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.
Yup...
I remember the Palistinians doing that---and passing out candy.
I Remember wishing tthe sweets were some disguised grenades.
We will need to respond harshly to a WMD attack, but nuking 100 Islamic cities would be counter-productive at best. At worst, it would cause total war.
Currently, the USA dominates the world. A World War is just about the last thing we want, and nuking a bunch of Islamics is a very good way to have that happen.
Saying such things, you really are a lone wolf. A correct one! That sort of thing is exactly what Osama wants - a worldwide Muslim vs. everyone else war. Why give it to him?
The House of Saud certainly shouldn't stop anyone...
Around here, that is a rare and crazy viewpoint. Sadly.
Another beauty of it is that they would believe that Booosh would do it.
Right now I fear that if something awful DID happen we would freeze and not respond with the cold brutality that would be required to make sure that nothing like it happened again. With Kerry I was sure we wouldn't respond. With Bush I'm more confident, but still not sure.
Ditto.
I don't know if it is bravado so much as just frustration. A great deal of that frustration will dissipate when the President more clearly defines this war (it isn't a war against terror) and even more clearly lays out a plan to America and the world.
Remember that old Churchill quote:
"It was the nation and the race dwelling all round the globe that had the lion's heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar."
President Bush is being called on to roar for us, but he is better at action than he is with words.
He needs to use both.
While you are technically correct, fascism, over time, has taken on the connotation of totalitarianism.
My, my, my! You certainly stirred up a bee's nest with this post!
There's not much "trying" necessary.
I'm not sure we will get any politician (of national prominence) in this nation to call this war what it is--a war against Islamofascism. That would be...indelicate. And it might offend somebody. (smirk)
I think what it will have to come down to is the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the leaders when we have a clear idea of the area in which they're hiding. If we have good intelligence that UBL is in a particular region of Pakistan, for instance--just drop a tactical nuke there. Still not pretty, but a lot more surgical.
"You don't seem to understand that this is not going to be over for hundreds of years, or until one side is beaten. I would prefer it be them. I don't know where you are coming from, for all I know, you are "them"."
So to save our society you want to turn us into them? Right, you'll destroy America just as surely as they would, if they could. If we do the right thing, (and that is not to murder millions of innocents) we will win. It won't be easy, and it won't be without cost, but we WILL win. If we do it your way, we lose, even if we destry Islam, because we'll also have destroyed America the Beautiful. Either pull your head out, or at least put a plexiglass disk in your navel. This goes for the rest of you "nuke 'em 'til they glow types, too. MAD was a stupid idea, brought to you by a stupid politician who was too dishonest even with himself to admit he was wrong.
As for defending Islam, I'll defend parts of it. Turkey. Morocco. Heck, I'll even defend parts of Saudi Arabia, because some of the folks I met there were also decent people, and Muslims, even if they weren't Saudis. Those are the places I've actually visited. On that basis, I'm willing to allow that there might be more, elsewhere. This is going to be the one time we better not fulfill Churchill's characterization of America.
"America will always do the right thing. After it has tried every other option."
Flame ON!
This is the only part of that quote I disagree with. They're spineless, cowardly bullies who run when faced with real warriors.
A moral response is one that has some proportion to the damage inflicted or at imminent risk of being inflicted, or that is essential to avoiding an alternative that is far worse.
I don't nuke downtown Oakland (the inner city nearest where I live) when the armed intruder knocks down my door, not even I could, nor even if that would stop him, nor even if nothing else at my disposal would stop him. Better that my entire family die than that I kill a quarter of a million people, or even a few thousand people, even if half those people were drug addicted felons and gangsters.
I am not opposed to a progressive escalation of nukes, as others have proposed. The proposal to start with Mecca and Medina is persuasive. Though even there, I would first order the evacuation of those cities, as we did in Falluja, before flattening them, plowing them under and salting (or pig fatting) the earth. And since practically we could annihilate those two cities with conventional bombs and Caterpillar D-9's, I'd prefer that (thanks to Jeff Head for that proposal). Let the world watch for a week, as we methodically and deliberately deconstruct these cities. It is more valuable in this case that we demonstrate the maximum force of our will than the maximum force of our biggest nuke. I'd be more likely to use nukes to take out Iran's nuclear capability, if I had decent reason to suspect that it was the source of a nuke that attempted, successfully or not, to take out an American city.
Yes - some terrorists would escape in the ordered evacuations of Mecca and Medina, as happened in Falluja.
But now, as with Germany and Japan in World War II, our goal is not to annihilate the entire population of the enemy territories. Our goal is to obtain total victory over and total capitulation of the enemy, and then to bring the survivors into the civilized world.
Repeating one note buried above - I'd be more likely to use nukes against Iran, if need be to stop them from nuking us. I'd use tactical nukes against their suspected weapons development sites, not strategic nukes against their main cities (though if they chose to develop nukes within a city, that's their stupid decision - bombs away).
The view however that we have but one enemy, and that enemy is the entire Muslim world, is dangerously wrong. We have another enemy - the secular liberals who dominate Europe and our own Democrat political party (as well as many of our institutions - media, education, government, union, and non-profits). And not all or even the majority of the Muslim world is intractably hostile to us.
We have yet one more enemy. All of us, including you and I, have the potential for evil in the dark shadows of our own hearts.
Yeah - we could nuke 100 Muslim cities. God help us if we do.
Force - sufficient force - is absolutely necessary. There is no substitute for victory. But a willingness to advocate excessive force is not a sign of either courage nor of the moral high ground. And casting all who would advocate anything less in the same group as pacifists, Carter fans and PC weenies is not a sign of strength.
Humans will always be at war with their own darkside. Modern civilization will continue to be at war with the forces of tyranny and its precursors - the communists, socialists, leftists, progressives and whatever else they call themselves this week.
Nuking 100 Muslim cities might win the current war on the radical islamic terrorists. It would almost surely lose the larger war against tyranny - for we would become one with the tyrants. And it would certainly lose the final war, against the dark side of our own souls.
While not agreeing with all these suggestions specifically I believe that some form of MAD should be enunciated as official US policy with respect to the insane Islamofascists: "We WILL retaliate to our fullest capabilities, so don't even think about it a$$&@les because after we're done with you, you'll be wishing you WERE in the 7th Century".
Only a proportionate response against a military or terror target would be moral.
MAD works only with two militarily equivalent parties (roughly).
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.