Vympel said: "Whoever wrote that heading, it was in extremely poor taste, making light of the unintentional deaths of over 100 civilians in a terrorist manner." I agree. I also can't think off-hand of a way of solving the impasse at the Barricade Theater without killing SOME of the hostages. A lighter dose of ANY war gas or anesthetic would have alerted the Chechen terrorists to what was going on and resulted in the deaths of everyone present - failing that, some people would have died from toxic effects of the gas from its having been released in enclosed spaces, anyway. I'm certainly not going to criticize the on-scene commander's tactical choices going into the operation. The ONLY rational criticism I can think of is that the government there could have told the doctors treating the hostages afterward what they were dealing with (credible sources estimate it was 3-methyl fentanyl, a powerful opiate analgesic). They wouldn't have had to go into details about the exact agent used, just said something to the effect of: "naloxone may be useful in treating this." Or better yet, they could have simply supplied the antidote in unlabeled bottles and said, "Use this in such and such a dose. If you lose any of it, you're going to Siberia for treason." But even that could eliminate the effectiveness of the gas if it were needed in the future, because the next team of terrorists would simply inject themselves with the antidote before taking hostages. I can understand why the Russians were reluctant to essentially publish the antidote to what has apparently been a very effective war gas for them, and one which, used in the open, is much less toxic than any comparable gas or other weapon. The Russian leadership had to balance 100 lives versus the effectiveness of a weapon that could save many more lives in the future. It was a bad situation, and I certainly don't know how it could have been handled any better, all things considered.

Amen. I just wish we had the testicular fortitude to behave the same way under similar situations. What do you think would have happened in the US? I'm not talking about what we would have done. Rather, I'm talking about the political reprecussions of WHATEVER we would have done, other than give in to their demands. We need to be strong and I'm not sure that we are. The media (and the democratic leadership) would have slaughtered anyone who supported such action, even if it was the best course of action. LOS>