, pressure Iran and Saudi Arabia (and others) to deal with their internal problems, get our allies to pressure them as well. We should seek to remove the economic injustices that provide the fertile ground for budding terrorists.

In short, we should take the moral high road. Proportionate retaliation is NOT an option. Revenge is always tempting but it would not end terrorism, not make us safer, and would destroy sympathy and good will. In short, we should seek to isolate our enemies from the rest of the world, including their own countrymen, by giving them no legitimate reason to hate us. Whereas military relataliation on our part justifies their actions. And military escalation on our part increases the number of our enemies.

This would be a long process. There may likely be subsequent attacks on us even if we followed these steps. And people would be tempted to say, see it didn't work, and go back to bombing civilians. It would be a long, hard process. It's the only one that would work.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Thank Mr. George W. and everyone that voted for him.

I agree. The very first and most important thing we as a nation should do if Manhattan is incinerated is to publicly blame George W. Bush, and ask the world's forgiveness for all the horrible things he has done. I think a public execution may be in order, to show the world we are serious. Because after all, a majority voted him into office so we deserve the consequences. And I seriously doubt if a few million dead Americans will be enough to pay GW's debt to the world, for all the crimes against humanity he has committed.


Then we can get busy and rebuild New York City, while working on cementing alliances, forming new diplomatic relationships, and inviting all the Middle Eastern freedom-fighters to round table peace talks. After we urge all the Jews to leave Israel and give it back to the Palestinians, of course.


Furthermore, I think we should dismantle our military completely (after all, it does nothing but get us into trouble!) and distribute all our weapons and nuclear arms to less fortunate third world countries who don't have any, to balance out the power a little. And all the money formerly spent on a military budget should be distributed to poor people around the world.


I'm sure no one would want to bomb us anymore, after that. If they do, they will have the United Nations to answer to!









Then again, maybe I forgot my meds again today....
:angel2:

 

[Comprehend]

On this much we agree.


1. Care for our sick and dying. Relocate those who need it. Provide counseling. Mourn for our dead. For those of us who do it, pray...

2. Figure out what to do with a radio-active island.

3. If something like that should happen to us, we would have the sympathy and good will of most all of the world. Yes, we've created a lot of animosity by our actions but ... from my observations it's almost universal that people's hearts are softened when they see disproportionate suffering. After 9/11, we had most of the world on our side, and we squandered it.

If something like what you describe should happen to us we should use that opportunity to build alliances, inspire countries to work together, pressure Iran and Saudi Arabia (and others) to deal with their internal problems, get our allies to pressure them as well. We should seek to remove the economic injustices that provide the fertile ground for budding terrorists.

In short, we should take the moral high road. Proportionate retaliation is NOT an option. Revenge is always tempting but it would not end terrorism, not make us safer, and would destroy sympathy and good will. In short, we should seek to isolate our enemies from the rest of the world, including their own countrymen, by giving them no legitimate reason to hate us. Whereas military relataliation on our part justifies their actions. And military escalation on our part increases the number of our enemies.

This would be a long process. There may likely be subsequent attacks on us even if we followed these steps. And people would be tempted to say, see it didn't work, and go back to bombing civilians. It would be a long, hard process. It's the only one that would work.

ok. I agree that sounds great. but how many cities would you allow to be vaporized before you tried something else?

just let me know when you would change strategy...

1. Manhattan
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington D.C.
(anything yet? or would you like to continue throwing flowers around?)
5. Seattle
6. Baltimore
7. Miami
8. Atlanta
9. Detroit
10. St. Louis
(still nothing? well, unfortunately by this time there would be nothing we could do.)

Logically, your solution would work. but unfortunately we are not dealing with rational people. Rational people do not go do what terrorists do. See Israel and Palestine for example. When Clinton was President, Israel offered the Palestinians 99% of the land they wanted and Arafat responded by overturning the table and storming out. Why? because Arafat was screwed either way. He didn't *really* want the land. He wanted to fight Israel. If they gave him the land, he lost his professed reason for fighting. what if the only concession the terrorists want is the total subjection of all non-muslims? what do you offer them for peace that they would accept?

If the terrorists will only accept our destruction. There is no possibility for negotiation... The palestinians have proven this for 30 years.

 

[XAAX]

Come now Quoth... the panda told me that by Texas standards he's honour roll material.

Hey I take extreme offense to that...Trust me, he is just a redneck moron who's daddy can pull losts of strings. The mans biography reads like one train reck after another. He has never done anything that he didn't screw up. Im pretty sure, but correct me if im wrong. I remember reading that he wanted to go to UT but they wouldnt even let him in with his GPA. Thats why he went elsewhere, somewhere his daddy had pull.

 

[Comprehend]

Hey I take extreme offense to that...Trust me, he is just a redneck moron who's daddy can pull losts of strings. The mans biography reads like one train reck after another. He has never done anything that he didn't screw up. Im pretty sure, but correct me if im wrong. I remember reading that he wanted to go to UT but they wouldnt even let him in with his GPA. Thats why he went elsewhere, somewhere his daddy had pull.

if you want to cry about Bush can you start your own thread instead of going into every thread and doing it? we get it already, you don't like Bush. Great.

 

[lilithu]

ok. I agree that sounds great. but how many cities would you allow to be vaporized before you tried something else?

just let me know when you would change strategy...

1. Manhattan
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Washington D.C.
(anything yet? or would you like to continue throwing flowers around?)
5. Seattle
6. Baltimore
7. Miami
8. Atlanta
9. Detroit
10. St. Louis
(still nothing? well, unfortunately by this time there would be nothing we could do.)

Cute. I didn't say to throw the borders open and invite the terrorists to take their pick. This conversation is based on the premise that even if we diligently maintain our borders there will still likely be another terrorist attack. And perhaps more than one. But it's not going to be a free-for-all that you suggest. You're entire argument is based on fear. There is no reason more to believe that that these cities would be attacked if we did not retaliate than if we did. There is no evidence that the war in Iraq, nor even Afghanistan, has made us safer than we were before.

Logically, your solution would work. but unfortunately we are not dealing with rational people. Rational people do not go do what terrorists do. See Israel and Palestine for example. When Clinton was President, Israel offered the Palestinians 99% of the land they wanted and Arafat responded by overturning the table and storming out. Why? because Arafat was screwed either way. He didn't *really* want the land. He wanted to fight Israel. If they gave him the land, he lost his professed reason for fighting. what if the only concession the terrorists want is the total subjection of all non-muslims? what do you offer them for peace that they would accept?

If the terrorists will only accept our destruction. There is no possibility for negotiation... The palestinians have proven this for 30 years.

You're not getting the gist of the strategy. I'm not expecting to change the minds of the terrorists. I'm trying to keep everyone else on our side. There are a small number of people who would kill innocent civilians and themselves in order to hurt the U.S. They can do what they do because they are supported by a larger number of people who wouldn't be willing to do that themselves but are willing to support those who do. They are in turn supported by an even larger number of people who wouldn't be willing to directly support the actual killers but would be willing to sell stuff that they suspect is going for less than noble purposes. And then a much, much larger group of people who are willing to look the other way. The terrorists can't operate without the cooperation/acceptance/tolerance of those around them. (Lest anyone condemn these people let me point out that our own warhawks can't operate without our cooperation/acceptance/tolerance.) These are the people who's hearts and minds I want on our side. Everytime we kill an innocent civilian, we turn hearts against us and towards the terrorists.

This is the strategy behind "turn the other cheek." Jesus was talking to the Jewish people who were being oppressed by the Romans, some of them resisting violently and being crushed in turn. He wasn't telling us to be doormats. He was telling us how to be the better person in a way that everyone around could see it. And his followers listened to him. They faced death at the hands of the Romans without violence of their own. And people who weren't Christian were amazed at this, and wanted to know what this faith was that would give its followers so much inner strength. They converted. THAT is how Christianity overcame the Roman empire, not by physical force.

This is the same strategy used by Gandhi to force the British out of India. This is the same strategy used by Dr. King. Show the world who is the better person BY BEING THE BETTER PERSON.

It would be harder for us because we're not the underdog. People understand why the less powerful use violence. But when the powerful use violence we are seen as the bullies (and worse). As I said it would be hard. How much faith do you have?

 

[Comprehend]

Cute. I didn't say to throw the borders open and invite the terrorists to take their pick. This conversation is based on the premise that even if we diligently maintain our borders there will still likely be another terrorist attack. And perhaps more than one. But it's not going to be a free-for-all that you suggest. You're entire argument is based on fear. There is no reason more to believe that that these cities would be attacked if we did not retaliate than if we did. There is no evidence that the war in Iraq, nor even Afghanistan, has made us safer than we were before.

I see you would like to avoid the question. My argument has nothing to do with fear thank you. It has to do with history. Terrorists have shown so far that they never stop unless they win. So my assumption that they will continue to do so has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with reason.

You're not getting the gist of the strategy. I'm not expecting to change the minds of the terrorists. I'm trying to keep everyone else on our side. There are a small number of people who would kill innocent civilians and themselves in order to hurt the U.S. They can do what they do because they are supported by a larger number of people who wouldn't be willing to do that themselves but are willing to support those who do. They are in turn supported by an even larger number of people who wouldn't be willing to directly support the actual killers but would be willing to sell stuff that they suspect is going for less than noble purposes. And then a much, much larger group of people who are willing to look the other way. The terrorists can't operate without the cooperation/acceptance/tolerance of those around them. (Lest anyone condemn these people let me point out that our own warhawks can't operate without our cooperation/acceptance/tolerance.) These are the people who's hearts and minds I want on our side. Everytime we kill an innocent civilian, we turn hearts against us and towards the terrorists.

This is the strategy behind "turn the other cheek." Jesus was talking to the Jewish people who were being oppressed by the Romans, some of them resisting violently and being crushed in turn. He wasn't telling us to be doormats. He was telling us how to be the better person in a way that everyone around could see it. And his followers listened to him. They faced death at the hands of the Romans without violence of their own. And people who weren't Christian were amazed at this, and wanted to know what this faith was that would give its followers so much inner strength. They converted. THAT is how Christianity overcame the Roman empire, not by physical force.

This is the same strategy used by Gandhi to force the British out of India. This is the same strategy used by Dr. King. Show the world who is the better person BY BEING THE BETTER PERSON.

It would be harder for us because we're not the underdog. People understand why the less powerful use violence. But when the powerful use violence we are seen as the bullies (and worse). As I said it would be hard. How much faith do you have?

um. yes. I got that already. thanks. like I said, it only works with people who reason. Gandhi's method worked with the British because the British are rational. Terrorists are not. They prove this over and over.
also, it doesn't take very many people to take a cab with a suitcase nuke into a city.
I would love it if we could just turn the other cheek and be the better person as you say, but you might change your mind when when millions of people are the better dead person. If you think laying down and hoping for sympathy from the rest of the world while we get blown to bits is a good strategy, knock yourself out. I am sure they would be more than happy to execute you for one of their videos. I will try to use a little more common sense.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

If the attackers came from Saudi Arabia and Iran, then the answer is obvious.

Attack Iraq.

lol

Actually, I think Syria might be next. We don't have the troops to occupy Iran or Saudia Arabia (plus the Bush's are friends with the Saudi government). But Syria would only take a few days to invade.

 

[Booko]

um. yes. I got that already. thanks. like I said, it only works with people who reason. Gandhi's method worked with the British because the British are rational.

Ghandi specifically said that his strategy worked because he was dealing with the British, and if it had been the Germans, it wouldn't have worked.

I would love it if we could just turn the other cheek and be the better person as you say, but you might change your mind when when millions of people are the better dead person. If you think laying down and hoping for sympathy from the rest of the world while we get blown to bits is a good strategy, knock yourself out.

You see, as much as I would regret taking another person's life, if they are in the process of killing some innocent, I would not hesitate to make them stop in whatever way I could, in order to save the innocent. If that means killing them -- well fine. I would much prefer other options, but sometimes there aren't any.

Lilithu has a point that our actions are so culturally ignorant that we often foster an environment that causes people to hate us more, and that's something we can and should work on.

But I don't think it's enough, and it's not a short term solution but a long term one. Do we have a couple of generations to wait until public opinion in areas that foster terrorists turns around? Can we even have enough influence to change opinions, giving the kiddies are being fed hate daily at school and their parents have such a myopic view of the world?

If a gang goes through a neighborhood shooting it up -- we take them out. We arrest them if possible. If we need to -- they get killed.

Dealing with terrorists should be no different. If they criminally blow up a bunch of people, then we do what it takes to prevent them from doing it again.

I'd prefer we find ways to lock them up and try them, but if they don't give us that option, then the only remaining options involve violence. Waiting for them to become nice is not an option.

 

[Booko]

lol

Actually, I think Syria might be next. We don't have the troops to occupy Iran or Saudia Arabia (plus the Bush's are friends with the Saudi government). But Syria would only take a few days to invade.

Military power is the least form of power, and the shortest lasting of all.

We won't invade Syria because it's too close to the geographical and cultural center of the area. Not to mention it would royally peeve the Saudis (pun intended) and there would be some consequences there as well. Remember they can almost singlehandedly put the West into a position where our economies are destroyed, and without any violence. They have us by the naughty bits, in their own way.

If it were politically feasible to invade Syria, we would've done it years ago.

As a practical matter, we don't need to occupy Iran to put it out of commission as a dangerous nation. They already have problems in that their ancient Tomcats are literally sitting on roadsides because they have a hard time getting spare parts for them.

Taking such a military option would do a few other things:

1. Convince all of Europe, not to mention everyone else, that we are dangerous and need to be stopped.
2. Destroy whatever economy Iran has left and create a refugee situation that would be a disaster of Biblical proportions.
3. The cost of the operations and the aftermath we'd have to deal with, even if we don't occupy Iran, would be so high our own economy would be stretched to the breaking point. By aftermath I'm referring to the idea that we'd probably respond by buildilng up even more of a permanent military force, since nearly the entire world would be arrayed against us at that point. (see point 1).

 

[lilithu]

I see you would like to avoid the question. My argument has nothing to do with fear thank you. It has to do with history. Terrorists have shown so far that they never stop unless they win. So my assumption that they will continue to do so has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with reason.

You're question is based on the assumption that what you fear will happen. Your statement about the "history" of "terrorists" is an unfounded conclusion based on several false assumptions. Who counts as a "terrorist" in your view? How far back does this "history" go? What in your mind consitutes a "win." Give me a concrete example to back up your claim.

um. yes. I got that already. thanks. like I said, it only works with people who reason. Gandhi's method worked with the British because the British are rational. Terrorists are not. They prove this over and over.

And I've already said, it's not the terrorists we're trying to convince. It's the people who support them indirectly, without whose support they wouldn't be able to function.

also, it doesn't take very many people to take a cab with a suitcase nuke into a city.

Actually it takes a lot of people. It takes the people who procure the materials for the bomb. It takes the people who are willing to store it. It takes the people who have the skills to put it together. It takes the people who are willing to transport it. And it takes all the people who support the people who are doing these things. If you only see the people behind the very last step, maybe that's why you have the illusion that we can "take them out" militarily. What I see is that if you respond that way, there will be people to step in and take their place, because the guys in the taxi cab are just the deliverymen while the network that created them and the bomb is still there. Otoh, if we see everything that has to happen for that last step to happen, we can see that stopping it in those places would prevent the bomb from existing in the first place.

I would love it if we could just turn the other cheek and be the better person as you say, but you might change your mind when when millions of people are the better dead person. If you think laying down and hoping for sympathy from the rest of the world while we get blown to bits is a good strategy, knock yourself out. I am sure they would be more than happy to execute you for one of their videos. I will try to use a little more common sense.

I am not talking about laying down and hoping for sympathy. Did you actually read the rest of my first post or were you too fixated on my saying that we shouldn't nuke the entire middle east? I said that we should build coalitions, bring diplomatic and economic pressures to bear. I'm talking about a very active process of strategically isolating those who would cause us harm. Just because we don't respond militarily does not mean that we just lay down and do nothing.

That's the problem with many of us, we're so fixated on violence being the only solution to a problem that when someone suggests that we don't use violence we think that means we don't do anything.

Was it common sense to invade Iraq? Yeah, that worked out great. How many countries do we have to occupy before your way of doing things starts to work?

 

[lilithu]

Ghandi specifically said that his strategy worked because he was dealing with the British, and if it had been the Germans, it wouldn't have worked.

That's funny, because he basically told the Jews in Nazi Germany to stay there and practice his strategy, even if it meant they'd be slaughtered.

You see, as much as I would regret taking another person's life, if they are in the process of killing some innocent, I would not hesitate to make them stop in whatever way I could, in order to save the innocent. If that means killing them -- well fine. I would much prefer other options, but sometimes there aren't any.

Lilithu has a point that our actions are so culturally ignorant that we often foster an environment that causes people to hate us more, and that's something we can and should work on.

But I don't think it's enough, and it's not a short term solution but a long term one. Do we have a couple of generations to wait until public opinion in areas that foster terrorists turns around? Can we even have enough influence to change opinions, giving the kiddies are being fed hate daily at school and their parents have such a myopic view of the world?

If a gang goes through a neighborhood shooting it up -- we take them out. We arrest them if possible. If we need to -- they get killed.

Dealing with terrorists should be no different. If they criminally blow up a bunch of people, then we do what it takes to prevent them from doing it again.

I'd prefer we find ways to lock them up and try them, but if they don't give us that option, then the only remaining options involve violence. Waiting for them to become nice is not an option.

Again, I think I'm not being understood. I agree, if you see someone harming an innocent, yeah, take them out. If we know that there are people in a cab headed towards Manhattan (or where ever) with the intent to commit an act of terrorism, I agree, do what it takes to stop them. If it takes killing them, I will not lose any sleep over it.

What we're talking about here is two different things. There is violence that's commited in order to stop an act of violence that is happening or about to happen. And then there's violence that's commited after the fact for revenge/retaliation or pre-emptively in the desperate hope that such violence will intimidate the enemy against attacking in the future. The former is unfortunate but morally necessary. It would be immoral not to act. The latter type of violence is what I'm saying we should avoid at all cost, even tho it may seem justified to us. That kind of violence perpetuates violence. There is no end. You might achieve a temporary respite by using overwhelming force. But even if we weren't concerned with the ethics of that strategy it is still ultimately a temporary solution, and it keeps us in a state of perpetual fear.

 

[silvermoon383]

Here's how I see it- terrorism is a cancer that eats away at civilization. We know that the best way to kill a tumor is not to just attack the tumor itself, but to kill off the blood vessels it grows to feed itself as well.

A terrorist attack on a WMD scale can not be the act of a single person/small group. Logistics demand that it would be the act of a large, diverse group with a well placed and valuable supplier.

If terrorists did use a nuclear device, then we must not only hunt down and eliminate the terrorists responsible (the tumor), but we must also find the source of their supplies and funding (the blood vessels) and eliminate those as well.

And for my last note, again using my cancer analogy, radiation treatment may be effective, but the fact that it kills healthy cells and tissue makes it a bit unfeasible, especilally when more conventional means are available.

 

[lilithu]

Here's how I see it- terrorism is a cancer that eats away at civilization. We know that the best way to kill a tumor is not to just attack the tumor itself, but to kill off the blood vessels it grows to feed itself as well.

A terrorist attack on a WMD scale can not be the act of a single person/small group. Logistics demand that it would be the act of a large, diverse group with a well placed and valuable supplier.

If terrorists did use a nuclear device, then we must not only hunt down and eliminate the terrorists responsible (the tumor), but we must also find the source of their supplies and funding (the blood vessels) and eliminate those as well.

And for my last note, again using my cancer analogy, radiation treatment may be effective, but the fact that it kills healthy cells and tissue makes it a bit unfeasible, especilally when more conventional means are available.

You and I are on the same page in terms of seeing the blood vessels that support the cancer. However, you lose me when you say we must "kill off" the blood vessels. How? How doe we kill off these blood vessels which nourish healthy cells as well as the cancerous cells without doing great harm to the body? I suggest that instead what we need to do is redirect the blood vessels so that they are once again feeding healthy cells.

 

[silvermoon383]

While a young tumor essentially "hijacks" healthy blood vessels to live, as it grows it will make its own to support its mass. These are the ones that need to be shut off and removed.