A nuclear detonation in the US would require a response. That response is not to flatten every Islamic country, but it would require something more than a strong letter that Obama would send.
I don’t know what I would do. I think it would depend on who claimed responsibility, or whether you could tie it to a country of origin.
Let’s say you have strong indications of an Iranian influence. Do you nuke Tehran? There are a lot of innocent pro-western civilians there who oppose their own government, not to mention the embassies of numerous allies.
I hope it’s a decision we’ll never be forced to make.
Exactly.
Let us remember that the War on Terror is sometimes called "World War Four," and that like World War Two, it began for America with an attack that killed about 3,000 people.
But there the similarity ends. W.W.II involved ten times more Americans in uniform, a hundred times more Americans killed, and that was from a population about 1/3 the size of today's.
Nor in W.W.II, did we concern ourselves with the number of enemy civilians killed. And do you remember what our peace terms were? That's right: Unconditional Surrender.
And what was the result? The longest period of relative peace and prosperity in Europe and the Far East, that the world has seen since, oh, maybe the Roman Empire days?
Of course, no one wants to repeat W.W.II. Everyone says, if the allies had been smarter and firmer, W.W.II might never even have happened.
So now, with "World War Four," we're trying to figure out just what "smarter and firmer" might mean.
I think President Bush's plan has a good chance of long-term success.
But I also worry that it may be based on a key fundamentally false assumption: that terrorism comes from only a few radicals who have somehow "hijacked a great religion." So, it is assumed: if Muslim moderates can control their radicals, then the problem is solved.
If that assumption proves itself false, long term, then we may well have to rethink everything...