You Want to Escalate, We'll Escalate, and You'll Lose...Big!

31 July 05 | HMV

[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

We hear the chilling news about the possibility of suitcase nukes inside our borders, we hear that 10, maybe even 20 of our cities may be at risk.

The risk we face is nothing compared to what the Islamic World faces if terrorists choose to escalate the war on terror.

We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean. No terrorist could ever find them, much less destroy them. A single sub can unleash 50 missiles with pinpoint accuracy, each with a warhead bigger than the sum of even 20 suitcase nukes.

If the terrorists want to ensure that there would be no retaliation, they would have to destroy not only our major cities, but also our bombers, our land-based missile systems, our complete command and control network, and our nuclear submarines.

They cannot do this, and escalation brings with it such huge risks of anihilation of the Islamic world that it would seem incomprehensible that they would try to raise the stakes. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[Publius6961]

You mean reality trumps speculation?

What a concept!

[Rebelbase]

"Is anyone out there crazy enough to believe that if even 20 suitcase nukes were detonated in the US that we would unleash a full scale nuclear attack on the whole middle east? How would we know who's responsible?"

Don't try to apply logic to the question, you'll only confuse and upset the braggart armchair quaterbacks.

[Publius6961]

If the Mafia were the terrorists would you nuke Sicily and Newark?
If Sicily and Newark were funding them, building mafia madrassas and excusing their actions, all at the same time, yes.

Or say it were Scientology terrorists. Nuke Hollywood?
If Hollywood was funding them, building Scientology madrassas and excusing their actions, all at the same time, yes.

How about the IRA? Bye-bye Ireland?
If Ireland... ... Yes.

What if the perps were naturalized Canadian citizens? Take out Canada?
If Canada... ... Yes.

I think continuing to respond to that silly post is beating a dead horse.

[dirtboy]

Folks like you make the job of the Minutemen all that more difficult, because you give pro-illegal-immigration types the hammer to hit them with.

[OB1kNOb]

The temple has to be rebuilt on the Dome of the Rock first, though, right?

It depends upon one's interpretation of certain end-time prophecy verses. I believe there is a strong case to be made that it does not have to be rebuilt, but most Christians today have been taught that it must first be rebuilt.

[Rebelbase]

I take solice in the fact that you're militarily nuetered to the point of only being able to act out your necrofantasies in the world of virtual reality.

[nathanbedford]

You know, I wrote an extensive piece about the Tancredo flap which I set forth below. But now, I am beginning to believe that I missed the point of the Tancredo "flap." I wrote to clear up some cloudy thinking about deterrence and its limits in the war on terror and to defend Tancredo who I thought had, at worst, committed a gaff which might lead to unfortunate misunderstandings with "moderate" Muslims around the world whom we must cultivate as allies and who, ultimately, will win this war for us as they see their own survival linked with ours.

But the reaction to Tancredo was not just that he might have committed such a diplomatic gaff, it was an opening salvo showing how the left would react in the event of nuclear attack. They are staking out the ground, there is to be no nuclear counter strike, no retaliation, and hence, no deterrence. There is to be a new world order with them, in effect, running this part of the world by the leave of crazed Islam.

Shocking as it is to contemplate, for the Left,an atomic attack on the Homeland will not be an cause for war but an opportunity for a coup. They will rule as quislings.

Here are my comments about Tancredo:

From Qur'an profanation to bombing Mecca/

Posted by nathanbedford to SJackson On News/Activism 07/21/2005 1:09:53 PM EDT · 147 of 149

In 1962 John F. Kennedy faced the Soviet Union at the very brink of nuclear holocaust. He was confronted with the possibility of a nuclear strike emanating out of Cuba and the absolute need to deter it. He responded brilliantly, saying that a nuclear attack upon the United States from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union, requiring full retaliatory response against the Soviet Union.

Thus Kennedy made clear his intentions in the event of a nuclear strike upon the homeland of America. His intention was doubtless to deter the Soviet Union from launching a proxy strike and doubtless he succeeded. Deterrence worked.

In World War II the British and the Americans bombed German cities like Dresden into rubble. Today it's become fashionable to criticize the allies for the tens of thousands who died in the firestorm at Dresden. But the attacks have been justified upon two grounds. First, the Germans started the war. Second, it was the Germans who commenced the practice of indiscriminate bombing of cities, first in Rotterdam and then throughout Britain during the Battle of Britain.

I propose a new justification for the firebombing of Dresden. The innocent civilians, many women and children among them, who died in a terrible conflagration caused by the Allied bombings made up a society that was ultimately responsible for investing power in a maniacal dictator who brought us all into world war. When a society fails in its moral duty to see that its government is Democratic and not belligerent, history teaches that that society must expect to pay a terrible forfeit.

This is a harsh forfeit, one exacted from the innocent and the guilty alike. If you're a parent and you cherish your children, the lesson to be learned is, guarantee them a democratic and non belligerent government (as well as a militarily prepared government.)

Similarly, innocent civilians, women and children especially among them, sustained ghastly casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I perceive no moral dilemma here. As between a society which had permitted its government to become militaristic to the point of being psychotic on the one hand, and an innocent nation, the victim of a surprise attack, on the other hand, the infliction of huge casualties upon civilian women and children in order to spare the lives of innocent servicemen, was indisputably a moral act. In any event, the use of atomic weapons actually saved lives.

Today, innocent civilians are dying in Iraq because their society was permitted to become a rogue nation.

Let us return to the example of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy successfully deterred nuclear holocaust with the threat of another nuclear holocaust. It worked. Tancredo was fumbling toward the same objective: The avoidance of nuclear war in the first place.

Tancredo's problem and alas ours, is one that has been diabolically crafted by the Islamo -fundamentalist terrorists: We do not know whom to strike because we do not know who is responsible and we have no idea whom to deter or how to go about it. We are not dealing with a nation state nor even with a regime such as the Taliban but with a virus ready to divide amoeba-like and attack opportunistically. There is no identifiable societal unit, even one made up of innocent women and children, which we can efface and hopefully deter. Worse, there is no reason to suppose that a murderous movement built with suicide bombers would flinch from the prospect of its own destruction and thus these terrorists might be utterly impervious to deterrence.

Small wonder that Tancredo would have trouble articulating a coherent policy of deterrence against an enemy which has deliberately contrived to make itself impervious to deterrence. Nor should we be surprised if Tancredo, or anyone else seeks out of frustration to undo this Gordian knot with a single saber stroke, a nuclear stroke, whose implications unsettle some who had not yet come to terms with the terrible realities of the war being waged against us.

Finally, those who are queasy about Tancredo's willingness to strike at Muslim holy sites in his attempt to deter, ought to consider that a Muslim society, somewhere, will have abdicated its responsibility to its children and to itself to maintain a decent society. Fair or not, they, and huge swathes of the Muslim world will pay a terrible forfeit.

[PigRigger]

"And the only ones in a position to prevent it is islam itself....."

Unfortunately,a very sad, but true, statement....

[nathanbedford]

I sorry, I had not realized you had already commented on Tancredo as well as on that post.

I do like your idea of stealth retaliation, it smacks of Bin Laden's MO. But our problem is we, as a democracy, must deter or risk losing that very democracy. I believe it will be much more tricky to preserve our democracy in the wake of such an attack than do many who have posted here. Whether we go by way of fire or appeasement, it will be very difficult to deny the man on horseback.

If there is a strike, I cannot imagine the seat of government will escape the terrorists' attention. Without the apparatus of modern government in place for 300 million people, it is easy to predict events spinning out of control. We need a plan now.

[cpdiii]

You are correct. Our subs (Ohio Class) now carry the Trident
missile. Each has 5 warheads on it. I think the Ohio subs have 24 tubes, (someone correct me if I am wrong) this gives them a total of 120 warheads on each sub. The range is 4000 nautical miles. The Ohio class sub is the most formidable weapon on the earth.

[Vinnie]

No one could carry the device without getting radiated.

IIRC plutonium gives off alpha particles. They can be stopped by paper.
A plastic case would easily stop Alpha .

Am I correct?

If they exist and if they are detonated, the economy would be devastated.
The liberals will blame Bush. Heck, they already think the Iraq war is the cause of the recent terrorism.
The conservatives will scream that Bush didn't do enough to secure the borders, the sea ports, round up potential terrorists.
A very bad situation for the Country and the Administration.

The citizens will likely take care of the internal problem.

[cpdiii]

As to your general thesis, no American president will ever authorize nuclear release authority unless a terrorist WMD can be publically and specifically traced to an actual foreign government who provided the direct logistical support.

I beg to differ. The groups that want and are attempting to acquire nuclear material to use against this country can not survive without governments such as exist in Syria, Iran, North Korea. I would suspect that we have unofficially told these governments that if a nuclear bomb goes off in the United States we would use tactical nukes to decapitate all their governments and military. There is nothing like sure death to get ones attention. The swine that control these countries are not martyrs and they do not wish to die. Our current president has the cojones to do this.

[johnb838]

No Dan, you've got the accent all wrong.

"Say 'eh-llo to my lil-frien'"

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Both were intentional with the intent to destroy our Christian way of life and culture.

 

Huh? What planet are you living on. Giving people the rights to be treated better than your dog was anti Christian?

 

Where on earth did you get this little piece of propoganda, from the Grand Poobah of the KKK?

 

You sure you're on the right web site?

 

You are going to clarify this little gem aren't you? If not, I nominate this for the stupidest post to ever see the light of day on FR. Anyone want to second th motion?  

[Kozak]

Massacre the innocent. Great idea. < /sarcasm >

I guess you napped through the whole Cold War thing, when our national policy was to destroy every Soviet city even though only 5% of the population was Communist. Must have missed that WW2 thing too, when we fire bombed cities full of women and children to break morale. Nothing new here. Going back to old principles of deterrence. Don't like it, but have to admit it worked. Piss us off enough ( say 3 or 4 US cities go up in a nuclear cloud ) and I think we will want to go Roman, ie think Carthage, and expand to entire M.E.

[darbymcgill]

I take elimination words very seriously.

I'm curious why, with all of the posts about 'internment', 'destruction', etc.. etc.. in this thread, that you chose only one poster 'seriously' enough to rebuke and call in your pingers to pile on?

Are you sure it was only the 'elimination words' which offended you?

[Kozak]

No one in the US will release the nuclear genie.

If our enemies really think that then nuclear war is inevitable. Trust me, we WILL use nuclear weapons under the proper circumstances. For our enemies to assume otherwise is a very very big mistake.

[BlackElk]

You chose TAquinas as a screenname because?????????

By using that screenname, you suggest that you are Catholic and that Catholics (i.e., those in communion with the Holy See) believe the sort of thing you have posted. We do not. Members of Holy Mother the Church are both Catholic and catholic (universal) and open to all mankind who share our beliefs as you apparently do not.

Your post was frankly racist as regards African Americans, Mexicans, Jews, Japanese, Chinese and other Asians, Indians from India and other groups I am probably failing to remember.

Your views reflect the propaganda of the British of eras past (I am partly British) that Brits were somehow a superior race destined to civilize those beneath them and then to rule them. You seem to spread this out to Caucasians generally or at least the European Caucasians. Like many nations, the British have their strengths and weaknesses. One weakness is reflected in the notion that, for instance, Jamestown was the first permanent settlement in the US. Actually it was long predated by numerous Spanish missionary colonial sites in California and Florida. The ignorance underlying the British claims is not unlike "Palestinian" maps which do not show Israel as existing. It is purposeful ignorance and politically motivated ignorance of the sort practiced in the US Senate by the likes of Ted the Swimmer, John the Traitor, Patrick Leahy, Dick (Eddie Haskell) Turban and others of their ilk.

Immigration is indeed for the 21st Century (as it was in all previous centuries running back to the Age of Discovery) what the Civil Rights movement was to the 2oth Century---- a great opportunity to build a stronger society, a stronger civilization and a nation better suited to understand that there is one race: the human race. Native Americans might have some emotional and historical justification for regretting European immigration to this continent but they might better take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the entry of others to this continent.

Blather about "our Christian way of life and culture" being threatened is little other than paleopantywaist-usedsteerfood. We, as a nation, are threatened by the organized left, by lethargy, by the media, by the collectivists, by the rising tide of intentionally induced ignorance emanating from the teachers' unions, by those who water down America's values as well as Christian values and specifically Catholic values according to their own agendas. No country is the same country it was 50-60 years ago, including relatively homogeneous countries like Vietnam, China, Japan, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.

Puhleeze, insult no one's intelligence by whining that I am playing a "race card" against your ideas. Think of it as pinning the tail on the donkey. Your post is far too explicitly racist to be defensible. You are entitled to your beliefs. You are entitled to be raked for your beliefs. You are not entitled to suggest that your beliefs expressed in your post are Catholic beliefs because they are not.

Are you suggesting that the US would be better off if Jim Crow laws were not abolished? I don't agree with how the substantial majority of African-American voters vote but the remedy is to persuade them to vote conservatively not to take away their right to vote. If you think that they should not be allowed to vote or that Jim Crow should be restored, don't suggest that such is a Catholic belief for it is not.

How would you have reacted if, as was quite plausible, Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria, a very great catholic and a ver black African, had been elected in the recent conclave instead of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger? I am quite satisfied with Benedict XVI but might well have voted for Arinze if I had a vote.

Demographics is destiny. You lose. America wins. We are a nation that depends upon common ideals reflected in our Declaration of Independence, among other places, and not upon racial homogeneity or social calcification.

[johnb838]

Just curious, what do you suppose our immediate response would be if one of our downtowns say, St. Louis, went up in a mushroom cloud with fallout all over the metro area and winds blowing it all over the midwest?

Think the President would just go off to an undisclosed location and let us all sweat it out? Really? Tell us to be chill? Not to react hastily? Islam is a great religion of peace? Think anybody'd be buying what he had to sell? Think there would be enough cops and troops to put down the panic riots that would follow?

The world wonders.

[BlackElk]

I second your motion. See #158