If you killed off the only reason US has a reason to be in the Middle East, then you would let him go as well and blame it on your "intelligence" too...;)

That's a little extreme don't you think? There are serious repercussions when nuclear devices are used and they sure as crap shouldn't be used for one guy.

I am not sure that you are correct that the world would have packed it. A lot of people, particularly in the west, would have backed it. But I think that Russia, China, India and Pakistan,, all of which have nuclear weapons and all of which border on Afghanistan, would have got very fidgety. Particularly, Russia and China can detect a nuclear explosion anywhere in the world and would automatically go to alert status if one went off. They tend to think anything is aimed against them until proved otherwise. And none of those countries would be very keen on a cloud of radioactive dust blowing over th4eir borders. And, on the other side, success is far from certain. How do you hide from a nuclear explosion? Under a very large heap of rock (or synthetic rock - concrete). The Tora Bora caves amount to a gigantic natural nuclear bunker. Nukes wipe out anything that is flammable, and any building which are essentially hollow shells. But against solid (or nearly solid) rock they cannot do much; the underground nuclear tests left holes about 12 feet across.

I think it would have been a rash and foolish decision. Nuclear weapons are not a logical or precise method of eliminating one pesky individual. None of us can predict how the rest of the world would have reacted to such a destructive measure, but my brain is indicating to me that we would have ended up with a lot more enemies than friends. Your point of view about this particular situation seems to be slightly outdated. There are other ways to eliminate international nuisances, ones that don't involve mass destruction and chaos. I think the US picked the correct route by NOT dropping a nuke on Osama. While I'm not always in agreement with the US miliarty and foreign policy, this is one instance where I can say that I'm proud of my country for doing the right thing.

what a stupid thing to say. like its ok to kill thousands upon thousands of non-terrorists, as long as you get your man? thats the kind of americo-centric (made up word) thinking that got you in this pickle in the first place

using nuclear bombs would open up the use of them by other nations. It would have also cause mass destruction to innocent people in the vicinity.

Tactical or Stratigic nukes are a last case scenerio. The world would not have backed the US. We would look even worse to the world than we do now. Do you have no concept of the AFTER effects of using a nuke? Granted, they can generate a lot of initial destructive power, but there is something called "fallout".

In hindsight, it MIGHT have been more efficient, but nobody in the US is going to go for that. There are also some dangerous international implications of dropping a nuke. Frankly, compared with people who place no value on human life and are willing to die to get their point across, everyone comes up short and looking "weak."

I can see three major aspects where that idea is fatally flawed: 1-Collateral Damage- If the U.S. had set off a nuclear weapon in the Tora Bora desert, it would have, in all likelihood, killed hundreds if not thousands of people living in the area, and caused serious health issues for millions of people because of the spreading fallout it would have left behind. 2-Appearances- I strongly disagree with you when you say that "The world would have almost certainly backed the use of a tactical war head in this instance." The rest of the world would almost certainly *Not* have backed the use of a tactical nuclear weapon just to kill one man. And when you say that not using a nuke made the U.S. look weak and vulnerable, I ask you this: How would the U.S. have looked if it *Had* used a nuclear weapon? The U.S. would have looked like (And in fact *Been*) one of the dangerously fanatical groups that it was supposedly fighting so hard to eradicate. 3-Effectiveness- If Osama Bin Laden was in fact hiding in the Tora Bora caves, under metres of solid rock and soil, he would have been very close to bottom of the list of things and people in that area likely to be destroyed by a nuclear explosion.

The regime in control of the US never wanted to get Bin Laden. It has never been a high priority, if it has ever been a priority at all.

Why not? = "Collateral damage" (as they say)? Potentially hundreds of thousands of innocents killed or maimed for what purpose? Protecting US interests in the area? Oil? Or (as you say) *appearances*? This is consciencelessness beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct and absolutely absurd!

Are you mental?