PDA

View Full Version : What should our response be?



SecaucusFats
12-02-2004, 02:26 PM
OK here is a scenario:

You are POTUS (pres. of the US). You have just been advised that a nuclear device has just been detonated in a major US city, best case situation.. casualties in the tens of thousands.. no further information is available. 30 minutes later, intelligence reports including feed from Al Jazeera show Bin Laden taking credit for it in the name of Islam. What do you do, and why would you do it?


SF

Deeman2
12-02-2004, 03:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> OK here is a scenario:

You are POTUS (pres. of the US). You have just been advised that a nuclear device has just been detonated in a major US city, best case situation.. casualties in the tens of thousands.. no further information is available. 30 minutes later, intelligence reports including feed from Al Jazeera show Bin Laden taking credit for it in the name of Islam. What do you do, and why would you do it?


SF
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> This is the reason I am not president. I would call France to see if we could start a resolution through the UN to sancion all countries that have harbored OBL, then while they were voting against us, I'd drop a 106 megaton device into the center of every radical Muslim country in the middle east. We all get what we want them, they get to be with the virgins and we get Europe's attention. Then, I'd ask France to hold another vote on letting us do sanctions against....well, you see why we elected Bush and not me....I may be bluffing here...I may not be...

Deeman</font color>

nhp
12-02-2004, 05:51 PM
Hmm....raid Al Jazeera and torture them until they give us the information about where they keep getting their Osama tapes from...after they tell us where Osama is we arrest them all and put them in solitary confinement for as long as it takes to find Osama. Then we find Osama, and shoot 10,000 watts into his nuts, and then we drink some beer.

hondo
12-03-2004, 09:53 AM
I'd call Keifer Sutherland.


quote=SecaucusFats] OK here is a scenario:

You are POTUS (pres. of the US). You have just been advised that a nuclear device has just been detonated in a major US city, best case situation.. casualties in the tens of thousands.. no further information is available. 30 minutes later, intelligence reports including feed from Al Jazeera show Bin Laden taking credit for it in the name of Islam. What do you do, and why would you do it?


SF
<hr /></blockquote>

SecaucusFats
12-04-2004, 12:31 AM
Back in the days of the Cold War, the U.S. had a nuclear-weapons doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. This doctrine held that if the U.S. were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, we would immediately and without debate counter-attack the homeland of the perpetrator in such a way and with such overwhelming nuclear force as to make the cost of the initial attack too much to bear.

For instance, if the Soviet Union or the Chinese would have attacked us with WMD in the Cold War, we would have counter-attacked at the very least by destroying their 100 largest cities. The theory was that once you have destroyed the 100 largest cities of any society, even an evil empire, that society effectively ceases to exist, perhaps for several generations, thus deterring any WMD attack. Variations of this same nuclear doctrine were held by our Cold War allies and advisories, including the evil empire.

Although gruesome sounding, the beauty of MAD is that it worked. Even though both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, none was ever used. In fact, both sides went to great lengths to establish hardened and redundant command, communication and control systems to prevent the accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons, fearing the dire consequences.

The primary reason MAD worked is because it was simple and unambiguous. Both sides let the other side know in no uncertain terms that a nuclear first strike would be followed immediately by an overwhelming nuclear counter-strike destroying the heartland, culture and society of the attacker. This was a price even the most evil 20th century dictators would not even contemplate.

We now have a new enemy, Islamic terrorism, hellbent to either enslave or destroy us. This enemy is in many ways much harder to cope with than an evil empire. It does not have an army, an economy, an infrastructure, a capital or a state to attack. This enemy refuses to show itself on the field of battle so we can destroy it with our superior weapons and tactics.

However, Islamic terrorism could not exist if it did not enjoy comfort, support and succor from the Islamic societies from which its members are recruited. Besides the overt state support from Syria, Iran, pre-invasion Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, etc., this enemy also enjoys popular support in Islamic states. The popular support of the terrorists is much larger than it is politically correct to discuss in most forums in the West. But, does anyone doubt that bin Laden would be elected dictator-for-life in Saudi Arabia if that nation had free elections? Let's not allow political correctness to blind us or kill us. The terrorists are merely an extreme form of widespread corruption, totalitarianism and venality prevalent in Islamic states and societies worldwide.

Now, here is the urgent problem. The Islamic terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy us. If and when they acquire a nuclear weapon with the help of their state sponsors, they will use it in the U.S. homeland without warning. Can you imagine the effect of just one nuclear weapon being detonated in New York or Washington? In addition to the initial horrific destruction and casualties, the U.S. economy and perhaps the world economy would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like Sunday school. Investment would stop for fear of further nuclear attacks. If they have one, maybe they have more? Our wealth would be dramatically reduced, and the economy would be in chaos for at least a generation. The American way of life would be dramatically altered, perhaps permanently. In short, the Islamic terrorists would win.

The stakes are as high as can be, and our current strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East may work too slowly or not work at all. How do we prevent that first nuclear attack and mobilize the world, even the Islamic societies, against the terrorists' nuclear ambitions? We need a new nuclear doctrine that puts everybody's skin in the game. We need a new nuclear doctrine that places the American people, the American society, the American economy and the American way of life far above politeness and political correctness.

I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine:

In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed. Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.

The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace," and it holds all Islamic states and North Korea accountable for their behavior. If you don't want your cities on the target list, you have to earn your way off the list. Give us the head of bin Laden on a stick, and you may get a pass. Shut down your nuclear programs in an open and verifiable way, and you can earn your way off the target list.

Another advantage of this doctrine is that it doesn't cost a nickel. We have the necessary weapons and delivery systems in place. This would only require a fraction of our existing nuclear warheads. I presume the platform of choice would be Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean.

Of course, the hand wringers, peaceniks and leftist elites would shout and scream bloody murder about how aggressive, unfair and politically incorrect this doctrine appears. However, I believe it would accomplish the same thing as MAD namely, the successful deterrence of nuclear holocaust. All we need is the will to declare it.


SF

nhp
12-04-2004, 06:03 AM
If we were to nuke the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, there would never be peace in the world. We would turn every country in the world against us, and by that I mean, into mortal enemies. Also, nuking 100 cities would probably mark the end of the earth as we know it, with the fallout, etc.