Posted on 12/03/2004 11:00:39 PM PST by ChristianDefender
Back in the days of the Cold War, the U.S. had a nuclear-weapons doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. This doctrine held that if the U.S. were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, we would immediately and without debate counter-attack the homeland of the perpetrator in such a way and with such overwhelming nuclear force as to make the cost of the initial attack too much to bear.
For instance, if the Soviet Union or the Chinese would have attacked us with WMD in the Cold War, we would have counter-attacked at the very least by destroying their 100 largest cities. The theory was that once you have destroyed the 100 largest cities of any society, even an evil empire, that society effectively ceases to exist, perhaps for several generations, thus deterring any WMD attack. Variations of this same nuclear doctrine were held by our Cold War allies and advisories, including the evil empire.
Although gruesome sounding, the beauty of MAD is that it worked. Even though both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, none was ever used. In fact, both sides went to great lengths to establish hardened and redundant command, communication and control systems to prevent the accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons, fearing the dire consequences.
The primary reason MAD worked is because it was simple and unambiguous. Both sides let the other side know in no uncertain terms that a nuclear first strike would be followed immediately by an overwhelming nuclear counter-strike destroying the heartland, culture and society of the attacker. This was a price even the most evil 20th century dictators would not even contemplate.
We now have a new enemy, Islamic terrorism, hellbent to either enslave or destroy us. This enemy is in many ways much harder to cope with than an evil empire. It does not have an army, an economy, an infrastructure, a capital or a state to attack. This enemy refuses to show itself on the field of battle so we can destroy it with our superior weapons and tactics.
However, Islamic terrorism could not exist if it did not enjoy comfort, support and succor from the Islamic societies from which its members are recruited. Besides the overt state support from Syria, Iran, pre-invasion Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, etc., this enemy also enjoys popular support in Islamic states. The popular support of the terrorists is much larger than it is politically correct to discuss in most forums in the West. But, does anyone doubt that bin Laden would be elected dictator-for-life in Saudi Arabia if that nation had free elections? Let's not allow political correctness to blind us or kill us. The terrorists are merely an extreme form of widespread corruption, totalitarianism and venality prevalent in Islamic states and societies worldwide.
Now, here is the urgent problem. The Islamic terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy us. If and when they acquire a nuclear weapon with the help of their state sponsors, they will use it in the U.S. homeland without warning. Can you imagine the effect of just one nuclear weapon being detonated in New York or Washington? In addition to the initial horrific destruction and casualties, the U.S. economy and perhaps the world economy would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like Sunday school. Investment would stop for fear of further nuclear attacks. If they have one, maybe they have more? Our wealth would be dramatically reduced, and the economy would be in chaos for at least a generation. The American way of life would be dramatically altered, perhaps permanently. In short, the Islamic terrorists would win.
The stakes are as high as can be, and our current strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East may work too slowly or not work at all. How do we prevent that first nuclear attack and mobilize the world, even the Islamic societies, against the terrorists' nuclear ambitions? We need a new nuclear doctrine that puts everybody's skin in the game. We need a new nuclear doctrine that places the American people, the American society, the American economy and the American way of life far above politeness and political correctness.
I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine:
In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed. Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.
The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace," and it holds all Islamic states and North Korea accountable for their behavior. If you don't want your cities on the target list, you have to earn your way off the list. Give us the head of bin Laden on a stick, and you may get a pass. Shut down your nuclear programs in an open and verifiable way, and you can earn your way off the target list.
Another advantage of this doctrine is that it doesn't cost a nickel. We have the necessary weapons and delivery systems in place. This would only require a fraction of our existing nuclear warheads. I presume the platform of choice would be Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean.
Of course, the hand wringers, peaceniks and leftist elites would shout and scream bloody murder about how aggressive, unfair and politically incorrect this doctrine appears. However, I believe it would accomplish the same thing as MAD – namely, the successful deterrence of nuclear holocaust. All we need is the will to declare it.
Oh please. That tired arguement is getting old. Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Protestants, Mormons, Catholics, agnostics, humanists, atheists, scientologists, and for that matter, secularists (other than a few whackjobs) are not blowing up innocent men, women, and CHILDREN around the world. Wake up and realize who the enemy is. It IS Islamofacists, who insist you convert or die or slowly be taken over by Shar'ia law, which amounts to the same. Do some research.
Right on -- it's good to knwo that there are SOME folks who get it -- who realise the danger we are in and don't make excuses based on no knowledge or experience in the matter
I don't think asgard is muslime, probably a well-meaning chap/chappette who hasn't seen the evil ofIslam first hand or read their death book
And you could very well be the guy who got cut off on the freeway by a Pakistani 15 years ago, and this is all your Machiavellian plot to get even.
I'm "coming from" the rational viewpoint that it is intrisically evil to vaporize defenceless women and children. Call me crazy, but that's the way I feel about this ludicrous suggestion.
Don't feed wolves in your backyard in hopes of domesticating them. Make their lives a living Hell, and wipe out their structure so massively that they have to become civilized to survive.
Given a choice between war and survival, everyone chooses survival. Even Islam.
Well yes, but your oil field workers from Engineers to roustabout would have to be in radiation suits and could only be on the job for an hour or so and then retire.
It would also cost around $1250 to fill up your Hummer.
Get real.
I started to respond to you by explaining how and why the USA won the Cold War, and to dispell the 100 city myth.
Then I realised it would be futile.
There are many ways to conduct war. Those most expert in conducting it, fervently wish to avoid it, but when war is declared, which it has been, leave it to them to conduct.
The chatter from the peanut gallery is just inane chatter.
Go shopping or something, but dont expect your armchair opinions to be worth much beyond the laughing derision of those who actually decide the details.
Sorry bud but you are not free to spread the word of or plan for the destruction of this country.
That's called sedition and is illegal.
Are you a Fundamental Darwinist?
I dunno -- wasn't really trying to defend his statements, just voicing out what I hear when anyone saysIslam is the religion of pss
A scalar response is all I'm asking. Of course our response should exceed the scale of any attack on our soil with WMDs, but we must not exceed the scale of their attack by multiple orders of magnitude.
One dirty bomb in Orlando cannot rationally precipitate destruction of 100 Muslim cities. I do not accept the morality of that suggestion.
No.
nuke mecca and medina, don't nuke any other muslime cities. They will turn. Don't cut off the heads of the hydra or its arms -- aim for the heart
"Given a choice between war and survival, everyone chooses survival. Even Islam."
islam just chooses survival for now until it can get a global caliphate. It picks and chooses its battles. Perhaps such a total destruction of mecca could break its back from global conquest, but who knows. It may need the level of destruction only seen in WW2's losers to really give up its entire belief system.
Well, Japan did what.. How many Americans were killed in Pearl Harbor?
Maybe we should've just been satisfied with Doolittle's run?
Then it would've been all even right? Heck, even the Japs would've taken that easily.
I don't believe he was talking about First Strike.
Exactly, had the USSR nuked 1, 5, 10 cities through Cuba I don't think the USA would've sat back and not eliminated 1/3 of the world in response.
We're weak and up for attack now.
Would not such an event ultimately be a mercy for the billion or so hell-bound muslims around the world? Will we be ready to evanglize 'em after their demon-spawned faith is discredited? (How hard is it to learn Arabic?)
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.