Once America made this proclamation worldwide, anyone dumb enough to visit those cities more than 5 minutes at a time would deserve what they got. 
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.
Your response is one of logical thinking as to this cancer is concerned. My thoughts are, "Power Perceived Is Power Achieved." However we are dealing with hoodwinked zealots who think death is a one way ticket to allah and the 72 camel booties. I hope we are never attacked, but we must be prepared to (unleash hell) on those responsible a thousandfold. Your plan would be a good one and mine as a backup, is competent as well. I hope we never have to resort to my plan, but we must be prepared. NSNR
btttttttt
bttt
If I recall correctly, only about 10% of the USSR population were card carrying communist party members and of those the majority were members just for the few privileges party membership offered such as job security, better housing and access to consumer goods not available to the masses. Therefore, the threat to our existence was perpetrated by a comparative handful yet we didn't hesitate targeting not only military complexes but industrial and population centers.
We were in a war against Communism and no one invoked PC to say we were in a war against a few radical Communists.
Today we are in a war against Islam, no two ways about it. The ones that are carrying out their mission are for PC sakes called radicals to as not to affront the sensitivities of the other Muslims that are passive participants. How do they rate this consideration when all citizens under the Soviet rule were painted with the same brush and threatened with annihilation?
Why are we afraid to define the enemy? Did we differentiate between the rabid Nazis and the rest of the German population or did we fight against the whole German nation?
Did we just fight against the whole Japanese nation or just the Emperor and his minions?
Just what has earned the Muslims this special privilege in history where they can send in shock troops in sneak attacks and be held blameless?
Have we been brainwashed by the anti-American element (liberal) in our politics and society to accept death and destruction as a price for having achieved the highest standard of living in history and provided our citizens access to knowledge and riches beyond belief under a government of the people, by the people and for the people?
IMHO we have two distinct enemies, Islam and their fifth-column collaborators (liberals/socialists/communists/Democrats) and if we are to pass on to our children and grand children even an iota of the bounty we enjoy today, we better be prepared to engage our enemy and engage them with sense of purpose and finality, preferably with a preemptive first strike.
Flame on all but the Federalist Papers make the leg intent clear.
This has been my position on the issue since BEFORE 9/11. The list should start with the most holy places and go down. One Trident could finish the job before lunch.
No it's not over the line....these people do not fear deportation. We must come up with a plan that would cause real fear...this plan would do the trick. You don't even have to get into the country to use a nuke - Mexico (near the US border) would do just fine. The threat to destroy all Islamic cities and individuals is a bold move, but if we were attacked what choice would have....sit around and sing kubyah while waiting for the next bomb? We would have to eliminate the threat, and the threat comes from Islam and its evil societies. Best to warn the decent (if there are any) people in Muslim society that aligning themeselves with the terrorists will ensure their destruction.
Once America made this proclamation worldwide, anyone dumb enough to visit those cities more than 5 minutes at a time would deserve what they got.
I am sorry...I think I missed the point here-a free society? Do you really think our society could endure a nuke killing millions and not be irrecovably changed? One must find a way to defend our free society from nukes. Keep in mind during war some freedoms must be curtailed temporarily. It has happened during all wars. Maybe just maybe Arabs who don't want to ge see Allah next week might rat their vicious brethern out if they perceived a threat to themselves and to their holy sites.
I agree with the use of nuclear weapons, and deportation of ALL Muslum non-citizens. I also think that we should start now with any attack on any US interest in the WORLD, we take out a major city of the Muslum world.
Mein Kampf is actually very widely read in the Musmum world and the roots of the terrorists can be found in NAZI Germany where there were two SS divisions made up of Muslums and run by Muslums.
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/
Good, smoke out the liars. And they will do exactly what, under this threat?
Adequate deterence can be achieved by other means.
What other means? Destroy their bases? Where exactly are their bases?
But, you see, the policy specifies that we be hit first.
Three weeks ago, I said the same thing.
Posted by JDIA - Nov. 14, 2004 "What kept the Russians from starting a nuke war with us, from invading Europe, from sneaking suitcase nukes into the US and setting them off ...
MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.
I think we need to make a clear statement now of our intentions should OBL or some other Islamist set off a nuke here. That would be the capitals of all terrorist supporting states get one of their own. "
Bingo. The Germans outlaw both Scientology and Naziism. Why is Islam treated differently?
read
Don't get me wrong. I have my issues with Islam. However, I'll fight the idea that a belief system is off limits to American citizens with my dying breath. That's anethma to everything I believe in.
We'd go broke rebuilding them, probably complete with mosques! ;o)
Well, I guess this is really the crux of the matter isn't it? I know this isn't a popular sentiment among theists, but I'd have to say yes, they would be equal. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, would certainly have a longer history, greater tradition, and obviously more believers than the church of Homer. However, in all honesty, I'd be lying to you if I told you that I thought the divinity of Homer was any less credible.
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.