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.
We gave up the neutron bomb, and not just for lent, over a decade ago. We don't have any. Besides it's something of a myth that ER warheads would leave structures intact. Tanks they might not destroy, but many or most commercial buildings, certainly oil refineries, houses, shops, and so forth would be toast, if within the range where the enhanced radiation effects would be of most importance.
LOL!
Unless you are prepared to physically (and illegally I might add) restrain him, or conversely march him down to the recruiter at gunpoint (also highly illegal), I'd say it was your son's decision to make, not yours. At 26 I had already served as an officer on active duty for about 3 years, and was by then in the selected Reserve.
Muslimes were a strange cult like the cult of Baal or the Aztec Snake-God. And equally deserving to be obliterated. The only question the future will ask us and our ancestors of the past 14 centuries will be: Why did it take you so long to get off your butts and DO something?
And what is the problem with that now? Why do we have to wait? I'd like a cogent explanation.
IIRC, the original Star Trek series was set in the 23rd century -- roughly 300 years in the future. Assuming the relative societal gap between Islamic & Western society is maintained, the Islamic world would 'Boldly' be entering the 17th Century.
Suppose the year is 2015 and Hillary is in her 7th year as President. Islamic terrorists have smuggled in nukes and just set them off in New York, Washington DC, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Hillary, with the backing of a democrat controlled House and Senate, orders a national surrender. Will the Pentagon go along with it, even though they haven't been given an opportunity to fire a single shot in retaliation? Or will the Pentagon say to hell with Hillary and start calling the shots? I say the latter.
The first ones would probably roll off the assembly line the first week, maybe the first day.
I don't think we would do anything under Bush based on his actions so far. Bush wouldn't use nukes. He is too afraid of the media and the Democrats.
I said the same thing.
When I read the original post I read first "bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack."
"Nuclear terror attack" suggests something a terrorist could plant in some major city, some major historical site, or some of both, and light off. That's not remotely impossible but neither is it something likely to result in massive retaliation.....
Against who?
"Massive" conventional strikes against any and everything our (proved to be an absurdity) intelligence community suggests would be a near certainty - and very significant retaliation in itself.
Retaliation against states that "we" think at the time are likely to, perhaps, have had something to do with enabling the attack are way far out in left field:
Just picture the Dubai port deal with long term radiation.
Our ability to face down threats is not improved by this kind of fever dream saber rattling.
Ah, may Allah forgive my modernist lapse in mentioning the evil double digit centuries! Three hundred pardons! I will firmly beat my head with the sharp edge of the sword for three days to atone for my three century error.
But, Allah willing, I too would like to see the Hagia Sophia restored to the pig-eating Christians. It is of no use to us.
The real nightmare is that whoever is in charge doesn't want to fight back. Peace at any price will be the bywords for our future leaders. We may have the nukes but we don't have the political will to use them.
Too many voters have no interest in the well being of their country. Too many dual citizenship voters, too many welfare queen voters, too many anti-american voters. They will elect another liberal congress and president. It's just a matter of time until the media stampedes the electorate into another disaster.
That was in retaliation for the vicious killer swamp rabbit trying to sink his boat.
Thanks for your efforts at work.
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.