To the editor:

Clearly the author of the “Russian Rescue” editorial (L-JW 30 Oct 02) has no idea of the destructive potential of 330 pounds of high explosive? How can someone whose largest decision of the day is whether to have a bagel or a doughnut for breakfast suggest that “it appears several other options, including a conventional assault, might have resulted in fewer hostage deaths”?

For God’s sake, this was not a campus sit-in! Those 50 “captors” were determined, armed to the teeth with weapons that fire 10 bullets a second, shielded by hundreds of hostages and girdled with high explosives. They could be expected to detonate those explosives at the first sign of a “conventional” assault or most certainly if they were shot (and not instantly killed) during an assault. Additionally, since the “captors” could be expected to have gas masks in their overnight bags, the Russian authorities were limited in their selection of chemical agents.

This editorial even seems to imply that all 50 “captors” were killed, rather than incapacitated, by the “secret” gas. By executing all the “captors” on the spot as they lay in a gas-induced coma the special forces ensured the safety of the hostages and literally guaranteed that terrorist will not again soon try to shape Russian state policy. As these things go, it was a remarkably successful rescue.

I too “hope that officials elsewhere will use this as a lesson” … on how to decisively deal with terrorists.

Gary Stussie

Lawrence