American traitors: "Deterrence? Sorry, we are busy groveling and offering the necks of the American people
so that WE might be taken .... last."
Posted on 07/26/2007 4:32:42 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It's clearly necessary to begin thinking about what form deterrence will take against future terrorist attacks on the U.S. At least 5 such attacks have been prevented at the operational stage by Bush administration policies over the last six years. What is needed is more serious consideration of the value of policies that deter such attacks.
This is likely to become a more pressing concern, as America's ability to interrupt such attacks, if a Democrat becomes President, will be severely eroded. The Democrats are profoundly indifferent to national security, and have even managed to convince themselves that terrorism is some vast right-wing conspiracy. If the Islamists have learned anything from their defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that they must do whatever it takes to re-establish their beachhead in the U.S. They must bring their war back to their declared target. There can be little doubt the Democrats will give them this opportunity.
Conventional wisdom contends that if a terrorist group conducts a nuclear hit on a major American city, there would effectively be no return address against which to retaliate, making such an attack non-deterrable. Bret Stephens, in his article, "Who Needs Nukes?" (The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2007), pointedly asks: "Would it hinder Islamist terrorists if the U.S.'s declared policy in the event of a nuclear 9/11 was the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Iranian religious center of Qom?"
Very likely it would not directly matter a jot to the terrorists. But it would surely make Arab states, their governments, and their people, begin to question the wisdom of whatever levels of overt and/or tacit support is being provided to terror groups. And that would surely hit the terrorists, bigtime.
Stephens continues: "Would our deterrent be more or less effective if we deployed a range of weapons, such as the maligned 'bunker buster', the use of which a potential adversary might think us capable?"
At present the terrorists rely a great deal on Western decency, and the pressure exerted by America's covert enemies in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, restraining the legitimate exercise of American power. Wouldn't the presence of bunker busters in the American arsenal and the stated willingness to use them against terrorist hideouts perhaps have some deterrence value?
Stephens takes his eyes off the ball, however, when he asks: "How would the deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile shield alter the composition of a credible deterrent?" The ABM shield is intended to deter rogue states seeking to exploit the crisis of a major terrorist attack, by following it up with an attack of their own. Such a surprise attack by China, Iran, North Korea, or a post-Musharraf Pakistan is very plausible.
One of the ignored threats of terrorism is precisely the opportunity it presents for a nuclear or non-nuclear attack by a conventional state actor. A robust capacity to deter such conventional attacks must remain a central plank in America's defense network.
Isn't it possible that its effectiveness against terror attacks has been underestimated? As Max Singer, a colleague of Cold War theorist Herman Kahn, referenced in Stephens' article, once said: "Even nihilists have something they hold dear that can be threatened with deterrence. You need to know what it is, communicate it and be serious about it."
Hell, man! That’s what nukes is for!
American traitors: "Deterrence? Sorry, we are busy groveling and offering the necks of the American people
so that WE might be taken .... last."
We must decide which of the Republican candidates will be most hawkish when it comes to retaliation or, more importantly, to aggressiveness. We need to destroy them and their ridiculous 'holy cities' before they touch the USA.
So far I've seen only one candidate that meets that criteria and he doesn't stand a chance because he's not connected to the CFR: Tom Tancredo.
Sorry Stephen, you cannot be more badly mistaken.
If targeting Qom, Medina and Mecca was our deterrence policy, then the UN would condemn us, leaders from all over the world would label us crusaders.
What everyone seems not to understand is this is not merely a holy war. It is a war about statist totalitarianism which uses religion as its terrorist.
The war is the State vs Religion with human liberty as the hindrance. The US is a stepping stone in the war and the elitists in the US senate use this theory to steal from the American people while using politics to cover their tracks.
There is a solution. A very simple solution. Term Limits. Self serving politicians with their own political and financial agendas cannot be trusted with running our country. Period.
People think Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Boxer are leftists. Bullcrap! They are common criminals who use the political process to steal from Americans and cover their tracks with investigations against the opposition. They foment a mob mentality in the ideologues while their attorneys sweep in the cash from frivolous lawsuits designed to paralyze the government.
They could care less about the nation. Because when the fur starts to fly, they will all be in St. Croix or in their European dachas while we are left to defend ourselves.
Until the world finds the b@lls to acknowledge it... AND CONFRONT IT... we will continue to flail in the dark.
>>If targeting Qom, Medina and Mecca was our deterrence policy, then the UN would condemn us, leaders from all over the world would label us crusaders.
The UN and the so-called ‘world leaders’ are irrelevant. I’ve lost patience with our groveling for acceptance from them. Nuke the muzzies and if anyone complains, nuke them too for good measure.
Our goobermint is so damned PC that it will eventually kill us!
Ramadan dinners at the White House where afterwards, to delight the attendees, a film was shown that depicted the beheadings of innocent men by the blood thirsty, Koran reading Islamists.
Our porous borders.
Terrorist films made by Hollyweird producers that feature anglo terrorists rather than the raggedy-headed camel jockeys.
“he doesn’t stand a chance because he’s not connected to the CFR”
You could stick Duncan Hunter’s name in there also.
You are absolutely right about CFR. Those socialist/globalist/ NWO Elitists need to be dealt with. They’ve controlled world economic/political policy making for over 70 yrs........and that’s 70 yrs too long.
This sounds an awful lot like the plot line of Nelson DeMille’s new book, “Wildfire”. Seems the article’s author may have been influenced by some of the same ideas. If you’ve not read it yet, it is interesting.
The nuke solution isn’t workable, IMHO. Too many issues with radiation, drift of fallout, etc. Conventional weapons could be just as effective as a counterstrike.
In addition to threatening Mecca, etc., I would like to see our military add pork products to our weapons arsenal. Bullets should be dipped in pork fat. Every soldier should carry pork rinds to stuff in the mouths of dead terrorists.
Also, I understand a muslim may not enter Paradise without his genitals, so we need to relieve them of these items when they are captured or killed.
This should convince the muslim terrorists that a trip to Paradise is not a sure thing, & remove the incentive for martyrdom.
Surely. And the answer to that question would be to double their support for said terror groups, to appease the mobs in the streets and stave off their own overthrow.
Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are befriending local children and showing them a different face of America are the only ones who seem to get it. Nothing can be done to scare today's generation of terrorists - they are just going to have to be identified and killed. The key is to deny the imams the next generation of recruits by countering the massive anti-Western Arab propaganda industry. Bombing the holy cities would be a big step in the opposite direction - it would just confirm the lies of the imams.
And consider what Christianity "holds dear". Did anyone in the Vatican care when the Palestinians desecrated Joseph's Tomb? Southern Baptist leaders would probably do a tap dance if Muslims assassinated the Pope. Mormons aren't too interested in the results of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Similarly, Sunni Muslims aren't going to shed a tear if Qom gets bombed in the the course of a retaliatory strike on Iran, and Al Qaeda isn't going to worry too much about the fate of Mecca and Medina as long as they can successfully detonate a nuclear bomb in New York City.
"Islam" is too broad a concept to be seriously wounded by such symbolic strikes - great as the idea's appeal is to the egos of many observers.
Also, I understand a muslim may not enter Paradise without his genitals, so we need to relieve them of these items when they are captured or killed.
I have always wondered how blowing ones self to bits does not violate that whole “may not enter Paradise without his genitals” thing.
Who says they are not already “targeted” as you say???
So that becomes a moot point...
I could really care less what the U.N. “thinks” about us...They are a hairs breath away from losing their little foot hold on 44th street anyway...Send them packing...
If it all comes down to 150 million of us who have a fairly strong conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs, against the billions left in this world...
I like our chances...
Here Here!
For instance, if we targeted Muslim cities, this would play into the hands of the jihadis and would be perceived as infidel aggression and justification for more deadly attacks.
Even in their own end-time prophecies, it is written that there will be "an end to the Hajj", which suggests to me that Mecca will someday be uninhabitable.
Even so, we do need some kind of clear, stated policy as to what we will do if we are attacked with WMD. And after we state it, we must be committed to do it.
Because the imam says so. Whatever the imam says the koran says is what the koran says. (Consistancy and expediency seldom meet.)
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.