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.
I could of put my reply better. What I was thinking of was the PR on the Norden, that with it you could put a bomb in a pickle barrel. Needless to say the circle of error was...just a bit bigger than that.
AIR FORCE! We're the smart ones, send the officers out to fight.
FTI
I just ran across this
Tantawi condemns suicide attacks
11-07-2003
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=5270
BBC OnLine:
One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.
Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.
He called on Muslim nations to open themselves to dialogue with the West saying Islamic nations should "wholeheartedly open our arms to the people who want peace with us".
Scholars debate future of Islam
"I do not subscribe to the idea of a clash among civilizations. People of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity," he added.
Sheikh Tantawi was addressing a gathering of nearly 800 scholars and representatives from various non-governmental organisations.
"Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky," Sheikh Tantawi said.
Book ban
Sheikh Tantawi said Muslim suicide attacks, including those against Israelis, were wrong and could not be justified.
His comments echoed those by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammed who said, at the opening of the conference on Thursday, that salvation could not be achieved through the killing of innocent people.
Worried that Islam's image is being damaged by terrorists who have hijacked the religion for their own ends, delegates also considered banning books which fuel extremism.
"We have to block them from channels that are meant to spread Islam," Sheik Husam Qaraqirah, head of an Islamic charity association in Lebanon, said.
"Their books must be banned and lifted off the shelves of mosques, schools, universities and libraries," he added.
Stop making sense :~ )
Welcome to FR
Nuke em if you got em.
Regarding: "The indiscriminate killing of civilians IS murder,…"
Comment: Correct, but the word "civilians" needs further clarification. I see nothing wrong with killing terrorists disguised as civilians. Terrorists include "civilians" who feed, harbor and protect terrorists who "indiscriminately" kill and enslave for Allah, Islam, land, slaves, carnal pleasure and booty.
Also, I do not buy the argument that "not all Muslims are Terrorists" any more than I buy the claim that "not all Germans were Nazis." The power of Islamic Terrorism comes from the Muslim people just as the source and power of the Nazis Militarism came from the German people. We have to rethink Islam as one civilian population residing in a Terrorist Nation called "Dar Al Islam." All the inhabitants of "Dar Al Islam" are at war with the inhabitants of "Dar Al-Harb" or every non-Muslim on earth. Their object is to confiscate all land not belonging to Muslims for Allah and Islam and to kill or convert all non-Muslims to Islam.
Regarding: "Killing the enemy requires a certain discrimination, …"
Comment: I agree. President Bush was very discriminating when he said: "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
"Also, I do not buy the argument that 'not all Muslims are Terrorists' any more than I buy the claim that 'not all Germans were Nazis.'"
Then you won't buy any argument at all, and you're wasting your time and mine.
You obviously think that all Americans are terrorists because Tim McVeigh was one. That all Americans are serial murderers because John Wayne Gacy was one. You obviously do not know the meaning of the term "discrimination."
Also, I do not buy the argument that "not all Muslims are Terrorists"
Nonsense! Amoral(at best) nonsense.
Muslims practice terrorism because that is what the Koran tells them. It also tells them that lies, deception, slavery, rape, murder, and terrorism are honorable if they are done in the cause of Allah and Islam and against non-Muslims. If you do not know this to be true, this, you have not read the.Koran and the Hadith. If you have not read the Koran and Hadith I suggest you do, otherwise you're wasting your good sense.
Ban islam.
Gee, what are the chances that a bunch of subhuman maniacs whose very religion glorifies suicide bombing and whose sole purpose in life is to exterminate Jews and Christians will get their hands on nuclear or biological weapon and use it to inflict not just 3,000 casualties in America in about an hour but 500,000?
I'd say it is a certainty that this will happen here in the next 20 years.
What happens when the enemy is undistinguishable from the civilian, and you continue to take casualties but cannot retaliate for fear of killing the innocent?
What happens is that you have no choice but to wipe out or at a minmum decimate the populations of the offending countries.
You jail all of the leftists, treasonous Democrats, and Islamonazi symps, take the same weapon of mass destruction that was used against your population, and go over and take out the middle east.
3-5 million dead ragheads.
Outlaw Islam to boot.
Too bad it can't just be done now, but apparently we'll have to lose about half a million on our side first before it becomes politically acceptable.
But make no mistake about it, this WILL happen within the next 20 years.
You are entitled to your opinion.
What you, and the troll,are not entitled to is influencing operational military targeting and war plans.
Thank goodness!
Regarding: the comment "Nonsense! Amoral (at best) nonsense" This comment was made in answer to: "Also, I do not buy the argument that "not all Muslims are Terrorists."
Reply: If a person who calls himself a "Muslim" does not believe that every word and sentence in the Koran is from Allah, then that person is not considered a Muslim by his Muslim peers. However, when Muslims realize he is not a "believer" he becomes an Apostate. If he is an Apostate then it is the duty and responsibility of every Muslim to kill him at their earliest convenience.
It seems to me he better embrace Islam and terrorism or Muslims will murder him [or her]. It is for this "Catch 22" that I see that all Muslims must declare an obedience to the Koran. That among his Muslim peers, he must advocate and support terrorism and terrorists. Of course to non-Muslims he has the honor to lie about his duplicity and describe Muslims and Islam as peaceful.
I suggest you should not believe me. I do suggest you read the Koran and learn for yourself.
I have read the Koran, and much of the Hadith. I've studied Islam, and lived in/visited three Muslim countries. I've also studied the history of Islam. Likewise Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, and several forms of paganism and neopaganism. In all religions, there are nutcases that take limited parts of the writings a little too seriously. Islam has more than its fair share of those, but you paint with a rather broad brush. There are those in all religions, including Islam, that are willing to live and let live. There are those in all religions that are unwilling to do so, too. You seem to me to be one of those, and are therefore not someone I'm willing to talk to anymore. Good day.
If a person who calls himself a "Muslim" does not believe that every word and sentence in the Koran is from Allah, then that person is not considered a Muslim by his Muslim peers.
(Assumtion that you're a Christian) Do you believe everything that every other Christian does?
It seems to me he better embrace Islam and terrorism or Muslims will murder him
Once again nonsense!
Example Ayatollah Ali Sistani for one would disagree with you.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Take them out with "far less loss of life"? Wouldn't that be somewhat akin to busting out walls in a roach infested home, but letting the little buggers just run around - but not killing them. That doesn't fix the problem.
As Limbaugh might say, a cockroach is a cockroach is a cockroach. The only way to remove an infestation of 1000 cockroaches is to kill 1000 cockroaches.
Muslims, even radical, violent, murdering, terrorist Islamofascists, are human. Many of the people in large cities aren't even Muslim to begin with. Some have to be killed, but most can adapt to living responsibly in a more or less free society.
We've already made progress in both Afghanistan and most parts of Iraq. We may well succeed in what was perhaps the worst viper pit on the planet - Falluja, after killing only a few thousand, and imprisoning a few more thousand.
If you think it makes you more of a man to protest that the lives of a thousand Iraqi are not worth the life of a single U.S. Marine, go ahead and say it.
I'm glad that George W. Bush is President. He knows the difference between a cockroach and a human.
This is good news - thanks for posting it.
A David Gold ping to myself for later read. Beings there's two threads with the same title...
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.