WE KNOW they’ll eventually nuke us in the future — whether or not we nuke them...
Which begs the philosophical question of pre-emptive strikes. Here’s an analogy I’ve designed. I’m interested in any critical opinion on the logic:
1. Suppose, your neighbor hates you and has a beautiful kind wife.
2. Suppose his hobby is raising a lot of rattlesnakes in his backyard.
3. Suppose there is no fence between your yard and his and there is no way to build an effective barrier.
4. Suppose he has threatened to kill you with his rattlesnakes and there’s deep grass all around your house...
5. Suppose you realize that eventually his rattlesnakes WILL kill you.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO? __________
a) Do you blow up his house including him and all the rattlesnakes and his innocent/beautiful wife?
b) Or do you wait until your certain future of death by rattlesnakes?
Clearly, it’s NOT wise for you to wait for your certain death, so your only LOGICAL choice is to nuke your neighbor.
Your dilemma is you that know that there will be innocent casualties (e.g. his beautiful/innocent wife would die in the blast), but you will not be killed in the future by him and you will rid the world of this evil man and his weapons.
THEREFORE, from a pure survival standpoint, wouldn’t it make more sense to nuke (with a Neutron Bomb) all of ISIS and all other evil factions in the Middle East? Unfortunately this would result in innocent casualties, but we know that it is a certainty that there WILL BE MANY innocent casualties in the Western world if we wait to be attacked. So we then the choice is distilled into do we want the innocent casualties to be theirs or ours?
Source: Ross Perot once mentioned the analogy of a rattlesnake in your backyard. I merely expanded upon the idea.
Killing the most active of the islamics has been done only a few at a time at great expense and risk to our people. We need a wholesale attrition of this enemy.
Imagine a non-contagious biological agent that is capable of permanently sterilizing men, which could be broadcast by drones.
The violence of islamics against the rest of the world has been going on since the lifetime of mohammed (piss be upon him)and there is no end in sight. Even if millions of them were killed with nuclear weapons, at some point in the future the survivors would regrow their population and come back with a fresher reason to hate us.
The only truly effective long term strategy would be to prevent them from reproducing and cause them to die off.
Defoliant applied to the yards.
You fight rattlesnakes with blue indigos so I would release blue indigos on my side and let them have at it. Kinda like a bunch of merc snakes.
BUT, in a real case scenario where we are trying to protect our homeland.
First, Obama is removed from office (deep grass), tried for treason and if found guilty administered punishment assigned by our laws. This should get who ever proceeds him their undivided attention.
Then, we would secure our borders to prevent incursions of WMDs by foot and shutdown all mosques. Round up the imams that preached hate that the FBI and DHS has a file on.
These Islamic heathens have vowed to kill us dead, all Christians, dead. We kill them first and ignore the collateral damage. We cannot worry about the “innocents” if there are any. No dropping of leaflets warning the “innocents” that we are coming to allow the rats to evacuate. Preemptive strike. No coalitions with other muzzie states or UN OKs. The UN is owned and operated by the Islamic heathens. Our real “allies” can join in the fun later.
If there are any left after nukes, MOABs and other fine weapons in our aerial arsenal our brave warriors would have to take the field. There is no way you can defeat this evil without going into the field and destroying the rats. ROEs are see ‘em, dust ‘em.
After about a # (do not want to get banned) or so of these Islamic goat humpers are dirt napping and becoming fertilizer we can start to slow down a tad.
b) Or do you wait until your certain future of death by rattlesnakes?
It would be far easier to kill the rattlesnakes than to destroy all the nukes, yet failing passive means, for a normal neighborhood it would be wiser to gain a coalition of neighbors who would see the future problems of the spread of these snakes.
Meanwhile the liberal solution is to imagine man is basically good (as they loosely define it) not so sinful as they would hate America if it was like them, and that past wars, crime, looting, and the present reality of ISIS is due to people like Reagan and Bush, who saw the world in terms of good and evil.
And subscribed to the idea of gaining rewards by merit, whereas under liberal ethos the world would be a giant Starbucks with the government supplying everything. And who get themselves elected by presenting themselves as saviors of the poor who are sold the idea that they are oppressed victims who have the right to the benefits others obtained thru working.
Except that as under Communism, these elites are the only ones who get the lattes in first class seats, as in their judgement they alone are worthy of this, while the workers end up in the galley serving these self-proclaimed saviors. Who, like the devil, climbed up some other way than that which is right, employing the infectious but destructive victim-entitlement mentality.
It's called collateral damage.