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."
Whoa, Mister Da.
That's pretty harsh treatment for these Koran-reading and believing perverts. How will they service those 72 virgins promised by the prophet Muhammed? Or perhaps he meant 72 Virgin(ians).
What a lousy excuse for a religion.
self-ping
I would like to hear your (non-spoilers) reviews.
Thanks!
I think we should make it very clear to islamist states like Saudi Arabia that in the event of a major wmd attack on the U.S their country will be taken over if not completely destroyed. Give them a little incentive to deter their Jiahi idiots.
That’s jihadi idiots, not jiahi idiots.
Yup, but add Islamabad to the target set.
Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are Islam.
If the three holy sites are eliminated, Islam is eliminated.
The problem is that what they hold dear is “expediency”. And you can’t target that with WMD.
They will whine and complain about a Koran being flushed, demand that shoes be removed before entering a sacred mosque, but when push comes to being shot at, they will all run into the nearest mosque with their shoes on and start shooting from behind a stack of korans.
I was disappointed. I didn’t think it was anywhere near as good as Nightfall or the Lion’s Game.
But I finished it.
These suggestions continue even though it is well enough known that the islamists expect the destruction of mecha and medina as part of their apocalypse.
“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.”
There comes a time when the opinions of “world leaders” is of no importance. Yes, we would like to have their trust, their support, even their love but if we must die to gain them we need to rethink our standards. If we can’t have their love then we need to be satisfied with their respect. If that is to be denied then our very survival may depend on whether or not they fear us.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be respected than feared. If push comes to shove though, I’ll take fear. as long as I’m alive I can work on gaining respect.
How hard is it top understand that NO Mecca means NO islam?
All muslims MUST visit mecca once in their life or they are not muslims. What happens to the 100s of million believers who haven’t been to Mecca after it’s nuked? Its one of the 7 tenants of the faith that must be followed.
And frankly your statmement about Southern Bapists is peyond the pale.
I am about halfway through it and would say it is probably DeMille’s best so far. It poses some really interesting moral dilemmas in the form of a thriller. Demille’s comments in the preface are REALLY something, if you listen closely. If you like the characters of John Corry and Kate Mayfield from some of his other novels, you’ll like this one. They are operating pretty much alone, because, as usual, John doesn’t trust his superiors.
Good story so far, the resolution will determine my final grade.
I loved the “Lion’s Game”.
Can’t wait to get started on this one.
When you finish, let me know what you think.
Very interesting, (I’m hoping the overall premise does not include an overemphasis on a “corrupt” American government), instead of getting the bad guys.
Those stories are always fun, but tiresome now, imho.
Maybe its my mood, (lol, bloodthirsty for revenge), for all the decades of suicide bombings of the Islamic cults. But moral dilemmas in this fight are very real, especially for a great nation like the USA, who also has such enormous military power that must be used wisely.
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.