Muslims are not a race. This thread is about what? 
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 problem with what you're saying is it assumes we are losing this war, and we are not. Radical Islam is well on it's way to the ash heap of history.
Fortunately George Bush and I don't think going to war with and trying to kill 1+ billion people is not a good idea.
Islam does not recognize the covenant with Isaac and Jacob, but instead believes God made a covenant with Abraham and Ishmael. Islam believes the Koran and not the Bible is the word of God. The Koran fails to mention Jerusalem even once, and it does not mention the rebirth of the nation of Israel. Jerusalem is mentioned 811 times in the Bible. The rebirth of Israel is on page after page in the Bible while the Koran is silent. The rebirth of Israel shows the authority of the Bible as the word of God. God’s everlasting covenant and the rebirth of Israel is like an anvil against the Koran. Israel is proof the Koran and Mohammed are wrong.
This tension between Israel and the Koran can never be peacefully resolved. For Islam to recognize the nation of Israel would be an admission that the Koran and Islam are wrong. Moslem fundamentalists refer to Israel as the “Zionist entity.” They will not even recognize the nation of Israel. There is a huge confrontation on the horizon between the God of the Bible and Islam. The heart of the confrontation will be the Jewish control of Jerusalem. God is using Israel as an anvil against Islam. When the Islamic nations come against Israel and Jerusalem, they will be destroyed.
-----
Seldom have I seen such a complicated subject reduced to such clear terms. Kudos.
/
If we are winning, and I agree that we are, what is the difficulty you have with announcing our intentions? Those who know we will win will be more likely to help the winning side than the losers. This announced policy, or some modification thereof, will make our victory over the Islamofacists more swift and sure, as well as yielding a road map for how we handle such problems in the future.
what is the difficulty you have with announcing our intentions?
Throwing Nukes around? Come on! Can we get real here.
My dad would have been one of the sailors driving a landing barge in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. My understanding is that there is about an 80% chance he would have died in that event.
I am very glad that the atomic bomb gave me a much better chance for life, as well as saving the lives of the more than a million other Americans and other millions of Japanese.
"...many new machines on Ix."
Muslims are not a race. This thread is about what?
And just what is YOUR alternative? The Comfy Chair?
violence in posts
I could also mention that it's world-class, the moon is made of green cheese, dumber than a small pile of rocks stupid statement.
But I won't.
I am deadly serious about this and there are millions more Americans who are, too.
You can pretend and maintain as much as you like that we are not serious, but such pretension is pure fantasy.
My favorite is to produce genetically engineering bacteria that eat oil. Embed genes that we can turn on with a chemical that will kill it. Let this thing loose in the ME oil fields so that it appears to be a natural outbreak. We let the crisis build up to a frenzy. Next thing you know, our "scientists" have discovered a cure and we sell it to the ragheads for $1 billion per ounce. Of course, we anticipate the Europeans providing a fix, too, so we have a bunch more genetically engineered bacteria on the shelf to let loose. Yet again, our scientists find a cure.
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.
---
Well stated.
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. ---
...
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?
---
Again, a very well stated position, analogy and question.
.
So we have to endure a few more "martyrs" as a result of this decision? To me, that is all the more reason to make it so. Better a few, than our surrender to endless dhimitude.
"... it only works if those it is intended for sane and sensible, not fanatics that would do anything to promote their cause."
Right, and exactly why Mecca and Medina have to be FIRST on the list, and possibly the only cities needed for this to function as intended as a deterrent to terrorists, and an encouragement to cooperative informants and states.
"Do you know there are no cash prizes for the stupid reply of the day? "
LOL. I'll have to remember that line.
Agreed. The author of the piece obviously studied Moral Theology under the direction of Herr Doktor Mengele.
I just don't have the faith that our government would react to losing a city or two, as long as it doesn't interfere with their plans for globalism. They are all like mad dogs regarding that subject.
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.