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.
Fighting to the death in wartime is not murder, not by even the Pope's definition.
With respect to 641, I couldn't have said it better.
In reply to 636, when our soldiers are still dying in Iraq a year from now will you consider these actions decisive?
Give it up. You're never going to win the arguement against someone who's been there, done that, seen it in the flesh.
With respect to 587, now you are seeing the light. Even using one nuke to take out a potential military target, in say, Iran, would be a message that rang out like the "shot heard 'round the world".
How do you know where I have been? You don't so find another way to make your point, if you can.
"In reply to 636, when our soldiers are still dying in Iraq a year from now will you consider these actions decisive?"
Even if I'm among them. I'm still subject to recall, if they need an old and arthritic Master Sergeant. Even in ten years. Even if my son and daughters are among them. Several of my cousins have been among them. Several of my trainees and friends are among them now. My cousins are returning soon, as well. Heck, even some of my high school students are probably among them. Several enlisted with that specific intent. I repeat: Mass Murder is not the way to solve this problem. If we have to kill every stinking one of the islamofacists, fine and dandy. Indiscrimate murder of innocents is absolutely NOT acceptable. Do you understand my position now? "... all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
"Fighting to the death in wartime is not murder, not by even the Pope's definition."
The indiscrimate killing of civilians IS murder, by US law. I don't care what the Pope says. Killing the enemy requires a certain discrimination, which you seem to be lacking.
I guess you're hiding where you've been.
Yes you are, but perhaps there is still hope for you...
A question that needs to be asked is, if the allies had the precision weapons we have today would they of bombed the way they did?
"Even using one nuke to take out a potential military target, in say, Iran, would be a message that rang out like the 'shot heard 'round the world'."
Nukes are not likely to be necessary, and they are of seriously limited utility. They could well be dangerous to our people, particularly if we have to invade Iran. MOAB or a bunker-buster or two would be sufficient. I would consider Iran's nuclear materials processing plants legitimate targets of war. I am even willing to accept some "collateral damage" as necessary. FYI that term means UNINTENTIONAL civilian casualties.
I'd rather have trolls like him than wimpy apologists like you...
the Norden bomb sight yes for it's day it was accurate. My is if they would of had JDAMS would they of used the same tactics? I doubt it.
"if the allies had the precision weapons we have today would they of bombed the way they did?"
Not likely. As far back as Billy Mitchell, precision delivery was the "holy grail" of airpower. The old diehards who couldn't adapt to that eventually died out or retired. If they had been available as recently as Vietnam, Rolling Thunder would have worked out very differently.
"In their day they had precision weapons, the Norden bomb sight."
The Norden bombsight was not a "precision weapon." They were using gravity-bombs, with no guidance at all. the bombsight let them get within a couple of blocks of the target without having to make the run within small-arms range of the ground, as had been the practice, previously.
"I have tried on numerous occasions to remind freepers that our military distinguishes between the "bad guys" and the innocents and they should, too. Maybe coming from you, it will make a difference."
Thanks, but some have too much of the cave-man mentality. I doubt I'll change anyone's mind if they've got it made up. The ones I hope to reach are those who are just starting to think it over. As far as I'm concerned, killing terrorists is a good idea. Killing little kids and women is to be avoided if possible. It is not always possible, unfortunately, but it's a lot easier to sleep at night if you know you've tried.
I didn't suddenly see the light. Using appropriate weaponry against appropriate military targets is "decisive action." Using nuclear bombs against millions of women and children is slaughtering innocents.
It would be like saying all Catholics hate Protestants because what is happening in Ireland.
I think it's very dangerous to paint such a broad brush. I've worked with many Muslims in this country and they are very happy Americans and cringe at what some of their brethren are doing abroad.
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.