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.
Uuuuhnnnn, as delicately as possible, how would YOU know what a $500. hooker looks like?
How many Muslims in Indonesia?
Pull your cranium out of your rectum.
Since you two are big Churchill fans, here's a link you might like (to some of his quotes)
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/churchill.php
Regards
I almost think we need something like this. But since the Arabs seem to ignore all known protocols about negotiation and war scenarios, I don't think nuclear is the right option.
Nerve gas.
Then send ALL KNOWN PERSONS of Arabic descent left in America back to the hellhole countries they came from.
I have heard that the Iranian people are about to overthrow the Mullahs for many many years. While it would be most welcome, in this "Nothing willl ever be the same" environment I don't see how we can continue to wait much longer, it may wind up being too late.
At the risk of not having read most of a 500+ post thread, we need to be careful when terms like "Nazism" and "fascism" are used.
Nazism had specific goals and philosophies attached to it. Fascism is an economic system.
IMNSHO, the correct term to use is "Islamic totalitarianism." We must be precise in the terms used, because if we do not insist on that precision, our arguments will be cheapened.
Without a doubt they are! We must however be willing to use tacnukes and/or BOMB the place until there is NOWHERE to hide. Civilian casualties must be considered inevitable! Another IRAQ, as SUCESSFULL as it has been, would be devastating. [Daily deaths are fodder for the Dims and MSM and will eventually sway public opinion.] Every terrorist group in the world would descend on IRAN and another IRAQ would not be sustainable on our forces [at their present strength].
I believe Rumsfeld is staying for just this reason, to continue to modernize our forces, out sourcing military desk jobs etc, and train ALL troops to be battle ready.
9/11 was "not proportional." I had a good friend that had an office in the basement of the Pentagon.
He burned to death that day. He left behind a wife and two kids, one of which whom is retarded.
Don't talk to me about "proportionality."
Sorry for the double post but this seems to happen on active threads when the system does not refresh.
Let me be the first to agree with that proposition.
Hee. Considering the comments here, the notion of a bounty is the very milk of human kindness. I think the many have not realized how dedicated the basic tenants of this religion is toward eliminating faiths than Islam from the face of the Earth, not the aim of a number of extremists, but the commands of their holy book itself.
Were that realization internalized, appeasement could be considered violence in posts.
How about a compromise (a very workable one):
Instead of using a blanket retaliation, do what other posters ahve put forthand strike about 15-25 targets.
Make it clear to the Muslim world that we would decide what targets would be hit at that time, and that it would be based on what the individual nation has done to combat Islamoterroism.
If the nation has done little or nothing, they can expect the firestorm from hell to strike. Obviously, the reverse would hold true as well.
My biggest problem after 9/11 were the apologists that said that most Muslims were horrified by the attacks---problem was they never were very public about it. Because of this, many thought that they were giving tacit approval to the islamoterrorists.
Certainly, some of these nations need to be put on notice that we have had quite enough
Obscurantism is the primary tool of Satan and of Islam.
After 9/11, in Islamic countries, Muslims danced in the street and, in the west, they rejoiced in their homes and mosques.
Bravo. This thread frightens me--I hope it is sheer bravado. There are worse things than dying. Losing your soul is one of them.
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.