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.
My thoughts exactly. Reminds me of when I was a kid and my mother caught my younger brother stealing cookies out of the cupboard. She told him that the next time there were missing cookies, that he "would really get it."
So that night, I snuck downstairs and helped myself to the whole darn box!
There is no possibility of such an equivalent with a Muslim diaspora (although the deep irony is that in his wicked heart, Bin Laden wants to be Grand Caliph, which would thusly require the twin open targets of a seat of power and a standing army).
Pakistan is not a responsible country. Pakistan has been selling nuclear secrets for years now.
Meet our two-by-four: a promise, not a threat, but a promise.
Guess what. We all of a sudden would have their undivided attention, whine-fest from the United Nations notwithstanding.
False dichotomy. Italy didn't commit their crimes in WW2 because of their faith. This enemy today is doing exactly that.
Would you rather have a fundamentalist Christian living next door, or an Islamic fundamentalist? The difference is in the book they take literally. It's a huge difference. see Prophet of Doom for more on the Koran.
There is nothing we can do to prevent a nuclear holocaust in DC or NY as long as we remain a free society.
Within 24 hours, I can take a 35' sport fishing yacht 45 miles off of VA, pick up a 200 kiloton nuke, and transport it to the DC marina less than 1/2 mile from the WH and Capitol.
There are no systems in place to prevent the holocaust, and there never will be unless we destroy the very country we are trying to protect.
Our current method of cultural domination is succeeding through McDonalds and Starbucks etc. It will take another 50 years but the Islamists will be tamed through affluence (as in N. Ireland), global corporations and western civilization.
BUMP
YES!! Get them addicted to Starbucks, McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken!! Also, put up some barbecue joints and fire up the barbecue fragrances around mealtime every day; oh, only, it'll have to be beef instead of pork. I wonder how many are able to resist the barbecued pork really? Decadence. Decadence.
I wish people would decide the world is a big enough place for everyone to live in peace, plant a garden, help each other, resolve differences, and shut up.
Throw France, Red China and the Rooskies into the mix (much like early SIOP, where any nuke from anyone would have triggered a massive attack on everyone) and you've got the start of an idea.
Regarding: "MAD was directed at a power (a superpower) which could respond in kind. Nuking 100 cities is insane."
Reply: Let us not encumber our thoughts with yesterday's problems. I consider one and a half billion Muslims a SUPERPOWER. They may not have the industrial power or infrastructure to wage "OUR" kind of war, but they could instantaneously arm 100.000 suicidal Muslims with explosives, chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Without any doubt I believe Muslims will be arming their sex deprived lunatic jihadists with nuclear chastity belts.
The reasons offered for not nuking 100 Muslim cities is as unconscionable as Islam's Jihad with all non-Muslims, Christians and Jews. If we are to protect our children's freedom, our strategy should, at least, promise to all believers in Muhammad's Islam, all the pain that the Muhammad's lunatics intend for us. That means the Massive Attack and Perfect Destruction of all Muslim power.
I suggest you reexamine your interpretation of the word "superpower."
If one were to try and formulate a profile to take on one's enemy, this would be a brilliant one. As much as I hate to admit, it is brilliant in it's efficiency.
I agree. As warm and cuddly as that doctrine makes me feel, it would have dire side effects. Not least of which would be that any American life, anywhere on the globe wouldn't be worth a wet slap. Especially our people in uniform. The Phillipines, Japan and Korea would all be places where wholesale slaughter of our people would take place even before the dust settles on what used to be Damascus.
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.
