Posted on 04/27/2008 5:35:51 AM PDT by knighthawk
One of the most terrifying possibilities the world faces is that al-Qa'eda, or some other Islamist group, gets hold of a nuclear bomb. Islamist terrorists are certainly trying to obtain one: Osama bin Laden has issued a document entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam", which insists it is "the duty" of Muslims to acquire a nuclear bomb in order to use "as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God".
The Foreign Office's senior counter-terrorist official has "no doubt at all" that Islamist terrorists are actively seeking a nuclear device. "There are people" he adds dryly, "for whom exploding a nuclear bomb in a city would be a triumph for the cause."
A 10 kiloton nuclear bomb would be a relatively small one by today's standards, but a 10 kiloton explosion in a city would mean that, from the centre of the blast for a distance of one third of a mile, every structure above ground level would be obliterated and every person would be killed instantly.
For the next third of a mile, the city would look like the weird moonscape which Berlin had become by the end of World War Two, after almost a year of Allied bombing raids.
And for a third of mile beyond that circle of hell, buildings and people would burn, both with flames and the effects of radiation.
To consider that outcome is to realise that it must be prevented. But how? Deterrence - the threat that if you detonate a nuclear bomb in our country, we will retaliate in kind on yours - has so far prevented nuclear war between nations. The only time nuclear bombs have been used, it was against a country without the capacity to retaliate.
Deterrence, however, depends on your enemy having cities and a population that can be threatened with obliteration.
The problem is that terrorist organisations have neither. They are simply groups of individuals with no responsibility for, and no control over, a state or its population.
Deterrence breaks down as a consequence. If they could get hold of a nuclear bomb, Islamist terrorists would have every incentive to use it to cause as much destruction as possible in an "enemy" country such as Britain or America - and there's no threat we can brandish to stop them.
Which means that the over-arching aim of the civilised world must be to ensure that they cannot get hold of a nuclear bomb, because that is the only way we can protect ourselves against nuclear terrorism.
The most powerful argument against allowing nuclear proliferation is that the more countries that have the bomb, the more likely it is that one will end up in the hands of terrorists.
Nuclear bombs are still, mercifully, beyond the capacity of terrorist groups to engineer for themselves: a terrorist organisation would have to get one from a government.
When the governments trying to acquire the technology for making nuclear bombs are known to train and supply Islamist terrorist groups - as Syria and Iran, for example, certainly do - the importance of preventing them obtaining the capacity to make such bombs is overwhelming.
That is why the Israelis destroyed Syria's "not for peaceful means" nuclear facility last September, and why the rest of the world acquiesced in the destruction, which broke international law and had no United Nations resolution.
It is also why the US continues to send signals to Iran that it will not oppose, indeed might even join in, any attempt by Israel to hit Iran's fledgling nuclear facilities: sending precisely that signal must have been at least part of the point of last week's very public announcement that the Israeli raid on Syria's putative nuclear bomb factory had been successful.
Governments can perhaps be deterred from leaking nuclear weapons to terrorist groups by the thought of what the Americans would do to them if there were a nuclear explosion in an American city and the construction of the fatal bomb could be traced back to, say, Iran or Syria.
The Americans have not been shy about letting those governments know what would happen. As one US official put it to me: "We would totally obliterate the country responsible" - a phrase echoed by Hillary Clinton when she said the US would "totally obliterate" Iran if that country was responsible for a nuclear attack even on Israel, never mind America.
Governments, however, are not always able to control all their members. Some members of the Iranian administration might not be deterred by the prospect of nuclear armageddon (indeed, some seem to welcome it). Which means that the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists it to keep them out of the hands of national governments who might give them to terrorists.
If Iran builds a nuclear bomb factory, you can be sure that Israel will try to destroy it. You can also be sure that, when it happens, the rest of the world will not object.
She says she’d obliterate them in retaliation. I think we shouldn’t let it come to that. Destroy their arsenal before they can use it. These aren’t bows and arrows we’re talking about and the mad mullahs aren’t reasonable men.
> Manitoba-if it has oil. We take them and their oil
Not so much oil, neither Saskatchewan. Both have plenty of grain, as does Alberta. Manitoba has plenty of fresh water and superb fishing.
But maybe a better proposition would be for Canada to annex Texas, Colorado, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Alaska, Hawaii and Montana instead. I’m sure they could put these states to much better use than you Yanks can. Heck, you won’t even miss them!
Maybe Canada will even lend you some Quebec politicians: if you think your elections are interesting this time around, wait until somebody named Bourassa takes over the Oval Office.
We have the military forces to take oil and natural resources from Canada. Not the other way around
> We have the military forces to take oil and natural resources from Canada. Not the other way around
The two times that the United States and Canada fought each other, the US got badly mauled. History is not on your side.
Times change plus I think the Canadians had England and Indians fighting with them way back then. The police force of New York City is better armed than Canada’s military. They spend on socialism up there, not on the military. We provide some nuclear defense for them. I don’t think they have nukes unless we lent them one or two
Australia’s population is roughly the same as Canada’s. I’ll bet your military establishment is 10x larger. You are very close to some potentially hostile nations, some with exploding populations
> They spend on socialism up there, not on the military.
Problem is, of course, your military is ummm... kinda busy someplace else. And by time it got back to where it could be useful, a contingent of Royal Canadian Mounted Police could have driven quickly to Washington DC and arrested your President, plus the entire Senate and Supreme Court.
They would get there fastest with the mostest, just like the last two times.
Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it.
Touché!
Al little more complicated that the parallels of nuclear capabilities. The DPRK is different because the people idolize the regime. They can invade and/or cause massive destruction to an ally we will be drawn into a regional war with China. The Bush administration has been putting extreme diplomatic pressure on NK. State has been working to bring light NK’s nuclear ambitions to the UN while simultaneously starving the nation of heavy oil and food, short of humanitarian aid. It’s shit or get off the can for Kim Jong-il and either way we’re covered.
It was the brits not canadians when we fought in 1812. Now the world is much different where we are a superpower(back then we were a weak nation) and they are a socialist nanny state with a weak military that relies on the US for North American security. I’m not advocating a takeover of Canada, they should be thankful we are a benign power unlike russia or china.Facts just suck sometimes dont they. Thats the problem with euro and other assorted anti-US people. They have no idea what they would face if the US wasn’t a just power. We could have air dominance over Canada in less than a day.Followed by Naval dominance in a few days. I like Canada but those are the facts.
Do you understand that we are a nation of 300 milion now who actually bear arms. No land force would ever take our capital.Now i think you are just joking but its sort of funny when people think we are tied up. Our air force and navy are not tied up at all.
Right....helping syria build a plutonium processing reactor doesn't count!?
...doesn't count cause Israel just bombed it into a Syrian sandpile!
The only Canadians we need to fear are the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acO5l3avz9g
LMAO
Deterrence breaks down as a consequence.
Wrong, destroy what the terrorists hold dear. Holy Cities, Koran printing plants and native populations are good choices.
I would bet dollars to donuts that Iran was involved in that project. Syria doesn’t have the other infrastructure to justify plutonium production. Iran does. If they have the plutonium they have a bomb inside of 3 months max.
I would bet also that Iran was paying both the North Koreans and the Syrians for the project
> The only Canadians we need to fear are the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen!
(Big Grin!) I think a few of their Elite Bearded Lesbian Feminist Parliamentarians might give you pause to reflect...
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.