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.
get the **** out? And what aobuthte fact that the cult is spreading in the US and the west as well?
Malaysia's population is only 23 million as per the CIA factbook.
Last I hear, there were around 10,000 Americans here in Malaysia and several hundred American and multi-national corporations.
The expatriates for the most part live in their own areas which is not so bad. Much of the community becomes quite close knitted.
The muslims in this country are very stupid..... all they need to do is read a little history and see what we did to the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor. We took their homes, businesses, and locked them(including) children in camps. This wasn't "ancient" history... this was 60 years ago. Recent enough for people to remember.
When the US gets p@ssed, we kick your a@#. If a nuclear "dirty" bomb or a series of suicied bombers in malls were to occur, we would have to live with the consequences of the "Patriot Act". Some of which is kinda scary. Especially the parts of the act that pertain to searches and detention for suspicion of "terrorist" activities.
Malaysia's population is only 23 million as per the CIA factbook......
Seen my #404 post for much better numbers.
I hope you'll be ok, but I am glad I don't have to live in that situation.
They look like it from yahoo photos of their rallies and detonations. But how often do you read about an Indonesian or Malaysian who has joined the armed Jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan? Been captured as an enemy combatant? Islam was born in a dry dust strewn locale and does best in the arid moonscapes of this planet.
CIA FACT BOOK has 160 million in Pakistan. This does not include Bangladesh which broke away from Pakistan a few decades back.
I don't think it goes far enough.
India will not get nuked. Just tell your Muzzies they will be submitting to Lord Krishna from here on in and prostrating in the direction of his birth place.
Nope, India is our ally in this war onISlam. WE nuke Mecca and everyone's problems are solved
India 1.1 billion, 11% Muslime......
That should be 14% by now. I heard Hindu nationalists using that percent and complaining about Muzzy birthrates, how Muzzies were 3% at time of partition.
ALSO.... Bangladesh which has a 140 million with 83% being Muzzy
These Muslim countries have societies submerged in ignorance and based upon lies as a way of life. The people are terribly ill-informed. A nuclear threat would not be understood or believed by those fanatics you want to deter.
"MAD worked in part during the Cold War because both sides had thousands of nukes, so could reasonably worry that if they didn't respond massively and instantly, they might never respond at all ..."
Wrong. The central idea behind sea-launched (SLBM) and mobile missiles is to eliminate this 'use it or lose it' arguement. Our side decided to use SLBM's, and these were a were a stabilizing influence in the cold war. MAD is a concept that refers to the overall quantity of warheads that each side built; you are conflating these two concepts.
"The terrorists present no such threat to us. They might could take out a big chunk of a couple of cities. The existence of the United States would not be seriously at risk."
Wrong. A dozen sleeper nukes in major US cities will put everything at risk; I can't imagine everyone carrying on with their lives as usual, knowing that these blackmail warheads could be in their city.
"The only serious threat that the initiator of a massive nuclear strike had was from an immediate and massive retaliation."
Partial Credit. The perp of any nuclear strike (not just a massive one) faced an overwhelming US response.
"We can take out the Islamic nations with far less loss of life, so we would."
Details, please.
"Not right. Immoral. Plain and simple."
Wrong. Massive retaliation is absolutely right and the only moral decision. Anything less would constitute surrender. Either way, our cities will be hit, but the enemy must be vaporized. We will rebuild, they must never be allowed to do so.
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.