Doomsday for Islam?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/28/06 | Robert Pfriender

[paul51]

Our hundreds of billions were spent on the MAD philosophy. For actual offensive or defensive use in the War on Terror/Islam/Extremists, they're virtually useless.

Not according to the article. 'Every conceivable real or imagined threat" doesn't allow for much discrimination in targeting.

[Graybeard58]

A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

The author of that statement is confusing what should be with what will be.

[meema]

I always thought it was interesting that there were no Muslims on Star Trek.

I think warp drive doesn't work on people from the 10th century.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[airborne]

Every oil dependant country that has, up to this point in time, been afraid to confront the muslim horde.

Remove them, and watch how suddenly brave countries become.

[PeteB570]

This country will never respond with nukes.

Sorry, not in the cards.

Talk is cheap but when it comes right down to it our politicians will never hit the button.

Now if they came out right now and said "Any nuke strike on this country from Islamo-terrorists and Mecca will be nuked 24 hours later". That I could believe.

[GOPJ]

You can't "nuke all the Muslims" by tossing nukes willy-nilly around the world ...

Yeah, you can. Do you think if the former USSR and the US nuked each other that only the bad guys would die? Come on. Many innocents will die -- on our side and their side.

Eight nukes go off in the US and 3,000 nukes will go off in Muslim countries that support Osama. It might not be "fair", but little is fair in "to the death" type wars.

Many people will turn the keys together if they know their families are dead. And we'll expect that of them.

Sitting in a sub, wondering what to do with whole cities dead? They'll think. Target a Muslim country and let 'em fly or sit and cry? And then they'll act. They'll "target". And target. And target again.

It'll be the World War everyone wanted to avoid, but couldn't.

Muslim countries that want to survive better talk Osama into getting real, and fast -- 'cause if he moves to kill us, we'll fight back.

[paul51]

there is no possibility that either George Bush or Hillary Clinton would do such a thing - not in a million years

As far as Bush is concerned, I think you may be wrong on that one.

[Sender]

No, neither of them would unleash a massive, global nuclear response. That will not happen, God forbid.

However I do think that we would respond in kind. An eye for an eye, a city for a city. May as well start with Tehran.

[BlueStateDepression]

Let's see the U.S. shoot at one GD mosque full of terrorists and bombs and guns first for Christ's sake.

Fallujah.

[meema]

If radical Muslims want to "pull the knife", we'll kill them all. Easily. Quickly. It'll be over in 45 minutes. All their holy sites, all their oil fields, all their dreams. Gone. And we'll come back. They never will. Arabs who love their life and lifestyle should turn Osama and goons in -- cause we won't put up with this crap forever...

Well said, GOPJ.

[paul51]

This country will never respond with nukes

Do you think we maintain them for show?

[El Gato]

For some odd reason, bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack. It would seem that their psychotic thought processes have blinded their judgment in a profound and ultimately self-destructive way. Their warped perception leads them to believe that such an attack could not be traced back to their hands and hence the United States would be left with no retaliation targets.

On the contrary, we can tell not only which nation supplied the plutonium and which reactor, if they have more than one. That's assuming a plutonium bomb, which a Soviet or Pakistani bomb, perhaps even a North Korean one, would likely be. A uranium bomb is more problematical, but would indicate f crude device, and thus point the finger at an emerging nuclear capability, like that of Iran.

While we've cut our inventory of missiles, bombers and warheads considerably since the George Bush and even Ronald Reagan administrations, we've still got plenty for the few worthwhile targets the more extreme members of the Islamic world provide. (For example we once had 1054 land based ICBM, those 54 were Titan IIs with big multi megaton warheads. Now we have about 550, none of them MIRVed, plus all those (MIRVED) birds in the Ohio class boomers, plus gravity bombs for strategic (B-2, B-1A, B-52H) bombers and tactical fighters.

[El Gato]

I very much doubt that a terrorist nuke would lead to a scattergun nuclear barrage against a range of Middle Eastern countries, including important strategic allies. If a particular state was found to be complicit in the attack, that would very much be another matter of course.

We know who the terrorist supporting states are, I don't think we'd wait around for concrete "proof" of complicity, or for another attack either. At least not before the end of 2008. After that, all bets are off, and we might not retaliate at all with nukes. Instead we might just whine to the UN, and maybe shoot a few cruise missiles up a few camel's butts.

[bkepley]

WorldNetDailey = neoCon?

[Dead Dog]

Science Fiction is about the future.

[American Vet Repairman]

"This country will never respond with nukes
Do you think we maintain them for show?"

For all intensive purpose they are just for show. We have shown them we can not close the deal in regards to war. We convict our own troops when they point a barking dog at prisoner. They know we are weak and do not have what it takes to defeat them. Sure we can fight them and have some nifty pictures and film but we will not defeat these Muslims until we get medieval on them. When they get a nuke they will use it and we will go fight somebody else and be in a stalemate. My only hope it is on a blue city if God says we have to take a hit.

[aculeus]

We can supplement those targets with countries such as Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (and that are most likely targeted with the "neutron bomb" designed with such a scenario in mind that kills with enhanced radiation levels but essentially leaves facilities and oil infrastructure intact ...

Didn't Carter sink the neutron bomb?

[Frenetic]

From the way this article reads, makes you almost want one of our cities to get nuked just so we can annihilate Islam. I vote for Detroit to take one for Team America first. </satire>

[Savage Beast]

"We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve".
~Isoruku Yamamoto~

[Savage Beast]

"To mistake gentleness for weakness is to underestimate the severity of a Russian winter."
~Leon Uris~
Mila 18