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.
Irrelevant. The effects I described would occur even if it is second strike, third strike, or fourth strike.
The brain washed masses of islam are no more concern than the brain washed masses of Japan. We wiped off their imperial symbols off their rifles and everything else. Surprise, it worked.
Then to h*** with oil -- in any case we do have oil fields in Alaska, Siberia, VEnezuala, Nigeria, Angola etc.
I say,, we take on IRAN and N Korea in the next year or 2.
I heard some reports, that Iran can have a Nuke in 5 months, is that true ? did anyone else hear that report in the news ?
Am I the only one who realizes that these whack jobs are completely ready to die for their cause and that they only way to get rid of them is to hunt them done one by one? To the this is already a 2000 year old war and as long as they will they'll be fine with a 20,000 year one.
A few nutbars wearing towels on their heads that practice a different religion.
Are you insane?
Pull your head out and wipe it off and take a look around before you say such ignorant things.
You can debate wheether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary, but in the conventional wisdom of the day, the two bombings (shock and awe) ended the war without massive Japanese national infrastructure destruction, and probably save millions of lives, both combatant and civillian. Ensuing policies enabled Japan to become an economic power in relatively short order, and kept the Japanese from being sucked into the communist Bloc.
nk probably has 10+ implosion type bombs now. It's a disaster of epic talk.
Iran is probably damn close to one, and maybe a few gun types.
And from what I've seen, testing is not really needed. There's enough tech to test nukes in subcritical tests that they know they will work.
Either that or I think you say if a nuclear device explodes in this country, the origins of that device and the people reponsible for detonating it are all subject to reprisal in the same fashion.
Again, no one wants to do it, but without that deterrent, what other choice do you have. I'm all ears and hopeful that there are better alternatives out there. Unfortunately, I fear in my lifetime or my kids lifetime this scenario gets played out and we will have to make some kind of decision.
Wrong. Their governments should and can "control" the numerous fanactical cells from wherever. Understood that they can't control every fanatic, but organized "cells" withing an organized terrorist organization can be minimilized...the US has already done it.
They are either with us or against us. This is a worldwide war against nationally sponsored and nationally ignored barbarism. They need to choose sides. They have the political and military power to do so. If not, then let them fall into the ash heap of history, like so many side-lined sovereigntys have done.
The delicious irony of that accusation coming from the keyboard of somebody who apparently supports nuking every Muslim country on the planet is just too much.
islam is not just fighting the USA, but Russian and India and Israel. Oh and 9/11 too.
I was saying just attacks on the USA that we retaliated against. islam is easily as bad as 30's Japan, but 30's Japan was only bad for a few decades.. islam has been worse for 1400 years.
Exactly. Just put one on Mecca and let 'em pray to the 4 winds.
I believe that as well. Take out their top sites.. And let Israel rule the temple mount, and you'd have a billion people utterly wrecked.
A lot of them would just take it like Bush beating kerry.. They had their entire lives wasted. Big deal.
I knew you would say that. But the analogy does not apply.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities largely untouched by allied bombing but nonetheless larded with craftsman-style arms production. Prime fair targets were these.
And how many American forces did the Japanese kill in the war they declared on us before LeMay unleashed hell?
There are sundry differences that should not be forgotten. The hell unleashed on Hiroshima or Nagasaki (80k to 100k dead) were not so unscalar with what Japan unleashed on Nanking or the other occupied regions.
But you are potentially talking about a dirty bomb that might kill thousands and cause $20 billion in damages (including real estate, cleanup, healthcare, etc), and you are talking about liquidating the population of how many cities with MIRVed thermonuclear weapons?
What you describe is not proportional, and thus is insanely immoral.
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.