Posted on 03/28/2006 2:38:09 PM PST by LibWhacker
The focus on the ports fiasco obviously would pale in comparison to a terror nuke actually detonating in one of our ports. But what about the flipside of that terrible event? What would happen to Islam as a result of a massive nuclear retaliatory counterstrike against Islamic targets?
Perhaps this week's most ominous headline was "Islamic websites carry al-Qaida's Last Warning." The story in WorldNetDaily detailed how Osama bin Laden's terror group plans to bring destruction upon the United States and force it into surrender. Apparently this is more of the same threat that has been circulating for some time that al-Qaida plans to detonate seven nuclear warheads it claims to have acquired from Pakistan and the former Soviet Union in the United States. There have also been accompanying threats that al-Qaida planned to follow up the nuclear attacks with crop-dusting planes that would spread smallpox on American cities.
Despite grandiose plans for such an attack on the United States, bin Laden has again failed to understand the nature of the American spirit and the likely vengeance such an attack would unleash from American military strategic nuclear forces. Since the United States entered the era of nuclear weapons technology many decades ago, it has always had detailed contingency plans on how the country would respond in a nuclear crisis.
Perhaps best known among those contingency plans is the one drawn up during the Cold War with the Soviets commonly described as "MAD," or Mutual Assured Destruction. Simply, MAD is the doctrine whereby the United States sought to dissuade its adversaries from ever even considering a nuclear attack against our country by assuring that such an attempt would be met with such a hyper-violent nuclear response that would undoubtedly result in the annihilation of not just the United States, but also the enemy that initiated the attack.
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. They obviously fail to see the difference between tactical and strategic planning and this error may ultimately lead Islam to disaster.
Enter what history may someday describe as the Bush doctrine of "Terror-MAD," the likely response to a terror nuke attack on our country. Although no one in government will confirm such a doctrine even exists, simple common sense and past comments by government officials to the press would indicate that, in fact, it does exist. And herein is Mr. bin Laden's very fatal flaw.
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.
Bear in mind the reality of such an attack against the United States. Not only would the United States not be chastised by the international community for such a massive counterstrike, but no one in the American government would likely care about what others think under such circumstances. While we're busy throwing all those retaliatory nukes around, who is going to standup and object? Certainly, it won't be Russia to complain since they have their own serious radical Islam problem to deal with in former republics on its borders.
Let's be reminded that there is no provision in any of the Pentagon's war plans or myriad assortment of contingency plans for a national surrender. It would just never happen under any circumstance. Actually, the Pentagon's logic is that for each escalation of attack against us our response would be a vastly increased level of violence against our adversary. And you can be sure – when push comes to shove – whatever weapon is in the inventory will be used ... nothing will be held back.
Such a contingency plan is likely contained in the largely still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the comprehensive war plan for the Pentagon. Unlike bin Laden's shortsighted tactical plans, the Pentagon has an extremely detailed strategic plan for dealing with essentially any circumstance, threat or contingency that may conceivably face our nation.
The likely target list for retaliation for a nuclear terror attack against the United States includes Iran, Syria, and Libya as the primary targets. 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 – except for holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, Hebron, Qom and others, which planners might want to completely annihilate). There are likely other "Islamic" countries also on the potential target list and even ones we generally consider as being friendly to the U.S. such as Pakistan, especially if radicals gained control of its nuclear weapons.
You may recall that Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., suggested exactly that awhile back, and while his statement met with denials from the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House were silent on the Tancredo comment. A statement previously released from the Pentagon says, "The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place ... This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of weapons of mass destruction," the Pentagon statement also said.
While the Pentagon was busy "cleaning house" our strategic nuclear force would also likely target North Korea just to be certain we don't face any additional threats while we are in a recovery mode from the terror attack. Depending on the circumstances at the time of the attack against us, the Pentagon might even include China on the potential target list since China's own military doctrine (especially "Unrestricted Warfare") could be interpreted as using any advantage such as an already weakened United States to further its own military goals. Simply, our military planners would likely destroy every conceivable real or imagined threat to our country after we are attacked with a nuke.
Americans as a whole seem to have tremendous patience, much more so than say Islamic countries. The American flag is burned on a daily basis in many countries during what seem like endless protests against our country and it hardly elicits any response at all here. On the other hand, a few cartoons – even ones showing Muhammad in a favorable way – sends masses of violent protestors into the streets in Islamic countries. However, we do have limits to our patience. If we got nuked, there would undoubtedly be a tremendous outcry for massive retaliation. After all, the country quickly united on Sept. 12, 2001, and widely supported President Bush's initiative to attack Afghanistan.
According to the portions of the Nuclear Posture Review that are public, nuclear weapons can be used "in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons," or "in the event of surprising military developments." It also recognizes the need for nuclear retaliation in cases of "immediate, potential or unexpected" contingencies against potential adversaries that have "long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners" including countries that "sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs."
Former U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) said a while back:
"We would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population ... The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody ... has just been disproven by Sept. 11."
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has said that the Bush administration wants to "send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States." Further, "The only way to deter such a use is to be clear it would be met with a devastating response," she said. A State Department spokesman has previously stated "if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of response."
Considering the huge number of nuclear weapons in the United State's inventory, there would be no need to pick and choose targets for economy purposes. While bin Laden's claim that he has a few nukes (which may or may not be still operational) may turn out to be true, there is the utmost certainty that the United States has a huge number (somewhere in the thousands) of extremely well-maintained and very reliable nuclear warheads in all shapes and sizes for every possible purpose.
A nuclear attack on America by al-Qaida would – by many informed accounts – lead to a renewed crusade to destroy Islam throughout the world. Bin Laden's grandiose plan to destroy modern civilization and restore some absurd form of radical Islamic rule throughout the entire world will undoubtedly have exactly the opposite effect. Already we see a tremendous backlash against most things Islamic, the recent port fiasco is a perfect case in point. Imagine the reaction after a nuke attack.
Absent an international movement by those in the moderate Islamic community – who can and should be able to locate and bring Mr. bin Laden and his despicable cohorts to justice – he just might one day make good on his threat to nuke America.
In his fanatical zeal to convert the entire world to radical Islam, there will be two groups of victims resulting from bin Laden's insanity – innocent people just wanting to live their normal lives here in our country, and Islam itself with its followers throughout the world. Such a result would hardy be considered a noble pursuit and or end-result by people who claim to be the servants of their God.
---
Robert Pfriender is the founder and president of Allied International Development, Ltd., a privately held real estate development and construction management firm located on Long Island, N.Y., that tried to persuade the U.S. government to allow a private consortium to build offshore ports in which all incoming cargo containers could be inspected, preventing all weapons of mass destruction from ever reaching American shores.
I'm begining to wonder what the U.S. government would do to retaliate if a nuclear device were to go off somewhere in the U.S. Afterall this is the same government that will allow millions of criminal aliens to invade our country and drain our country of billions of dollars and what do they get? they get an amnesty from our cowardly Senators in Washington.
That does not inspire confidence in me very much.
If that's the exception, then that proves my point. From what I can gather, we were shot at from within the Abdul-Aziz mosque, so we fought to the death for six hours, eventually bombed a wall of the "mosque complex", then groveled and/or harrumphed at the accusation when we were blamed for damage to the mosque proper. Only the commie and Arab websites claimed that we bombed the mosque itself.
well you speak of what I said in the singular and indeed I spoke of it in the plural. Hundreds of mosques in fallujah were part of the battle that took place there. Seriously, hundreds.
BTW, everybody, great responses, all! I've thorougly enjoyed everything everone has said in this thread. Even if I haven't fully agreed with everyone, it's been very interesting, with plenty of food for thought. I hope we get another few hundred responses if the quality of responses continues like this!
Let us also remember that it won't be the Pentagon's call. Only the National Command Authority, can authorize an attack. This is the President and Secretary of Defense, or their successors. The order of Presidential succession (but only to "acting" President, if the successor is not the then sitting Vice President) is established by law, US Code, Title 3 Sec. 19 while the sucession to the Office of Secretary of Defense is established by Executive Order, recently updated by President Bush in December of 2005.
Well you got me there old sport, I never thought it was hundreds or even tens, just that one. It's the only one that comes up in the first dozen pages of googling fallujah +mosque +attack anyway.
Not to be spiteful, but at least now you know why I feel about google the way I do. ;)
I believe that would be your son's call. The question is whether you would support his decision if it was not the decision you would want him to make.
I think you are mistaken on that. The examples you sighted don't come close to the level of a WMD attack. In the event of that, I think our government response will tend more toward what the article suggests. I wouldn't expect to much time or thought would be given when the result of a miscalculation could be our destruction. I imagine every scenario on the boards will more likely result in everyone else's destruction. Of course that will require us to deal with the aftermath but I suppose that is better than not being around to deal.
bump
I agree, Nukes are too messy, we can carpet bomb them, its more fun too
Bush will. And he won't take a poll either before or after.
what a waste of an article
""I don't think Bush would authorize any nuclear retaliation against what he believes to be the religion of peace.""
Bush hasnt said that since 2001
"Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11?"
Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives"
: http://www.tothepointnews.com/welcome.php?partner=WND
The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again.
On his website, 'To the Point', Wheeler explains how the Bush administration has identified the potential of wiping Mecca off the map as bin Laden's ultimate point of vulnerability – the Damoclean Sword hanging over his head.
"Israel … recognizes that the Aswan Dam is Egypt's Damoclean Sword," writes Wheeler. "There is no possibility whatever of Egypt's winning a war with Israel, for if Aswan is blown, all of inhabited Egypt is under 20 feet of water. Once the Israelis made this clear to the Egyptians, the possibility of any future Egyptian attack on Israel like that of 1948, 1967, and 1972 is gone."
Wheeler says talk of bin Laden's Damoclean Sword has infiltrated the Beltway.
Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence.
"The whispers and hints and ellipses are getting louder now because the rumor explains the inexplicable: Why hasn't there been a repeat of 9-11? How can it be that after this unimaginable tragedy and Osama's constant threats of another, we have gone over three years without a single terrorist attack on American soil?"
Available only to subscribers of To the Point, Wheeler ends his column by explaining the effectiveness of the Mecca threat.
"Completely obliterating the terrorists' holiest of holies, rendering what is for them the world's most sacred spot a radioactive hole in the ground is retribution of biblical proportions – and those are the only proportions that will do the job.
"Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq – obviously never expressed publicly – was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more."
Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca."
We really haven't played cowboys and Muslims yet.
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.