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.
I agree, the destruction of the islamic "holy lands" and the growth of what they hate may, just may help.
But there's *1.2 billion* now that believe in this junk. That's an amazing thing to overcome. Even if we destroy mecca, which is easy, I wonder if that 1.2 billion can wake up.
The fact that they may not scares me. We always thought a real WW3 would kill a billion or more, and they may well have to be the target of it.
No that is smart.
They have already declared war on us so anything we do is not preemptive.
But of course you already know that their attacks on us are acts of war and so our attempt to deny them of their means of war is in no way a first strike on an unsuspecting people.
You know that don't you?
So stop the preemptive crap.
We have every right to annihilate them before they carry out the next attack that they have promised.
if we don't attack then we deserve to be hit.
This is war and they started it. But you know that don't you?
I'm down wind of SF, so if your nutjob plan is ever approaching fruition, I'd appreciate a heads-up so I can pray.
My understanding is that all plutonium has a signature source so even if N. Korea denied it, we would absolutely know where the plutonium came from and they would be shit out of luck.
I've seen you over time taking up the islamic side.. why? Does it make you feel good like a liberal pushing affirm action?
I would not count on us being able to track the blast residue to the source. And if we did, what if it goes back to a USSR factory? Useless, we have to go after the islamic attackers.
Go back and read what you said.
You said that they decided to destroy us FIRST.
Do you not agree that they have already attacked us according to their word?
So how can we possibly initiate the first strike?
Roundups for immediate death are preemptive murder. I cannot understand what leads you to believe this is all okay.
I was responding to a post that suggested we round up all muslims in the U.S., put them in a certain geographic point and then nuke that point.
You must be trolling, because that suggestion is fucking insane.
[severe language purely intentional]
Towel heads in caves may be able to push a button, but it takes heavy industry to make a nuke. As weapons grade nuclear fuel is the most costly substance on the planet and does not occur naturally, if a terrorist has a nuke it is because some Nation gave it to him.
That nation must die.
No, Petronski's point is very correct and I support it -- by roundign up Muslimes and slaughtering them, we become as bad as them. We should NOT do that. We should destroy the philosophy ofIslam, NOT kill all Muslimes. The former is the long term way to save ourselves and them, the latter is evil AND short-term
You are very correct. If the crusades had the power to beat back islam totally.. It would be like zorasterism now.
And yes, the way we are fighting this war is like letting Hitler keep Germany and Poland and much of his conquests in 1942 and calling for a truce.
My point is purely Christian, noob. You are talking about a hairtrigger policy of nuclear destruction of 100 cities if they use WMDs against us, right?
The idea is insane. It is worthy of mohammedan levels of depravity. As you fight your adversary, be careful that you do not become worse than him.
1.2 billion Muslims do not believe the West or America are evil. You're implying that all of them believe this and that's not true. Hell, I'm an American Catholic which means 50% of us alone believe abortion is ok (I'm not one of them). You're painting way to broad a brush with Muslims.
I appreciate your humanity by getting the people out of there, but destroying there icons will not end the Islamofacist mentality. Like they do with so many other contradictions within their cult, they would only make up new reasons why Mecca and Medina were leveled. Probably, Allahs will to further the jihad against the infidels or the butcher Mohammed's (pork be upon him) ramblings about Allah's will be done.
No, it will take either converting them to reason, democracy, and Western progress, or destroying them. Nuking their moonrock will only provide them with another perverted interpretation of the Koran, Hadiths, and other clerical writings.
Ah well, you called me a noob.. heh.
The thing is, you're willing to accept our losses I suppose. Good thing we didn't use your logic with the USSR during the cold war. 'Ok, you can take out a few of our cities, but if you take out more than 10.. well, you're gonna get it!'
You need to go back and read what you said.
We can't possibly destroy the warring members FIRST after the war was started by them.
Isn't that what the war is all about.
Rounding up the warring members and destroying their war making capabilities?
In the case of fanatics the only solution is probably to kill them as they cannot be redeemed.
Cut out this preemptive crap.
They started this war a long time ago.
It's actually good poker. 120 cities targeted and on-line for disabling destruction, in exchange for people behaving cordially and respectably with one another.
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.