Posted on 08/23/2006 5:28:06 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.
Think about it. Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism -- without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have -- the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S., but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?
Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.
I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit.
What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid-'30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.
Anyone who thinks current Western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.
L
This may be an overstatement, since the nature of the enemy today can and will take out our soldiers most anywhere in the world, together with countless innocents, with total impunity.
BTTT
To all the doofuses making the comparison between the Marshall Plan and rebuilding Iraq or Lebanon, please note: Not one cent nor one stick of aid was ever given before unconditional surrender.
If you are not capable of grasping the distinction, please retire to the kiddies section, and leave the discussion to the adults.
We gonna build that scrap pile high as the sky, high as the sky, high as the sky....We gonna build that scrap pile high as the sky and make ole Hitler run.
Yes, we were indoctrinated to believe that our country was good and great. We children were secure knowing our leaders meant "business" when we sang of defeating the enemy. Our parents supported our government and President FDR. Daddy never missed Gabriel Heater, reporting news from the frontlines. Life Magazine and The Eyes and Ears of the World were our TV pictures.
I doubt that my seven grandchildren and one ggranchild will very long live in a free country that our fast-dying generation bought with such a price.
How sad to know?
Even if we could square a policy of a middle eastern muslim genocide with the Christian moral traditions of this country, there are still more than enough radicalized Islamists residing in the west to pose a continuing threat to us for quite some time. And they'd be infinitely more motivated to kill us all, of course.
"Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Democrats, like Communists and Islamofacists have something in common. For their ideology they will kill millions if necessary to preserve their ideology. With Republicans and with Judeo/Christian thought, there is a morality involved that says we will not take human life.
Clinton killed hundreds of thousands in random bombings in Bosnia/Serbia. No coalition, no UN support, no congressional support. And the press did nothing.
We are in a WOT and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and the press calls us savages.
Something is seriously wrong.
Will the West defend itself? The only way that is going to happen is if the NT Times building mysteriouly collapses, everyone at Al Jazeera comes down with ebola and CNN world headquarters is destroyed by a stampede of cattle with digestion problems.
It's quite stunning, isn't it?
You make excellent points. The left's lack of clarity has become an integral part of American culture, their "gray" areas are nothing more than fog designed to keep citizens from seeing the facts.
If the Iranians aren't taken out soon, this thing will grow to Armageddon proportions.
How?
Who's going to join on the side of Iran in nuclear war?
"Clinton killed hundreds of thousands in random bombings in Bosnia/Serbia."
That's news to me.
Yes, he killed. I don't believe it was anywhere near those numbers.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks killing 241 U.S. service members.A traitor. By definition.
The WOT won't be over until (a) ME oil reserves are essentially depleted; or (b) we develop viable alternative (i) petroleum reserves or (ii) sources of energy.
Our best bets in the WOT are the expanding Chinese/Indian economies - the fast ME oil is sucked up, the better.
The entire ME economy is based on resource extraction. No oil=no money=no technology=back to camel humping. Islamic outposts in Europe will be stranded and will finally be forced to adapt 'or else'.
Finally, some lucid thought! The American people, fueled by the MSM and the looney left don't understand that we are in a battle of survival with the islamofascists. The deaths of innocent civilians are unfortunate, but it is those same "innocents" who empower the islamic radicals and who also have the power to make them stop their terrorism. They just need to suffer more, which is something that we have been unwilling so far to make them do. If Osama didn't have the cover of civilian "innocents" do you think he would've lasted this long?
Radicalized governments in Pakistan and Egypt would be one scenario. The other might be that Iran manages somehow to set off a nuclear detonation in Israel, and Israel nukes the Middle East.
There could also be alliances formed with Russia or China or the even the EU. History is full of odd twists and turns.
While many things are possible. They are not likely.
If nukes start going back and forth the rest of the world will get as far away as possible.
As far as Israel goes, it really has only two primary targets in any kind major exchange like that. Iran and Syria. And on that list only Iran is worth a nuke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.