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.
Yes.
Are the Lutherans, Methodists, Athiest and Scientologist flying planes into buildings? Have they gotten on world wide tv and sworn to destroy America? Did I miss those radical cultist christians when they did all that?
Sure it does, but without the tritium, the Soviet style suitcase nuke will either be a purely fission detonation, or a very low order fission-fusion detonation.
In that situation, while we might feel entirely satisfied by responding with what they intended to use on us (thermonuclear, or 'fusion,' devices), the fact is, almost everything in our nuclear arsenal would far outclass what would have by then been suffered by us.
We have MOABs that, when deployed in clusters, can cause Hiroshima-scale destruction. That theoretical response is far better than some doctrine that locks us into obliteration of millions because of one nucdet on our soil.
The difference is not so obvious, I think. If these animals manage to detonate a nuclear device on US soil it will be a one time shot, given their palpably inferior skill for strategic thinking and industrial development in support thereof. MAD was devised as an entire repertoire of responses against another nation with ICBMs, SLBMs, intercontinental bombers, etc.
The cities do not produce food, most energy resources are fairly dispersed.
Oh sure, it'd be a mess, but America is not so vulnerable, just because out functions are not as centralized as they are in other nations. All Federal Agencies have redundant organizations at the State Level.
After the 'welfare riots' were quelled, things could go on pretty much normally, sans a few hundred thousand lawyers.
America survived just fine before computers and e-banking, we could do it again.
right on -- I do think that many of us freepers -- if we were born in a muslime state and brainwashed from day 1, we would be the same as these jihadis. But when we see that its all a lie, when we see the utter truth, when we are hit by that MENTAL bombshell, we would toss aside the belief (of course we'd then be in despair, but that's where the pastors come in)
I don't understand the great dance around the black stony cube, but its destruction is a last resort, not a first strike.
Auschwitz-Birkenau (now restored to Oswiciem, Poland) is pretty remote. Would that suit you?
Yeah. I think you've got it.
We just had a few problems with the Japanese so we ran around the globe for a few years, then dropped nonexistant hydrogen bombs on them and now we're friends.
I think you solved the problem.
We'll send Rodney King over there and he'll tell everybody to just get along and voila problem solved.
Absolutely well said.
"Also make clear that we will not rebuild the country of anyone we pay to destroy anymore."
Would have a major impact on civilized enemies but not the Islamofacists...they just don't care...nor do their clandestine supporters, Saudis notwithstanding.
"Islam teaches to be patient, if you cannot attack, make false treaties and build your military abilities till you can. Then break the treaties and kill your partner. With oil income it is a quick cycle."
Agreed. Therein lies the myopic vision of our American leaders regarding the Mid-east. Unless Farrujah was an awakening to that doctrine, we can only hope.
"Given a choice between war and survival, everyone chooses survival. Even Islam."
Unfortunately, I don't believe that. After researching the Islamist doctrine and watching the Israeli/pali conflict and seeing the photos of the palis bloodying themselves in some barbaric ritual and strapping faux bombs to their children and viewing a documentary called, "Children of Gaza" where pre-teens were schooled in their hatred for anything Jewish, I have little hope for your thesis.
May Israel prosper and live in peace.
Best to you. Stay safe.
Did the jews threaten to anihilate anyone?
Your anaolgy is moronic.
What is moronic is a preemptive decision that members of a certain nationality or race or religion have decided to destroy us, so we will round them up and destroy them first.
How much did 9/11 suck right out of the economy? About a trillion.
Seriously.. Check Las Vegas, check the airlines.. Check so much.
A trillion was gone. A city gone, 10x that. The threat of more going up? 100x
bump!
"Auschwitz-Birkenau (now restored to Oswiciem, Poland) is pretty remote. Would that suit you?"
Bit too close to home for me.
How about San Francisco?
You could get rid of all the homo's at the same time.
>He had better fill his SUV up with Gas before the missiles
>start flying. If not he will not be able to get gas for the
>next 10,000 years.
No. 20-30 kilotons of nuclear bomb clears up in a few years.
Your right it was an atomic bomb and there wasn't a clash of culture's that caused the problems between our societies all hail the emperor!
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.