• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Saw this op-ed at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41771 and it makes sense what do you think?

By David C. Atkins
[size=-1]© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com [/size]





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.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,952
Reaction score
6,066
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Good find!

I like the concept, but do not think that it will detour 1 terrorist. Remember the 12 virgins?

Thier opinion is the grass is much greener on the other side.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think that although this would be unpopular among the world it would definetly be the most affective means neccesary. If we aren't going to use nuclear weapons what is the point of using money building these weapons when we won't use them. It would be like having a loaded gun but threatening people with the safety on.
 

Chaos10187

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
This is a nice find. This shows that the greatest fear, is fear itself. If we can scare them enough to the point where they wouldn't help the terrorist, then that may be enough to stop them, or at least slow them down to the point where we can destroy them.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
I wish we could just wipe all knowledge of nuclear weapons from the face of the planet, along with all nuclear weapons.


Well actually...... if I'm gonna wish...... I wish for world peace instead! :D
 

Chaos10187

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
I do to, I believe it was Einstein, after he figured out e=mc(squared) that we wished he never learned it, because he understood its power.

I wish all things were that easy.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pretty scary, isn't it?

Just as long as the killer bees don't get me!

Seriously, the original premise, posted by CSA TX, presumes we're dealing with sane individuals.

What if some psycho believes Allah will save him, or just thinks it would be a kick to blow the s... out of the world?

I too, would love to see all nuclear weapons gone from the planet, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon...not in this world.

Fear not, tho...I've read opinions from noted scientists who believe mankind will not be wiped off the face of the earth from nuclear weapons, but by a tiny microbe that rises out of the polluted river beds and streams.

So, don't worry about nuclear war...something like SARS is gonna kill us all anyway! LOL

Hoot
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Yes what a great idea...SIKE! Personally I'd like to see some snow in Tampa, FL. Hey that's not snow! *dies*
 

ViperX83

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
His premise only makes sense if the terrorists fear such retaliation, and if they believed we would retaliate in such a fashion. I don't think either is true.
 

pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
205
Reaction score
1
Location
Illinois
"Yes what a great idea...SIKE! Personally I'd like to see some snow in Tampa, FL. Hey that's not snow! *dies*"
heyjoeo

I agree with heyjoeo. (Wow, did I just say that). What kind of a message would it be to send to muslims? That we will hold them responsible for others actions? Bush will not come up with such a doctrine. It's a bad policy, it only encourages more hatred toward us (and we already have enough of that). The terrorist wouldn't care they want an all out war. Nice try though CSA_TX, we need all the ideas that we can get.
 
Top Bottom