MAD worked in part during the Cold War because both sides had thousands of nukes, so could reasonably worry that if they didn't respond massively and instantly, they might never respond at all, in any way whatsover beyond a few lucky survivors with handguns in the Pacific coastal wilderness areas.
The terrorists present no such threat to us. They might could take out a big chunk of a couple of cities. The existence of the United States would not be seriously at risk.
The only serious threat that the initiator of a massive nuclear strike had was from an immediate and massive retaliation.
We can take out the Islamic nations with far less loss of life, so we would.
Indeed, if you were President, I trust that even you would refuse to actually pull the trigger on such an instant wasting of hundreds of millions of people, in retaliation for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
An eye for an eye, perhaps ten eyes for an eye, but certainly not a thousand eyes for each eye.
Not right. Immoral. Plain and simple.
An attack on the USA by islam deserves tens of thousands eyes for our eyes.
"An eye for an eye, perhaps ten eyes for an eye, but certainly not a thousand eyes for each eye.
Not right. Immoral. Plain and simple."
Assume it is agreed that hitting ALL muslim nations is immoral, as a response to a big hit.
Further assume we can fairly quickly determine the source(s) of such a hit. By sources, I mean like we determined 9/11/2001 originated from al Qaeda, which had an anchor in Afghanistan.
Further, it came out that the individuals came from certain countries, principally Saudi Arabia, for example.
I should hope we have put ALL nations on notice that we will use overwhelming force to respond to any hit, to include nulear force never before used.
I don't buy into the notion that Saudi Arabia is not held responsible for actions of its subjects, who wander off to Afghanistan, for example. Same for other places.
I would guess such threats of retaliation have been circulated, where they need to be.
The real big question is: What would the President in office, at the time, actually do?
Bush = fire away, perhaps
Kerry = call Kofi, convene UNSC
UNSC = Five permanent members, plus ten korrupt guys in kaftans.
Another thing about the Cold War was no matter how much bluster you got the leaders on both sides were not ready to see what a nuclear holocaust would bring. The problem with muslims is they would welcome it. Why would any sane person strap dynamite on their body and then blow it up. Their outlook on life, treatment of women, etc. is totally in another playing field. When someone suggests doing as they did in the article, remember, it only works if those it is intended for sane and sensible, not fanatics that would do anything to promote their cause.
"MAD worked in part during the Cold War because both sides had thousands of nukes, so could reasonably worry that if they didn't respond massively and instantly, they might never respond at all ..."
Wrong. The central idea behind sea-launched (SLBM) and mobile missiles is to eliminate this 'use it or lose it' arguement. Our side decided to use SLBM's, and these were a were a stabilizing influence in the cold war. MAD is a concept that refers to the overall quantity of warheads that each side built; you are conflating these two concepts.
"The terrorists present no such threat to us. They might could take out a big chunk of a couple of cities. The existence of the United States would not be seriously at risk."
Wrong. A dozen sleeper nukes in major US cities will put everything at risk; I can't imagine everyone carrying on with their lives as usual, knowing that these blackmail warheads could be in their city.
"The only serious threat that the initiator of a massive nuclear strike had was from an immediate and massive retaliation."
Partial Credit. The perp of any nuclear strike (not just a massive one) faced an overwhelming US response.
"We can take out the Islamic nations with far less loss of life, so we would."
Details, please.
"Not right. Immoral. Plain and simple."
Wrong. Massive retaliation is absolutely right and the only moral decision. Anything less would constitute surrender. Either way, our cities will be hit, but the enemy must be vaporized. We will rebuild, they must never be allowed to do so.
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.