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.
The first problem is YOU ( or worse yet ME ) might be in that first city!
Like it or not, and in your case it's probably a not, you're free to believe in anything in America. You're free to believe it's ok to murder, rape and pillage if you choose, you're just not free to act on it.
Heck, for Pearl Harbor we firebombed Japan and killed millions, and also nuked them. If a nuke goes off here due to islamic ways...
We must do far more than we did to Japan for just Pearl Harbor.
In fact, 9/11 could be considered to be a situation that we had to do it at least as bad to Japan... Which we are conventially doing to the iraq islamics now, but I'd prefer several nuclear strikes as well on their cities like WW2.
I'm sure it hasn't.
The Bush Adminstration is not comprised of immature idiots.
An attack on the USA by islam deserves tens of thousands eyes for our eyes.
Idiocy. Luckily we have saner heads at the helm.
You sound like an apoligist for Pearl Harbor to me.
You must be one of them to defend it. You realize we're facing losing a lot of cities and our entire way of life to islam?
Adequate deterence can be achieved by other means. As we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist cannot exist without bases, safe haven's, and generally speaking, indirect support of states. By taking on the biggest bully on the block in the Middle east, and besting Iraq in a few months (the following terror campaign not withstanding), the U.S. has put the rest of the Middle eastern dictator's on notice.
Deterence isn't easy. Deterence isn't certain. One maniac can ruin the best laid defensive plans. However, we dictate the terms on offense, and that's where we'll stay. An offensive campaign will keep us safe, and that's what the last election was all about.
Right now, the primary nuclear terror threats originate in Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan is under control, to some extent. Iran will almost certainly be next, and when the mad Mullahs in Iran are deposed, while Kaddafi lives long and prospers in Libya, there will be no Muslim state in the world which will miss the point. Without state protection, without gas centrafuges and a major infrastruture, terrorists will not be producing Nuc WMD's any time soon.
Iran is the next key in the deterrence puzzle, and then, N. Korea.
SFS
Because a nuke would go off here?
You also can't do it without killing millions of Christians and Hindus and assorted other non-Islamics, either because the city itself isn't actually all "Muslim" (Beirut, Istanbul, Damascus, Baghdad...gee, can't forget about the hundreds of thousands of Americans in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi, etc.) or there are massive numbers of non-Muslims downwind in the fallout areas from Muslim cities (Nuking Pakistan, depending on the monsoon and wind direction, would put fallout over a wide variety of Non-Muslim areas. The same is true of Indonesia.) Also, hundreds of millions of Muslims are scattered around India itself, but nowhere a majority. Sort of hard to nuke India.
So the terrorists bomb one of our cities with a dirty bomb. Now they are "Islam" so what country are you going to bomb back. These guys are individual gang like terrorists not "country" terrorists. As in Iraq now, there are Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, Arabs, so who do you bomb?
It won't be a single dirty bomb. It'll likely be 3 or 4 major cities vaporized in the USA.
Then what? We sit on our thumbs? That's what the islamic world is counting on. That's why they have zero fear of doing it.
Troll!
And the entire premise is false regarding MAD and 100 cities being targeted for nuclear destruction.
USAF,SAC,NCOIC, 20170.
Next?
Me? A muslim? Now that's funny. I consider fundamentalism in all of its forms an unnecessary evil. btw, I never defended Islam, I pointed out the idiocy of this stupid idea. ie, holding nations responsible for the deeds of citizens of other nations who may happen to share the same religion.
As an example: Italy was (officially) a catholic nation, and an Axis power. Should we have bombed a couple South American countries because they happened to be catholic as well? Of course not, it would have been stupid. Same here.
The Muslims in say Turkey or Indonesia have absolutely no control over a cell of fanatics from Afghanistan, or Saudi or Iraq. The moderates in Jordan have no control over the current political struggle in Iran. etc etc etc.
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.