Feds wonder: If jihadis nuke us, who do we nuke in return?

posted at 10:09 pm on May 8, 2007 by Allahpundit

Three levels of uncertainty here. First we’d need to figure out who did it. AQ? Hezbollah? Or the dreaded Serbian white supremacists Hollywood has been warning us about all these years? Then we’d need to figure out where they got the bomb components from. The UN doesn’t have specimens from every extant nuclear program, per the Times, so finding a match for the atomic fingerprints isn’t a sure thing. Finally, we’d need to make a best guess about whether the material was stolen from someone’s poorly secured nuclear stockpile or whether it was willingly supplied by a state sponsor of terror. Retaliation against the latter is easy; retaliation against the former is iffier (and, in the case of a state like Russia or China that’s armed with nuclear ICBMs, impossible). Combine all that with post-Iraq skepticism about the reliability of our intel on enemy states’ WMD programs and you’ve got a humanitarian and ethical nightmare in the making. And/or one hell of a PC strategy game.

The Times thinks it’s unlikely we’d nuke anyone in response, partly because the attack would probably involve Russian bomb material and partly because they’re expecting a multiple-bomb scenario where we’d be scrambling for other countries’ cooperation in finding the other bombs before they went off. That’s nuts, of course. If a mushroom gets planted on U.S. soil, rest assured public opinion will see to it that a bigger mushroom gets planted somewhere else. If worse comes to worst and we really can’t ID the culprits or the sample — or even if we can identify them but it turns out they’re all from un-nukeable areas, e.g., a cell of Iraqis with a bomb from the Russian arsenal — then the feds will simply insist that AQ’s responsible, at which point planet earth will be bidding the Pakistani tribal areas a fond adieu. Then the next ethical nightmare would present itself: whether to retaliate covertly against Russia or whoever the state supplier is by handing their own insurgent enemies a little tit-for-tat package. That decision would probably turn on our assessment of whether the nuke here had been stolen or willingly supplied.

Like I say, awesome PC game. And I know just the company to design it.

In other news tonight, the UK’s International Institute of Strategic Studies says not only can AQ Khan’s illicit nuclear trafficking network be reconstituted given the number of members who are still at large, and not only has organized crime penetrated the nuclear black market, but apparently the CIA knew about the Khan network for years — and didn’t pay them enough attention.

tenet-medal.jpg


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This is what we call Psychological Egoism.

The use of conjecture and fallacy is so rampant in this post I seriously can’t even begin to break it down; I will, however, start on the main points but this post won’t be too long as I’m going to go to bed in a little.

Point 1 – There will be fear after a nuclear explosion in a U.S. city
Obviously, but everything else is simply assumption on your part. You basically think we will turn into a fascist state after one city is attacked–this might be true, but it also might not be true; convincing arguments can be made either way (your side would think Americans are a frightful bunch, while other sides would think the Constitution is strong enough to not allow America to turn to fascism).

Should an attack of unknown origin occur…to eliminate further provocations from the jihadists, more of their brethren must die…

This is contradictory. In this hypothetical (where we are unsure of the attacker) you think the President would launch an attack on any nation (in your words) “as an example,” but then you state that the nation this nuke will be launched upon is a home to jihadists. Do you mean that if an unknown nation attacked us (it could be China for all we know) we would automatically launch a nuke against a Muslim nation “as an example” to the rest of the world? You really think that’s practical or even sane? Pitiful.

I really thought there would be more points in your post, but the rest of your response sounds frighteningly totalitarian. To act as if the United States would kill 1.4 billion people (a million of whom are U.S. citizens) because we were attacked by some person or group or country that pretends to act in the interests of a religion is ludicrous. Of course, if you have any proof to the claim that we’d commit genocide as an act of retaliation I’d gladly take away my last comment.

P.S. Psychological egoism is almost as insane as the thought that the U.S. government would kill a million of it’s citizens (and more than a billion more across the world) because they share the same religion as a person/group/government that attacked the United States.

Nonfactor on May 9, 2007 at 2:38 AM

Oh, good. My affliction has a name. Is it listed in the catalog of the American Psychiatric Society Mental Disorders? Perhaps I can get a disability payment for it….

Insane, am I? Where were you on 9-11-01? What rock were you hiding under for the next several days when vengeance was demanded by the American people? We lost many fewer citizens on that day than ANY nuclear explosion would eliminate in a fraction of a second today. It is you who ignore history. You cannot deny what 90% of us lived through on that day, and saw with our own eyes.

As for your rebuttals of my “points”, it matters not what we all think we will do as civilized citizens prior to an actual nuclear explosion in our cities. I can guarantee you, unless you currently have a Death Wish which you intend to act upon immediately, each of you will leave the cities and head for safety in as rational a fashion as you can hope for. You will go to Mom’s in the country, or Cousin Eddies in Mexico, or anywhere you can imagine it would be safe. Where is the food and water to come from for 200 million refugees? Where is the shelter to come from? And why do you imagine country folk are likely to accept 50,000 strangers showing up on their farm for lunch? Chaos and murder WILL ensue.

As for whether a nuke from China or the Soviet Union or any rational armed state was the cause, it has already been established that most of those states’ nuclear weapons manufacture is determinable. And delivery of their nukes via clandestine methods is highly unlikely since they have intercontinental missiles and clandestine delivery requires certain security risks and detection threats they are usually unwilling to accept. Detection of China’s hand in an attack on the US would certainly lead to destruction of the Chinese regime and most of its economic capacity. Don’t tell me it wouldn’t because I just practiced those types of exercises for the last 25 yrs. The United States Submarine Force and the Strategic Command of this country are VERY good at that exact scenario with tremendous flexibility of response, should we choose to use it.

And I do not imply a random response by our leadership. The weapon we possess is only as good as the direction it is pointed. Should it be determinable that jihadists are responsible for any nuclear detonation, our leadership should, could and would demand retaliation against anyone involved. Since it is impossible to separate out the good Muslims from the bad at that point, and since the conflict will have definitely become a religious war at that point, retalitation against the entire Muslim world is justified. I don’t particularly know or care whether Mecca and Medina should be nuked, but I postulate that every single Muslim city is a target. Work your way down whatever list you like until the countries involved surrender unconditionally and accept our terms unconditionally.

As proof that America would commit “genocide”, in your words, from an act of nuclear terror by jihadists, I submit that was the exact response to an attack by the Soviet Union. Massive retaliation was planned, practiced, and would have been executed without hesitation should they have chosen to attack the US first. The warplanning against the Soviet Union proceeded down whatever list of targets was authorized for whatever size strike was authorized. The fact that millions of innocent civilians would be killed (on both sides) has no bearing on the conduct of such a nuclear war. Once it has begun, it is damned near impossible to stop without someone surrendering.

THAT is the only way the jihad would stop. With their surrender and conversion, if necessary. And genocide is an incorrect term. The “cost of thermonuclear war” is more correct because we don’t care if they are black, brown, yellow or white. Only that they subscribe to an enemy ideology and the source of those who would have recently exterminated 4 million American lives in a “genocidal” attack of their own.

Your unwillingness to accept the possibility of a human self preservation response from our citizens is the ludicrous position here. I am quite comfortable living with the knowledge that it was either them or us. And I would choose US.

Subsunk

PS, As for me calling out AllahPundit, I have worshipped the man for a long time. His genius in the media is unquestioned. But he has set some rules against calling for the extermination of Muslims out of hand. This discussion demands such a thought process. And if he chooses to ban me, that is his call. I firmly believe it is a message which must be transmitted loudly and firmly. We did so with the Soviets and with the Chinese. Failure to do so against jihadists is foolhardy. Failure to allow the discussion just means the message will never get out and then we’ll look pretty horrible if it ever comes upon us.

And do not mistake my suppositions for endorsement of War against Islam. I am against it. But it is being forced upon us. And failure to outline explicitly and specifically the consequences of a very few stupid ragheads (and that is what they are, heads full of rags, if you ask me) waging a thermonuclear war against the United States with the covert and overt assistance of their imams and oppressive oil fed governments will definitely lead to the beginning of such a war.

You want to stop it? Threaten them now in very explicit terms and back it up with action EVERY time they test it. It worked for 50 years during the Cold War. It will work now.

Subsunk out.

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM

Before I answer, allow me to explain a couple of things. First, the ancient rule of warfare is, “Kill every enemy you meet, whether armed or unarmed, by any and every means necessary until the survivors, if any, become like you on pain of death.” That is the method of warfare that the Islamists fight (no Geneva Conventions there) and “average moderate” Muslim support, with one of their two current class enemies being us.

Along those lines, the rules by which a long war is fought inevitably devolve to those practiced by the more-barbaric of the two sides. Since Islam practices war the old-fashioned way, mixed in with the belief that they win whether they’re victorious on the battlefield or die trying, those are the rules that we will have to adopt to survive.

Complicating things, I firmly believe that the Muslims will not be acting alone in any nuclear attack carried out against us. Red China, despite their trade with us, considers us their class enemy. Further, despite having their own serious Islamist problem, Russia is quickly heading back to considering us their class enemy. The principle of, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” applies here, especially since we are a singular target and Islam is not, and China and/or Russia believe that they will be able to pick up the pieces after the West and Islam anhiliate each other.

Therefore, I am firmly in the Curits E. LeMay School of International Relations (formerly the Roman School of Conquest) on this, and thus echo MoxArgon. Specifically, since the one thing that links the various sects of Islam is Mecca, any retaliation must include its vaporization and long-term radioactive “salting” to at least attempt to remove the one earthly thing that links them all. That aspect must be made as public as possible in the hope that one of the sects might gain enough sense to try to keep the uneasy “peace” that MAD afforded in the Cold War.

For those that say that the destruction of Mecca (and Medina and Qom) would get the Muslims angry, I have a news flash; nearly all of them are already mad enough at us to support our violent demise. Yes, we’ll probably radicalize most of the American Muslims, but that radicalization would happen the moment they become numerous enough to think they can impose Sharia anyway. I don’t think we want to be like the Europeans and wait until the Muslim population reaches that level.

steveegg on May 9, 2007 at 10:07 AM

At that point, any Allies, are going to be either working to separate their Muslim citizens from the general population or are already going to be fighting them in the streets.
Canadian Infidel on May 9, 2007 at 10:04 AM

They sure as hell don’t take it seriously after 9/11, so the evidence points otherwise. OK, maybe Australia.

SouthernDem on May 9, 2007 at 10:08 AM

To those who are paralyzed by fear of what obliterating Mecca will do to the Muslim world: it would do well to keep in mind the following:

. Islam is not a religion for personal use. It derives its authority from a strict code of behavior and set of “laws” derived from Allah that everyone is required (under all kinds of threats) to obey.

. Allah’s authority is validated primarily by the fact that the Ka’aba has never been touched/destroyed, and can’t be since Allah is all-powerful.

. EVERY Islamic society was forcibly Islamized. There are no societies anywhere on Earth whose population voluntarily submitted to the death cult. (And so-called moderate Muslims do not practice a separate faith called “moderate Islam”, they simply ignore – at their peril – the words in the Koran and from the psychopath Mohammed, recorded by his biographers, that mandate the death cult.)

Those who have talked about warning the Muslim world first had the right idea. Nuking Mecca, or bombing it conventionally, will not have the desired legitimacy unless the threat were made ahead of time, fully, publicly, and unambiguously. If done credibly, and subsequently a nuclear strike was perpetrated on U.S. soil by members in good standing of the Muslim umma, it’s as if the umma – which today harbors, finances and protects the jihadis who attacked us – dared us to respond.

Without the threat up front, it’s both immoral and counterproductive to nuke Mecca in retaliation for nuclear strikes on U.S. soil by Al Qaeda.

With the warning, your 1.4 billion Muslims would practically be expecting the response to occur. At least they’d realize the U.S. would try, but might think that Allah is able to protect Mecca with his mystical powers. When Allah’s mojo didn’t materialize, they might be bummed, but would they really be surprised? Only if they believe Allah’s power transcends nuclear (or conventional) physics.

Again, for those who wince at the reaction from their 1.1 – 1.4 billion Muslims, let me just emphasize once more that NONE of your target group were voluntarily Islamized – virtually all were subjugated in terror of Allah through relentless coercion and other forcible means – and many of those are held in daily terror by the fear that Allah’s power is real. When that myth is shattered, so is the terror – and the need to remain Muslim.

And a lot of the Islamic sensitivity to holy shrines is pro forma; many societies secretly value their pre-Islamic past (and cultural sites) more than the supposedly sacred Islamic temples that were so vindictively built on top of those sites.

You REALLY want to piss off the “Muslim” world, start eradicating their beloved (and few remaining) pre-Islamic cultural sites, by blowing up parts of Iran and Pakistan like Allah suggests, instead of the REAL sources of their misery, Mecca and Medina. In just one example, there are millions of Persians who are this (picture thumb & forefinger pressed together) close to apostasy. Let’s not give them a reason to hate us! I don’t really care if the boot-licking Muslims hate us; they are already required to anyhow. And they could take solace in the fact that several of our cities were obliterated and millions of our citizens were exterminated.

To reiterate: if we DIDN’T put forth the “Nuke Mecca” warning ahead of time, and we got hit like you indicate, THEN the correct reponse is to threaten Mecca with nuclear retaliation for the NEXT strike that occurs, since at that point we’d have blown our opportunity to keep the homeland safe, and could really only prevent a future catastrophe. And one can only hope we might draw the proper lesson from our screw-up.

RD on May 9, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Again, for those who wince at the reaction from their 1.1 – 1.4 billion Muslims, let me just emphasize once more that NONE of your target group were voluntarily Islamized – virtually all were subjugated in terror of Allah through relentless coercion and other forcible means – and many of those are held in daily terror by the fear that Allah’s power is real. When that myth is shattered, so is the terror – and the need to remain Muslim.

RD on May 9, 2007 at 10:08 AM

When that myth is shattered, so is the need to appease Allah ever again.

As that primarily what the hajj is all about, in my humble and ill-informed opinion.

RD on May 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Absent a pre-emptive warning against Mecca and Medina, here are a couple ideas that come to mind:

. Have a group, not traceable to the U.S., on the ground in the former Soviet Union, ready to rig any # of nuclear devices with Russian nuclear material bought on the black market. If the jihadis set off any nuclear bombs on U.S. soil, the former U.S.S.R. is dented as well. Ditto for China (with devices constructed with U.S.S.R. fissile material).

. Announce that the holy areas of Mecca and Medina (on the West Coast of Saudi) are no longer under Saudi sovereignty. Henceforth the U.N will administer the territories.

. Lock down the city. Assassinate religious police or anyone else affiliated with Mecca in a religous capacity.

. Seize the Saudi oilfields on the East Coast of Saudi. Seize Saudi airlines and assume their routes to other cities in the middle East. Deal with anyone who interferes (pilots, …). Announce that no longer will other airlines be permitted to fly into the holy land.

. Seize the airport at Jeddah, and the key Saudi concessions in/around the Ka’aba industry (hotels, airlines). Kill/assassinate anyone who interferes.

. Finally, belatedly, make the threat against the Ka’aba that Tom Tancredo has discussed.

. Suggest to the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims that if they want to earn salvation, they’d better get to the Ka’aba fast, because it may not be around for very much longer (and certainly only at our discretion). Gridlock the Muslim world. Force ordinary citizens to abandon their businesses and schools to make the pilgrimage before the Ka’aba is lost forever.

. Replace the propaganda at the ports of entry, and travel to the Ka’aba, with copies of The Truth About Mohammed (and other texts), translated into Arabic, Farsi and Urdu.

. Mormons & Hare Krishna at the airport! Relentless persecution of a kind nature over the entire trip.

. Western TV and al-Hurra in the hotels.

With the combined revenue of Saudi oil and torrent of accelerated Ka’aba tourism, fund U.S. government operations.

. Pick out other targes that make sense.

RD on May 9, 2007 at 10:17 AM

If jihadis nuke us, who do we nuke in return?

Well this is the crux of the problem, is it not? (Thus far, our response to jihadis attacking us via less sophisticted methods has been to attack a country unrelated to the attack. Show of hands who thinks that’s a good idea.)

I am more and more convinced that history shows that behavior change follows belief change. Not to suggest we don’t need to maintain and use force, but this is not the long term solution IMO.

honora on May 9, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Since it is impossible to separate out the good Muslims from the bad at that point, and since the conflict will have definitely become a religious war at that point, retalitation against the entire Muslim world is justified.

At what point? How do you tell the good from the bad at this point? By this logic, you should be advocating full scale annihilation now in Iraq, no?

I submit that was the exact response to an attack by the Soviet Union.

The flaw here is that 1. The Soviet Union was a country, not an ideology or religion. To pursue the type of full scale eradication you advocate would take us into every country in the world 2. The Soviet Union had/has as many nukes (close enough) as we did/do and 3. MAD was a deterrent.

SouthernDem on May 9, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Folks here who do not believe there will be panic and fear in America really need to do a bit of research on the Post Pearl Harbor American response.

People were fleeing the West Coast, expecting an imminent invasion. We then rounded up most everyone of Japanese American descent, and put them in camps. There were riots in some cities… and this was the “Greatest Generation”…

If someone nukes an American city… stand by… we’re going to get really ugly… as only a democracy can.

Romeo13 on May 9, 2007 at 10:27 AM


Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Wonderful insight and truth from Subsunk. Again. I repeat. Mecca should be destoyed within 1 hour following the next attack on American soil. And every dam jihadist on this planet should be made aware of that intent.

Griz on May 9, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Sorry guys, we tried to do the noble thing after 9/11. We liberated two countries and we’re working with our allies in the region. But THEY need to clamp down harder. If we get nuked by muslim terrorists, all the rules change. Those of you who have been in the military know this, we WILL obliterate our enemies, even those living amongst our so called “allies”. If you think we won’t, well you’re thinking with a pre-nuke attack mindset, the way many thought pre-911. Them nuking us and us not responding will be the ultimate recruiting tool for jihad. We will be seen as weak and on the edge of destruction. Every muslim will join the jihad to say they were there when America fell. It’s either them or us.

Tony737 on May 9, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Teheran, Damascus, Gaza (carpet bombing in here), Caracas, Pyongyang, El Cairo, Sanaa, Mogadishu, Khartoum, …and Paris.

Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Hey! I resent that last one. A bit close to home for me. Plus, I don’t think you’re quite on top of the french election results my friend.

Aylios on May 9, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Any sane human being must shudder at this outcome as this discussion leads to genocide.

The problem is that THEY,the jihadists, are not sane by our standards.

georgej on May 9, 2007 at 5:15 AM

That’s because jihadists want to provoke a response that sends the maximum number of Muslims to paradise at the hands of their enemies. Whether the “moderate” Muslim is ready to go or not. That’s the truly sad part of this whole discussion. The nuts cannot be deterred by the threat of their own “innocents” dying; they’re counting on it.

Once the rattlesnake has bitten your child and killed it, you are unlikely to allow it and its family nest to continue to exist. And the analogy is a perfect one because we have the ability to exterminate Islam from the face of the Earth, no matter how intermingled it is with other cultures.

The question brought about since 9-11, of which we’ve had time to dwell on, is do we lash out at every snakem, or hold only that certain rattler culpable? Again, had 9-11 been a nuclear attack, we’d have responded in kind to some target on Afghanistan. I wished we had even though it wasn’t nuclear. But I think a nuclear attack on us now would not lead to any action until the culprits were known, because I think we would still be too concerned about losing the “hearts and minds” of “moderate” Muslims by employing nukes against them UNLESS there be a significant concentration of enemy within the innocent.

9-11 has toughened us for future attacks, but the Iraq war is not yet successful enough to convince most Americans that we can take so large a bite out of the Muslim world and come out of that victorious… or unscathed. Let’s not continue to underestimate our countrymen’s insistance that wars be brief and cheap.

shuzilla on May 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM

If jihadis nuke us, who do we nuke in return?

Well this is the crux of the problem, is it not? (Thus far, our response to jihadis attacking us via less sophisticted methods has been to attack a country unrelated to the attack. Show of hands who thinks that’s a good idea.)

I am more and more convinced that history shows that behavior change follows belief change. Not to suggest we don’t need to maintain and use force, but this is not the long term solution IMO.

honora on May 9, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Raises hand….

Ma’am, just what do you think the Iraq War is if it is not a non-nuclear attempt to change the Islamic world into a more friendly group, and one which would understand the consequences of attacking America for religious reasons? Just because you think it is a waste of time and effort and blood and treasure holds no weight to the many military folks out there who recognize the best ambassador of the United States is the American GI, with humanitarian aid in one hand and an M-16 in his other. Changing Islamic beliefs is right up their alley.

The vast, vast majority of the Iraqi people have grown to recognize America is not what is wrong with their country and their religion and their way of life. They would rather come here than live where they are, but Life makes those determinations for them. As for Iraq relationship to the 9-11 attacks, it is written even in the 9-11 Commission report that Iraq supplied support to jihadist organizations before 9-11. The very theory discussed here is that ANY supporting organization deserves to be targeted. We are just working our way down the list using the tools we have which appear to handle the situation best for now.

And what part of hunting down the terrorists and those who harbor and support them didn’t you understand? Does this mean every Islamic country is a target? Yep. When they act friendly, they get consideration. When they refuse they will be opposed and action of whatever variety taken to oppose them. Don’t understand that? It’s the way diplomacy has worked since the Ancient Greeks.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Excellent post, subsunk. Truly amazing.

These goons of al-Qaeda et al have been saying that one Muslim life is worth a thousand American lives. I don’t think they understand the implications of their own statement; see, if we get even as much as touched by a nuclear device, we’re going to feel a similarly hostile reaction toward them. One million of us going bye bye would equal a billion of them going bye bye.

I think that Mecca and Medina are actually an interesting playing card that we have in our deck to guarantee our own safety from a second strike, even if it’s already on our own soil waiting for the green light. It goes something like this: “At this time, ICBMs are already detonating nuclear payloads in tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, throughout Iran, Syria, Somalia, the West Bank, Gaza, Sudan, Chechnya, Venezuela, and North Korea. This response is an appropriate measure of response to what happened to us. Should we be hit again, every remaining Islamic city in the world, especially including Mecca and Medina, and even Dearborn, Michigan, will be obliterated. Furthermore, non-Muslim countries will have 24 hours to destroy all their mosques or face a similar fate.”

It’s talk at this coldly understandable level that won the Cold War. To win a war against people who don’t reason properly, you have to speak a language that the enemy can understand and will wet itself upon hearing. Somehow I think that our present enemy and everyone else in the world would understand this language loud and clear.

The trick here is that the whole world knows we CAN do what I’ve outlined. Knowing that we can, everyone would be doing everything in his power to guarantee that the missile with his name on it is aimed elsewhere. We’d have allies so fast we wouldn’t know what to do with them.

flutejpl on May 9, 2007 at 10:51 AM

They sure as hell don’t take it seriously after 9/11, so the evidence points otherwise. OK, maybe Australia.

SouthernDem on May 9, 2007 at 10:08 AM

No-one knew exactly what the US response would be after 9/11. After a nuke, as Subsunk points out, nuclear retaliation is pretty much guaranteed. If the governments of France, Great Britain and others want to wait and see if their Muslim populations are fine with that, let them.

I don’t think they’ll have the chance to take a wait and see approach. I think the citizens of those countries will rise up and take care of the Muslim population if the government doesn’t take immediate steps to ‘detain them for their own safety.’

Canadian Infidel on May 9, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Well this is the crux of the problem, is it not? (Thus far, our response to jihadis attacking us via less sophisticted methods has been to attack a country unrelated to the attack. Show of hands who thinks that’s a good idea.)

I am more and more convinced that history shows that behavior change follows belief change. Not to suggest we don’t need to maintain and use force, but this is not the long term solution IMO.

honora on May 9, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Why is this fallacy still floating about on the right side of the political sphere? The invasion of Iraq was not a response to 911 but to Saddam’s endless cat and mouse games with the UN inspectors.

Perhaps you’re not on the one right side Honora. How can you claim that on the one hand Boosh lied about WMD and then on the other claim he invaded Iraq due to 911??

As far as attacking any country that has a medieval ideology and is in the process of developing nukes. Yup it’s absolutely a very good idea. I show my hand.

Aylios on May 9, 2007 at 10:52 AM

To respond to honora, I understand your position, but my whole point from around midnight is that all of those places I’ve named would be either directly or indirectly involved in such an event against us. At the very least, there’d be dancing in their streets. As such, we’d be totally justified in firing on them. Mecca, that’s another matter, but, as I just stated, I think it’s more effective as leverage to make sure we speak loudest and last.

flutejpl on May 9, 2007 at 10:55 AM

think that Mecca and Medina are actually an interesting playing card that we have in our deck to guarantee our own safety from a second strike, even if it’s already on our own soil waiting for the green light. It goes something like this: “At this time, ICBMs are already detonating nuclear payloads in tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, throughout Iran, Syria, Somalia, the West Bank, Gaza, Sudan, Chechnya, Venezuela, and North Korea. This response is an appropriate measure of response to what happened to us. Should we be hit again, every remaining Islamic city in the world, especially including Mecca and Medina, and even Dearborn, Michigan, will be obliterated. Furthermore, non-Muslim countries will have 24 hours to destroy all their mosques or face a similar fate.”

I dont think West Bank and Gaza are such a good idea as Israel would obviously cop a lot of radioactive fallout from such strikes. Substitute Tehran and Damascus instead.

Aylios on May 9, 2007 at 11:21 AM

it is impossible to separate out the good Muslims from the bad at that point, and since the conflict will have definitely become a religious war at that point, retalitation against the entire Muslim world is justified.

You were sounding fairly rational until this part. Because (as you say) we can’t determine who is “good” or “bad” we should simply assume everyone is bad, and thus deserving of death by nuclear bomb? What is your definition of “justified” if it includes the murder of millions because of the actions of a few?

Once it has begun, it is damned near impossible to stop without someone surrendering.

THAT is the only way the jihad would stop. With their surrender and conversion, if necessary.

Two observations: 1) You seem to think that a terrorist organization ballsy enough to set off a nuke inside the U.S. and take claim for it would “surrender” and then convert. 2) Here’s where you stop getting descriptive and turn normative. They should convert? Whoda thunk a Christian (I’m assuming you’re Christian) would be in support of the murder of billions and the conversion of terrorists?

Your unwillingness to accept the possibility of a human self preservation response from our citizens is the ludicrous position here. I am quite comfortable living with the knowledge that it was either them or us. And I would choose US.

The nature of this hypothetical isn’t “them or us,” it is: they’ve already attacked us and what do we do in return. You seem to be suggesting the extinction of all Muslims (men, women, and children) under the guise of self-preservation, whereas I am more inclined to believe that our country isn’t that stupid to kill one fifth of the World’s population.

It worked for 50 years during the Cold War. It will work now.

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM

Are you kidding me? The Russians actually cared about the preservation of Russia; the terrorists don’t care about the preservation of themselves so long as they cause harm to the West and get to heaven.

Nonfactor on May 9, 2007 at 11:42 AM

>Doghouse: Since it is impossible to convincingly threaten to destroy ‘heaven’ or defile their celestial virgins, the only thing that ‘they’ value on this earth, the only thing that we can convincingly threaten with destruction ARE their ‘holy places’.

Oh, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t nuke their holy places (and their unholy places, and every other place infested by them). I’m just saying that it might have limited effect on the true extremists, specifically because of their death worship. In their case, unless they change, the only thing to do is kill them.

>And you ignore the equally if not more important part: By making it official, in advance, that their ‘holy places’ will be obliterated if they are bad, their own ‘moderate’ people will be more likely to restrain them.

I’m not ignoring that. It just isn’t what I was talking about. I agree that it could convince the moderates to take action against the extremists. I just meant that it might not directly influence the extremists to stop.

>OK, maybe it won’t work, but can you (anyone) come up with something else that the radicals DO value?

No. I agree that all we can do is destroy what they value and/or kill them. I don’t know why we haven’t done it already. (Oh, yes I do. Wussy politicians in charge.)

>Or surrender now, get your prayer mat and become one of them.

No, no. I’m still voting for the nuke thing!

Doghouse on May 9, 2007 at 11:44 AM

>As far as attacking any country that has a medieval ideology and is in the process of developing nukes. Yup it’s absolutely a very good idea. I show my hand.

Kill the rabid dog before it bites.

Doghouse on May 9, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:24 PM

There is nobody ‘innocent’ in Islamic civilization. That’s what you’re not getting. It’s like Nazism and Japanese militarism in WWII. Jihad comes from the people and is supported by the people. They pay zakat (the 2.5% tax) to support jihad. They preach jihad every day in the mosques, and those who don’t fight in it support it or acquiesce to it. Robert Spencer makes this point over and over again, ad nauseaum, ad infinitum. This is the reason Islamists moves freely in Islamic societies: they have the support of the people. The way to stop the jihad is to get the people to stop supporting it. They must be more afraid of the infidel than they are of the jihadists. Total war is the only way to accomplish this. It would be worth listening to you if you knew anything about Islam, but you clearly don’t. Buy a book by Robert Spencer, Serge Trifovic, or Andrew Bostom and not John Esposito or Karen Armstrong and read it. Your ignorance and moral equivalence is truly breathtaking.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Even though Japan was nuked, and they surrendered unconditionally, they were still occupied by a US provisional government for a decade (or thereabouts). So, if Iran is nuked, Saudi Arabia is Nuked, Syria is Nuked and they all surrender, they still have to be politically reformed. If they are not, then they just pick up the peices and continue on. Only now they have proof of the Great Satan.

There are no high value targets, like bridges, capitals and ball bearing plants. Not enough troops to carry out successful occupations of whatever country gets nuked.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Perhaps you’re not on the one right side Honora. How can you claim that on the one hand Boosh lied about WMD and then on the other claim he invaded Iraq due to 911??
As far as attacking any country that has a medieval ideology and is in the process of developing nukes. Yup it’s absolutely a very good idea. I show my hand.

Aylios on May 9, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Well first I am not necessarily claiming those things; second, they do not contradict each other.

I believe Bush thought there were WMD in Iraq but was looking for a reason to invade–as a 9/11 reaction to show how tough he is (bad Arabs attacked us; Saddam is a bad Arab; close enough)

Re medieval ideology–really? I think Saddam was quite modern in his ideology, especially compared to Al Q et al. And the nuke thing was a mirage. H20 under the bridge.

The question remains, what is the appropriate response to a jihadist attack. (Well, we’ll always have Afghanistan. Here’s looking at you kid…)

honora on May 9, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Funny, I was just thinking about this on Sunday night. Mecca is the obvious target that I think people would scream for, but that would be suicidal.

I agree that the Pakistani tribal areas would be the most useful target, but I don’t think it’s visible enough. It’s not a place that people would have to look at every day and remember why they should stay down. Would you believe nuke rural Pakistan and then just clear Temple Mount carefully with bulldozers?

Tanya on May 9, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Here we go again, trying to fight a moral war.

In responding to this question in relation to the nuke em all solution, here are a few other points that might be considered….

1) What ever happened to “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” statement?

2) Why doesn’t that apply to people who allow terrorists access to their cities and towns?

3) Practically speaking, we have to consider the eviromental impact to our allies if we use nukes anywhere in the ME. Perhaps tactical nukes (mini-nukes) could be used in a very limited scope.

4) Maybe the more practical approach would be carpet bombing campaigns against the civilian population to force them into compliance? The M.O.A.B. would work very nicely on entire city blocks.

5) I’m not sure blowing up holy sites would have the desired effect of putting Muslims into compliance. They must be forced into accepting a rule of law that is not based on their religious beliefs. This begins with what children are taught and that means the parents must be reasoned people. I think the best way to do that is to promote moderate religious leaders and at the same time marginalizing the radicals. Perhaps some CIA setups showing Imams (or whoever) violating law that moderates would find beyond the pale. I’m not sure what that would be seeming that murdering innocents doesn’t motivate them to action.

csdeven on May 9, 2007 at 12:00 PM

And all of this talk about ‘radicalizing the entire Muslim world’ by bombing thus and such target is worthless. So what? You have to be more determined than your enemy. Go hard or go home. Even if the Muslim world outnumbered the rest of the world, many, many battles in history have been won by smaller forces that were outnumbered. Think Poitiers, people. We need backbones. Better to die fighting than be a slave.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:01 PM

And what part of hunting down the terrorists and those who harbor and support them didn’t you understand? Does this mean every Islamic country is a target? Yep. When they act friendly, they get consideration. When they refuse they will be opposed and action of whatever variety taken to oppose them. Don’t understand that? It’s the way diplomacy has worked since the Ancient Greeks.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Really? Kindly point out which Islamic countries are friendly. Eygpt? Iran? Wait, wait, the Saudis, right? How about Pakistan?

We took out a leader that we could take out at minimal risk. For show. The rest is spin. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with force, but I’m a real problem:solution kinda girl. We are attacked by radical Islamists, jihadists (wish we could settle on a nomenclature…) and we respond by going after one of the few secular leaders (albeit nutcase dictator) in the region. Say what???

And diplomacy? Doesn’t that involve talking with people? Just a question.

honora on May 9, 2007 at 12:03 PM

The key here is that you MUST give Islam a choice.

Either force them to control the Jihadists, or we MUST declare Islam itself the enemy, and destroy it.

Many in the Islamic world already believe that we are in a war against them. What they don’t get is that our politicians are bending over backwards to say this is not so. There is no plot agianst the Islamic world, as the west does not think in those terms anymore.

So… a religion declares war on you, but you don’t recognize religious wars, and won’t call them the enemy… how do you fight?

FACT: a direct reading of the Koran says that it is all of Islam’s duty to fight the Jihad, and bring all of the world under Sharia law. You CAN’T dispute this by reading the Koran, but only by “reinterpeting” it. Reinterpeting the words of the Prophet are punishable by death.

Historicaly you fought a religious war by conversion. You replaces one religion with another. Prob here is that America can’t do that, it has no state religion.

But we are by all historical measurment the most powerful country ever (in comparison to the rest of the world). Our economy allows us with only a 4% hit on GDP to outspend the next 5 countries COMBINED. We can literaly destroy the world… and knock areas back to the middle ages of technology.

Moslems don’t really believe in our power. They think we are already at war… we need to show them just what Amercia waging total war is all about.

Romeo13 on May 9, 2007 at 12:05 PM

There is nobody ‘innocent’ in Islamic civilization. That’s what you’re not getting.

Pathetic. And to think in other threads on this very site you call yourself a Christian. I remember reading papers in my World War II history class a while ago and the same exact argument was used to justify the use of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: no Japanese citizen is innocent. Are we going to start policing thought crime next?

It’s like Nazism and Japanese militarism in WWII.

Wait, so you really believe that crap? Every German citizen was guilty because the people in power were crazy? If the U.S. nukes some city in retaliation are all U.S. citizens not “innocent” as well?

Total war is the only way to accomplish this.

My friend Mr. Fallacy is showing up a lot in this thread.

It would be worth listening to you if you knew anything about Islam, but you clearly don’t.

Woah there, buddy. If you knew me in real life you’d be laughing right now.

Your ignorance and moral equivalence is truly breathtaking.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 11:50 AM

This from the guy who thinks the extermination of all Muslims is just.

Nonfactor on May 9, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Pathetic. And to think in other threads on this very site you call yourself a Christian. I remember reading papers in my World War II history class a while ago and the same exact argument was used to justify the use of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: no Japanese citizen is innocent. Are we going to start policing thought crime next?
Right. My Christianity is attacked right away. I can tell historical facts are really going to come into this argument. Have you read James Bradley, Iris Chang? The entire Japanese population was in support of Japanese militarism. They were prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child if we invaded Japan. Even after we firebombed Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands, they still didn’t give up. The same mentality applies here, and more so.

This from the guy who thinks the extermination of all Muslims is just.

I never said that. You read it into my argument because you wanted to. I said total war was the answer, just as it was in WWII. Just for arguments sake, which modern writers on Islam are your favorites?

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Wait, so you really believe that crap? Every German citizen was guilty because the people in power were crazy? If the U.S. nukes some city in retaliation are all U.S. citizens not “innocent” as well?

I believe PRCalDude is speaking of the doctrine of total war – the idea that you have to destroy the ability of a country to wage war by destroying its infrastructure and yes, killing the citizens that contribute to the war effort.

Slublog on May 9, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Here you go, NonFactor. Try reading this website for a change: http://www.jihadwatch.org/.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Slublog,

The ability of the enemy to wage war is simply based on reproductive tendencies. None of these countries have infrastructure worth worrying about. There’s a destructive ideology at play, and a pile of nukes will not eradicate a school of thought.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Nonfactor on May 9, 2007 at 12:08 PM

And the last War America won was?

You just don’t get that we ARE in a war of survival. Being nice on the battlefield gets you killed.

And I speak from DIRECT experience… do you? I’ve been in war zones in the Middle East. I’ve seen the chaos and talked directly to the folks involved. There IS no reasoning with them. They see ANY accomadation as weakness, its part of their culture. They truly believe that dieing in the name of Jihad is a good thing.

Tell me… name me one thing YOU would be willing to kill for… or even more importantly, to die for. If you can’t truly answer that, then you have NO conception of who we are dealing with.

Romeo13 on May 9, 2007 at 12:24 PM

The ability of the enemy to wage war is simply based on reproductive tendencies. None of these countries have infrastructure worth worrying about. There’s a destructive ideology at play, and a pile of nukes will not eradicate a school of thought.
Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM

All too true, unfortunately.

These jihadists do require money and resources to turn ideology into action, however. That, in a sense, is their infrastructure. Not sure how, or if, that can be destroyed.

Slublog on May 9, 2007 at 12:25 PM

The ability of the enemy to wage war is simply based on reproductive tendencies. None of these countries have infrastructure worth worrying about. There’s a destructive ideology at play, and a pile of nukes will not eradicate a school of thought.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM

What about the countries with nuclear facilities or oil infrastructure? A pile of nukes will not eradicate a school of thought, but this current Islamic ‘reform’ we’re dealing with has been paid for by oil money.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:26 PM

We need to invoke Ryder’s Law* immediately and massively.

Retaliation against the latter is easy; retaliation against the former is iffier (and, in the case of a state like Russia or China that’s armed with nuclear ICBMs, impossible).

Why impossible? It’s a two-way street. If Russia and China have ICBMs, they should know that we have as well. All that’s required is to get, say, someone like me in the White House, and let it be known that only the combined and constant effort of Congress and the Judiciary are keeping me from nuking every country that has ever said “boo” about the U.S.

I’m prepared for the end of the world in technicolor. Are the slobs in the Kremlin and Peking? They sure seem nervous whenever we try to deploy anti-missile systems..

Nonfactor; the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because of the fanatacism of the Japanese people; it was estimated that we would lose a million people, and the Japanese at least that many, if we invaded with conventional forces. More people were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo than died in the two nuclear blasts.

Every German citizen was guilty because the people in power were crazy?

Germany was a putative democracy. Those of us who are Americans believe, as our founders did, that governments rule at the consent of the governed. If the German people objected to the policies of Hitler, it was their obligation to remove him from power. In that they did not, but supported him whole-heartedly until Germany started losing (wow, a lot like modern Americans), they are guilty
Moslems embrace the teachings and practices of Islam. If they do this, they are responsible for what happens. If they reject Islam, they are no longer guilty.
The exermination of moslems is no more just nor unjust than the extermination of disease-bearing rats. You can think them cute, you can feel bad as you see their tiny bodies curl up in agony as you kill them, but if you don’t do it they will spread disease.

Of course, if Thor were in place, the problem of nukes would be moot, but Thor isn’t in place, because our gov’t likes to build democracy.

*Ryder’s Law, from the tv series “Riptide”.

Everybody generally gets out of the way of crazies.

Hiraghm on May 9, 2007 at 12:27 PM

How were the Barbary powers able to stay afloat and wreak so much havoc for so long? Anyone?

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Nonfactor on May 9, 2007 at 12:08 PM

US Navy didn’t exist yet.

Romeo13 on May 9, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Grrr sorry… above was pointed at PRCalDude… missed the copy button….

Romeo13 on May 9, 2007 at 12:37 PM

PRC & Slublog,

As long as the west needs their oil, then they will always have money. Unless some brand new way of running the economy is good to go in a couple of months, there will be no nukes directed at the various oil fields.

China relies on Iranian oil. I don’t think they’ll sit on the sidelines if their supplier is a radioactive wasteland and their economy grinds to a halt.

There’s so much to consider before one contemplates nukes.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Gah, got my quote tags wrong and didn’t notice. sorry 8c(

Hiraghm on May 9, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Grrr sorry… above was pointed at PRCalDude… missed the copy button….

Romeo13 on May 9, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Yes it did. It was created to deal with them.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM

As long as the west needs their oil, then they will always have money. Unless some brand new way of running the economy is good to go in a couple of months, there will be no nukes directed at the various oil fields.

Jeddah might be a great target then. Turn the Arabs back out into the desert.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Even after we firebombed Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands, they still didn’t give up. The same mentality applies here, and more so.

The beauty and the horror of nuclear weapons is that you don’t need the 350 B-29s flying out to firebomb a city. All you needed at the end of World War 2 was one plane and one bomb to do the work that 350 planes did earlier. That’s why Japan surrendered.

Islam doesn’t believe we’ll use the weapons again and no government has outright told them the consequences if the United States ever experiences a nuclear attack. North Korea should be given notice that they will experience the very same nuclear consequences.

Canadian Infidel on May 9, 2007 at 12:55 PM

PRC,

Doesn’t do anything but solidify jihadist sentiment. There are realities here, one of them is occupation. An occupation that would make Iraq look like a day at the beach.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 12:57 PM

There won’t be any occupation possible if the place is glowing with isotopes. We didn’t go in and occupy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have that many cities. We haven’t tried total war in Iraq either. We haven’t even tried a reasonable flattening of a city a la Sherman in Iraq. Why do you need to occupy a city that’s not there?

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Thanks AllahPundit for this thread.

My final thoughts for a while.

The Palestinians won’t be nuked. Instead, the Palestinian territories will be destroyed by MOABs and other bombs so Israel doesn’t experience nuclear fallout.

My big concern would be India. While most countries will be able to round up their Muslim population or kill those that fight back because of our still superior numbers, I wonder what will happen in India with their 120,000,000+ Muslim population. A very angry Western civilization is going to want to see the entire Muslim threat eliminated.

Russia would nuke Chechnya by the way.

Have a good day all.

Canadian Infidel on May 9, 2007 at 1:05 PM

All of this becomes moot if Obama gets elected.

Buck Turgidson on May 9, 2007 at 1:06 PM

All of this becomes moot if Obama gets elected.

Buck Turgidson on May 9, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Doesn’t he have to respond if American cities get nuked? Of course, if it’s DC, then it’s truly moot.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 1:09 PM

That’s what they count on, us not knowing who to hit, and then not doing anything because we didn’t have a smoking gun. So yes nuke them where they feel it, and show we mean business. They already hate us, so what. Stop letting them into the country.
That’s why we have the problems in Iraq, we don’t show them we mean it. We try to “win their hearts and minds”. If you take fire, level the entire block. The word will get out.
If one of our cities gets hit take out a country. I want them to die not my kids and grandkids.

Gooch on May 9, 2007 at 1:15 PM

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Good point. Wing attack plan R and all. Didn’t he say something in the first debate about resistance to retaliation? I thought he did.

Buck Turgidson on May 9, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Properly executed warfare is the ambush. We seem not to like it (I wonder about Patton and MacArthur’s opinions).

What would be our goal after a nuke attack? – revenge. But it would be too messy to chase juhadis all over the world.

In Vietnam John Paul Vann killed 100,000 NVA troops in one day, luring them out into the open, he carpet bombed them.

Iraq (a cause celebe?) drew jihadis from around the world, into a meat grinder. Hopefully 100,000+ jihadis are dead, regardless of third tier wanna-bees figuring out their next move.

If we get nuked, we should invade Israel, advancing jihadis from wherever, emboldened by a strike in the US – toast. If they congregate in Lebanon, the whole country is fair game. If (when) they mass in the West bank, and Gaza – splat.

It would be unwise to use nukes. The French would be the first to complain about radiation fallout. However, those MOABs make a nice mushroom cloud.

As for Medina and Mecca – they can only serve to provoke jihadi migration. Hit Medina first. Hostiles will head toward Israel, but the jihadis will take over Mecca. Once Mecca is fully jihadimized, then hit it as needed. Tehran (the people) might go the other way. Possibly out of guilt.

Also give the Russians the green light in Chechnya (after things get started and most jihadis have migrated). The Chinese the green light in Xinjiang.

After a nuke strike, the western jihadis will strike first. Either emboldened by the strike, or from feeling they are in the crosshairs. Riots in France and the UK, within days.

Syria, Jordan, and Egypt will be glad to get rid of their hardcore elements (though we may have to tolerate some government inspiration, hostile propaganda).

Pakistan might be in the hands of undesirables. This would put Israel in range of their nukes. Watch them watching us. If they start to move, hit Kashmir – giving India a buffer zone. If they do not get the message, nuke their nukes.

Africa and South Asia will be problematic. But not a high priority. The attack will most likely stem from South Asia, so a blockade may be prudent.

Bottom line, NYC gets nuked – it is on. Press the buttons.

Agrippa2k on May 9, 2007 at 1:34 PM

As of yet, I’ve not seen anyone suggest taking out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. That’s the capital of the government that has done more to fund rabid Wahabiism and thus sow the seeds of Islam-facism than anywhere else. If we are attacked by radical jihadist then vaporizing the royal family should be the first order of business.

It should be accompanied with a warning to the jihadist that if they do it again, then Mecca is next. If they don’t listen after that, too bad.

thirteen28 on May 9, 2007 at 1:47 PM

You need to occupy the country. You went in an occupied the crap out of Japan. The only way you could occupy Japan was because the Emperor told the people to not fight. Lots of intrigue behind that decision, as well.

After the hypothetical nuke, one would need an unconditional surrender. You would need an unconditional surrender because the flow of oil can’t be dramatically interrupted. Because of certain ingrained philosophies, there will not be an unconditional surrender and whatever we, the west, can use will be torched.

This notion that we are fighting a cohesive enemy and identifiable nation states with a western mindset has to be cast aside.

Europe is essentially disarmed with a fair sized radical population. A nuke galvanizes them. The quasi alliance between the radical left and islamists will be full blown on the North American continent, should there be a retaliatory nuke.

All this will come about because of half measures and an utter failure to act when the threat was managable.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 2:01 PM

How were the Barbary powers able to stay afloat and wreak so much havoc for so long? Anyone?
PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Jefferson was a wuss. He sent in William Eaton (Shores of Tripoli fame in the Marine hymn) and yanked the rug out from under him. Also Marbury v. Madison happened right under his nose where legislating from the bench originated.

Valiant on May 9, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Why wait until they nuke us, if we’re so sure it’s going to happen, before we quit pussy-footing around and just take care of it all right now? Mutually Assured Destruction has absolutely no effect on Islam. They crave death in the name of their Allah. So why wait to have tens of thousands, or perhaps millions, of our own murdered first? Let’s give them what they crave and be done with it!

SilverStar830 on May 9, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Valiant on May 9, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Partially. But countries paid them not to interfere with their shipping. They had an easy source of money to keep them going. Same thing today with the oil.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 2:26 PM

If the international media would be serious about this topic, and would truly believe in a higher cause for humanity, and able to overcome their PC, they’d “bomb” everyone with articles ridiculing the primitive beliefs and practices of so many followers of jihad. That would do more good than anything. It’s not to be, though.

Entelechy on May 9, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Not so. All of the Islamification has come from the Saudi mosques. They’re behind this whole thing. Once the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, they tried to hem the Shia in by spreading their version of Islam all over the Sunni world. Since they make up 85% of the Muslim population, if you chop off the head, you’ll go a long way toward cutting off the ideology of the rest of the offending mosques. Yes, the Muslim brotherhood started much earlier, but that has support from Saudi Arabia as well. They pay them to turn their jihad outward with their oil money.

So what if the the Emperor told the Japanese not to fight? If he hadn’t we’d have pulled out and bombed them some more. Same thing here. If they’re all living in big tent cities with no available mosques, it becomes much harder to mount an effective resistance.

Ingrained philosophies only go so far. Once the imams themselves start dying, they’ll change their tune in a big hurry. Turning Jeddah and Riyadh into ‘seas of glass’ would go a long way toward changing those imam’s tunes. Plus, there would be much less to occupy. It’s never been tried before, at any rate, so you don’t know that it won’t work. Certainly, winning hearts and minds has gotten us nowhere.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Just one question for the folks that think use our whole arsenal in our war against Dar Al Islam is a bad idea:

If the jihaddis nuke the half dozen largest cities in the US, they will kill 95% of the population of the “Blue” states.

Exactly how will the “cooler heads” prevent Red America from exterminating Dar Al Islam once they become a 90% majority?

The existence of these large cities and their Democrat voting populations is the only reason Dar Al Islam has not yet been subjected to Canned Sunshine.

Kristopher on May 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM

PRC,

Not so. All of the Islamification has come from the Saudi mosques.

I hate to be a picker of nits, but that is wrong. The Iranians were up to their necks in fomenting and distributing their version of Islam long before the Wahabbis became well organized in Saudi Arabia. Iran’s focus is less an Islamic WORLD as opposed to an Islamic middle east.


They’re behind this whole thing. Once the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, they tried to hem the Shia in by spreading their version of Islam all over the Sunni world.

And they were utterly ineffective in doing so until post Gulf War I. There’s some tinfoil hattery and speculation on my part as to why that is. Their version of Islam, even now, is rejected by most Sunnis. Dictatorial states in the ME are actually better equipped to keep them at bay.


Since they make up 85% of the Muslim population, if you chop off the head, you’ll go a long way toward cutting off the ideology of the rest of the offending mosques. Yes, the Muslim brotherhood started much earlier, but that has support from Saudi Arabia as well. They pay them to turn their jihad outward with their oil money.

I don’t know why this keeps coming back, again and again. There is no central organizing force within Islam. This is why you have SJS. You have your book, your book can’t be revised, your book says to convert, enslave or kill infidels in whatever manner necessary. There is no one leader that can rescind fatwahs or call off a jihad, and have it apply to all radicalized Muslims.

It’s viral, it’s everywhere and I think it’s reaching the point where we’ll be killing flies with sledgehammers in a few years.

On days like this, I re-read the Art of War and I get a bit depressed. One thing I dwell on is the notion of not knowing your enemy and not knowing yourself will lead to defeat every time, and knowing only one will give you a 50% success rate.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 3:16 PM

We took out a leader that we could take out at minimal risk. For show. The rest is spin.

honora

What does Milosevic have to do with this topic?

Perchant on May 9, 2007 at 3:33 PM

I hate to be a picker of nits, but that is wrong. The Iranians were up to their necks in fomenting and distributing their version of Islam long before the Wahabbis became well organized in Saudi Arabia. Iran’s focus is less an Islamic WORLD as opposed to an Islamic middle east.

Not according to Robert Spencer. Ahmadinejad attempts to speak for the Islamic world just as Khomenei did. The Saudis counter this with their version, and they’ve been more successful because they have a lot of money, and there’s a lot more Sunnis.

I don’t know why this keeps coming back, again and again. There is no central organizing force within Islam. This is why you have SJS. You have your book, your book can’t be revised, your book says to convert, enslave or kill infidels in whatever manner necessary. There is no one leader that can rescind fatwahs or call off a jihad, and have it apply to all radicalized Muslims.

It does because of Islam, to be sure. But it needs a source of money. Once there where no more dhimmis in Islamic societies, Islam really collapsed. This current wave of jihad is sponsored and fomented by Saudi oil dollars. Yes, it can come back at any time, but it’s simply more fun to not follow the tenets of Islam.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Kristopher on May 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM

I’ve often wondered that myself.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I’d like to remind everyone of one simple fact. If an actual nuclear device is detonated in NYC, LA, Chicago or any large American city, not only will the death and destruction be beyond most’s ability to comprehend… But it’ll be 600 to 1200 years before that land becomes habitable for human beings. That’s a long long time to drive around the long way to get to grandma’s house.

Griz on May 9, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Damn, subsunk, you’re just like Reggie Jackson in the 1977 World Series – everytime you’re at bat you hit a home run.

From another ex-submariner, well done.

thirteen28 on May 9, 2007 at 3:42 PM

PRC,

I sense some snark coming your way from me, and hopefully Robert Spencer takes a gander at it. Up until September 11th, 2001 the main killer of Americans via terrorism were Iranian backed militant groups. One of the key players in Iraq right now is the Mahdi Army, an Iranian backed militia. One of the main suppliers of weaponry to both Sunni and Shia radicals in Iraq is, surprise, Iran. The best organized infiltration into the west was done by Iran. Any sort of nuke will come from Iran.

A withdrawl from Iraq directly benefits Iran. Everything, since 1979, is about Iran. It will be about Iran tomorrow and next week and next year. The other states in the region are at least paying lip service to killing radicals. The only one welcoming them with open arms is Iran.

Based on the type of attacks carried out by AQ, they don’t need much money. They just need a place to train relatively unmolested. Where’s that? Iran.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Based on the type of attacks carried out by AQ, they don’t need much money. They just need a place to train relatively unmolested. Where’s that? Iran.

Krydor on May 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Let’s hurt them too. Yeah, Iran is trying to establish itself as the head of the Islamic world, just as Khomeini did. But the British mosques and the mosques over here, as well as the ‘middle eastern studies’ programs in Western Universities have been sponsored by the Saudis. Yes, Iran is a serious problem, serious enough to nuke, but the Arabs are the worst in the long run. The pan-Arabist clan is the worst. The Muslim Brotherhood is probably being helped by Iran, but it was started by the Arabs.

PRCalDude on May 9, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Buck Turgidson-

I was thinking about Mohammad’s only “prophecy” today, regarding the Ka’aba (Bukhari Hadiths 2; 26; 665-666), in which he predicted that the “holy cube” will be destroyed “by a black man” (from “Ethopia”… a generic term for Africa in the 7th century Muslim mind).

Then I thought about a possible Obama presidency as a way to fulfill this prediction. Barrack, as Commander-In-Chief is forced to respond to a nuke attack on the U.S., and unwittingly brings about Mohammad’s only prophetic vision, destroying the Ka’aba (and Mecca with it).

Hey, it’s Mohammad’s presentiment, not mine.

I hope Obama gets no nearer the White House than a tour.

profitsbeard on May 9, 2007 at 9:47 PM

But it’ll be 600 to 1200 years before that land becomes habitable for human beings. That’s a long long time to drive around the long way to get to grandma’s house.

Griz

Don’t believe all the green propaganda you hear.

People occupied Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after the bomb blast. Neither city is a radioactive desert today.

Kristopher on May 9, 2007 at 10:14 PM

If we were going to obliterate Mecca in order to deprive the umma of their favorite members-only pastime, I don’t think it’d be enough to damage the Ka’aba from a bomb strike. To have the desired effect, it would need to be totally vaporized (or removed) from the site. And the bits & pieces pulverized and removed to places unknown, never to be identified again.

In that event, a question about Ka’aba physics: Would even a direct nuclear blast be enough to do this, assuming the “stone” were actually a solid nickel- or XXX-alloy meteorite? It’d be cold comfort to find out after the fact that obliterating the “rock” was more like trying to smash a solid metal cube than a piece of sandstone. Same issue applies to trying to “move” it – as heavy as rock is, metal’s heavier yet – I don’t know that we have a way to lift that much dead weight, even assuming it’s not fused to the ground or protrudes some ways into the ground.

If one wanted to guarantee that the Ka’aba vanished, including the bit below the surface of the ground, what all would be required? The question applies as much to the material that makes up the meteorite as it does to the size or the location.

RD on May 9, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Subsunk on May 9, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Spot. on.

AZ_Redneck on May 9, 2007 at 11:30 PM

RD on May 9, 2007 at 10:40 PM

The Kaaba is not one gigantic piece of nickel meteorite. It is a hollow building made of primarily black granite and marble tiles and blocks. Thus, relatively fragile in terms of being able to withstand even a decent conventional bomb/missile.

The ‘Black Stone’ (the Hajar al-Aswad) is about a foot across and not even set in the ground:
PHOTO HERE
and isn’t even a single monothic stone itself, and may or may not even be a meteorite; Best guesses are that it was a hunk of basalt or lava, but no modern mineralogists/meteoritic has been able to examine it closely.

It was broken up in the middle ages and is now thought to be in 8 to 15 pieces embedded in some kind of conglomeration; probably natural resins and other crap and set in a silver bowl-like frame. In other words, it is very delicate. You could smash it to powder with a hammer.

The black rock itself really isn’t what is worshipped, Even the cube isn’t itself worshipped. It is the stone, cube, ‘plaza’ and surrounding structures taken all together, with their history and mythology that is meaningful to Muslims.

A couple of B-1s or Cruise missiles could take the cube out totally and permanently with conventional explosives. Heck, a Special Forces Team or Ranger platoon with a SADM could lay permanent waste to the cube.
A B-52 would be able to obliterate the whole site with one load of HE.

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Don’t believe all the green propaganda you hear.

People occupied Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after the bomb blast. Neither city is a radioactive desert today.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki involved air burst weapons. Presumably, if terrorists smuggled devices into American cities, they would be ground burst. That difference has enormous implications for fallout and long-term radioactive affects. The sites of ground burst devices would indeed be dangerously radioactive for centuries (and anything downwind would see substantially greater amounts of radioactive fallout, too).

That’s not to say that some sort of cleanup might not be possible–I imagine it would involve scooping up literally multiple mountains’ worth of irradiated soil and debris and disposing of it, somehow. But I don’t know how feasible an engineering undertaking that would be.

Blacklake on May 10, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Here are some FACTS about the radiation exposure for one ‘ground zero’ site a mere 62 years after the event. (It, admittedly, wasn’t big by modern standards)
I’ve personally spent at least 20 hours directly on ground zero there, lived full time for over a year only a few miles away, and I don’t ‘glow in the dark’ or have cancer.

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 1:44 AM

I’m not sure that every body’s on the same page here.

Subsunk and I are both predicting that a nuclear weapon detonated inside the United States will probably result in the destruction of Islam and it’s adherents. Subsunk gave you the mechanics with respect to how our military would respond. I pointed out Wretchard’s conjecture of why the decentralized nature of Jihad (as well as their willingness to die for Allah) would make it impossible to call the war off even if we wanted to.

Some do not think America would actually do it, or would be shunned by the rest of the world as a result.

Some think that some kind of warning should be issued to deter attack by convincing Muslim countries to do more to contain their jihadist elements.

Others think that the scenario of over a billion human beings destroyed by our retaliation is unlikely, that we simply wouldn’t do it.

Let me clarify some points.

The unclassified portion of NSPD 17 (“National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction”, December 2002)_ explicitly states:

The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all of our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.

There. In black and white is all the warning that is needed for Islam to take note as to what will happen if the USA is struck with a WMD, not just a nuclear weapon. This is the open, bald-faced PROMISE of overwhelming retaliation (and the phrase “all of our options” means nuclear weapons, don’t kid yourself otherwise). There should be no doubt that we will retaliate with nuclear weapons.

I suspect that should a nuclear weapon be detonated in an American city, that Muslim countries around the world will be falling all over themselves claiming and trying to prove their innocence, hoping to avoid our retaliatory hammer.

Allahpundit says: “First we’d need to figure out who did it.” The presupposes that the people of the United States are going to care which jihadist group and which sponsor of state terrorism was involved. I do not think the American public will care, nor do I think the the federal government will dilly-dally trying to prove guilt in a court of law, or to the UN Security Council who’s responsible.

Personally, I think the op-orders have already been issued, and distributed to Strategic Command, as contingencies. I think which specific option is invoked may depend upon which ‘bad guys’ is the *likely* (not absolutely) culprit. I think that any retaliation will be wide (as in national or regional) as opposed to narrow or a specific “camp” or target.

While I would like to think that the United States would provide relief assistance after our strike, it would not surprise me that we simply let them rot. And I guarantee that there will be NO occupation, NO “nation building.” Our experience in Iraq will have foreclosed that option. No, we’ll strike hard, destroy cities and large areas of real estate, and maybe send in a few “blankets” and medical supplies afterwards, but I doubt that we’d send in any massive humanitarian aid.

What America’s enemies in the region — and our domestic enemies here at home, including ~60% of all Democrats and 100% of the domestic left — are missing in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is Wretchard’s THIRD conjecture. That the world is in a “golden hour,” that period of time where millions of American lives and billions of Muslim lives can still be saved if George W. Bush’s experiment in Democracy succeeds in Iraq.

So, let me point out to liberals and Democrats reading this: YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SABOTAGE THE WAR IN IRAQ IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE HORRIBLE SCENARIO THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING HERE. In other words, you’ll be held responsible if the worst case scenario occurs.

If we succeed in Iraq, if Iraq becomes a democratic, non-secular, oriented government, the chances of Al Qaeda succeeding in their war against us, drops. If they win, Iraq will be the center of their efforts for world domination, they WILL get a nuclear weapon (from Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or the Russian black market or somewhere), they will use it against America and Islam will die, along with several million Americans.

So in addition to any Islamofascist generated genocide against the people of Iraq, once they strike, which ever country they are active in will be utterly destroyed.

I’ll leave you with one final note: After 9/11, the world was struck in awe by two things — Kabul didn’t vanish in a mushroom cloud as some in the UK press predicted, and that we bothered to invade a country on the other side of the world and take down the regime. When we did it a second time, 1 1/2 years after 9/11 in the strongest arab military power in the middle east, the world was again surprised at the ease at which we toppled Saddam.

Those foreigners whose job it is to watch America have no doubt noted the formal statement of policy in NPSD 17 PROMISING that we will go nuclear.

georgej on May 10, 2007 at 3:23 AM

During the cleanup of the melted core at Three Mile Island, several robots were used to break apart the old melted down core and remove the pieces for study and decontamination of the site. During the operations to clean up TMI, video cameras attached to these robots were used to help guide them. Because water from the river had been used to help keep the core cool after the accident, operators were somewhat amazed to find water bugs swimming along inside the core itself, where the radiation was several hundred REM per hour even a year or two after the accident. Enough radiation that nothing should have lived in that environment anyway.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Life will find a way to exist in almost anyplace, including the tubeworms which thrive and grow at 400 degrees Fahrenheit on the ocean floor next to volcanic vents to the cockroaches which swam in the TMI reactor core during its cleanup, without horrible ill effects, I might add.

One millirem is about half what my monthly exposure was underway on nuclear power and one twentieth what my highest occupational exposure employees (ELTs for you nukes) received in a month. And my monthly exposure while I was inport was about twice what my underway exposure was. (All that water overhead screened out most of the cosmic rays). The hype and smoke over radiation exposure is belied by the fact that the largest radioactive source to people is the Sun.

Thanks LegendHasit for injecting facts into the discussion. Man would find a way to exist in radioactive Mecca within years of blowing it up, and if you think we can’t get to the oil in a few years after leveling Saudi Arabia, you are not sufficiently mercenary to imagine it.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2007 at 3:27 AM

georgej on May 10, 2007 at 3:23 AM

I would like to endorse every word in this post. Georgej understands the situation completely and absolutely. The rest of us should take notice and heed these warnings.

I cannot stress strongly enough how correct his post is. Read it, or weep at the Holocaust thrust upon us in the future.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2007 at 3:31 AM

Those foreigners whose job it is to watch America have no doubt noted the formal statement of policy in NPSD 17 PROMISING that we will go nuclear.
georgej on May 10, 2007 at 3:23 AM

Well, not disagreeing, but just to interject something: That is a pretty reasonable assumption as long as the Commander in Chief is Bush or just about any of the other Rep. candidates.

But what about if (God forbid) nearly any one of the Dem’s gets in?

I wouldn’t be surprised if, say, Obama gets elected that one of his first executive orders was that there would be no immediate retribution of any kind, especially not nuclear. Of the Dems, the only one that I can imagine allowing massive retaliation is Hillary… Not because she particularly cares if a big chunk of America gets zapped, but because she would view it as a personal affront and messing up her plans.

George and/or Subsunk, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the ‘automatic‘ launches only happen if C&C are destroyed; If the President, V.P (and maybe Speaker) are killed or incommunacado for X? hours?

But even if I’m completely off base with that, I will still have my doubts that ‘NPSD 17′ will have any deterrent effect on any of the non-State sponsored Terrorist groups… Or even Ahmadinejad. The guys in Al Qaeda etc, don’t care if Riyadh, Tehran, Damascus and even Kabul are glowing. Zawahiri and his boys will be willing to take their chances in their caves.

Plus they hope and expect that their allies in the Democrat Party will protect them from anything massive.

And Ahmadinejad WANTS it to happen. I’m not sure if his bosses do, but HE would welcome it…. At least until he realizes that that burning sensation will continue for eternity and there ain’t no 12th Imam OR 72 Virgins coming.

I still think that the best way to avoid this isn’t MAD, but by a well and widely publicized threat that every ‘Mohammed and Jamila Sixpack’ in every mosque in the world will hear and understand:

That the sites that they revere most, Mecca, Medina etc. will be destroyed and defiled if they allow their more radical brethern to use a WMD on American (or Israeli) Soil. You have to play to their psychological weaknesses. The concept of widespread nuclear annihilation is really not a significant fear in their worldview, even among the ones who are capable of grasping the realities of it. But the concept of the destruction of a small single target is something they can easily grasp.

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 5:10 AM

I should have read the NPS-17 before posting my previous treatise.

Gerorge, all due respect, but it doesn’t promise nuclear anhillation to the muslim world if they use WMDs on us. At least in the declassified one… (Maybe you have access to the classified stuff and it does.)

What it says, in bureaucrateese not easily deciphered by Mo and Jam Sixpack, is that we reserve the right to use any and all options to retaliate upon those we decide to hold responsible. NOT that we will definitely do it, nor thast it will be wide spread if we do.

As I read it, NPSD 17 is about a clear deterrent message to the entire Muslim world as Casper Milquetoast telling a drunk and agressive Hells Angel that he has a gun at home and MIGHT go get it and use it if the biker beats him up.

Nope, we HAVE to issue a much more clear and certain message than that if we want any kind of deterrent effect on the terrorist community.

I’m sure that the PLANS for the nuclear strikes that you and Subsunk are mentioning have been made and programmed into the targeting computers. But I have serious doubts that they surely and automatically will launch upon the use of any WMDs against us, even with the current Administration.

You guys may know it for a sure fact, a done deal… (even way back when, when I was THE guy that would have actually set up our unit SADMs, the authority for ‘pressing that last button’ was way, way, WAY beyond my paygrade.). If so, or if I have misinterpreted your statements in any way, my apologies. But I remain very skeptical that it any kind of certain thing.

The only thing that would really convince me (much less Mohammed) that we are really serious is if the House, the Senate and the President passed a Binding and non-expiring Resolution to proceed in that way. A public Presidential Executive Order would reassure me somewhat, but only for the next year and a half.

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 6:16 AM

“But I have serious doubts that they surely and automatically will launch upon the use of any WMDs.”

Legend, I did not mean to imply that a deus ex machina is in place. I don’t think that Subsunk did either.

georgej on May 10, 2007 at 7:31 AM

George and/or Subsunk, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the ‘automatic‘ launches only happen if C&C are destroyed; If the President, V.P (and maybe Speaker) are killed or incommunacado for X? hours?….

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 5:10 AM

Sir, we are at risk of touching on classified material there. Let us just say that Command and Control of some sort is necessary for the launch of nuclear weapons. Our Strategic Deterrent Forces cannot launch on their own at any time. Loss of Command and Control Communications has an entire book dedicated to it, and the plans cover so many areas as to be infathomable in this thread. However, there are Admirals and Generals assigned to act in the event of a nuclear attack rendering civilian Command and Control incapable of direction, and their strategic communications equipment is sturdy and as well designed as possible to withstand massive nuclear strikes.

A lot of responsibility rides on those gentlemens’ and ladies’ shoulders. They have a book to guide them also. I couldn’t even guess what it has to say. However, I am sure if faced with a choice which demands retaliation or risks a second more devastating attack on the United States, they will all follow the guidance outlined above.

Our country is never completely undefended, even when Dhimmicrats refuse to fund the front lines of defense, as they are now doing. If required to use pitchforks and shovels, there are some of us who are proficient with both.

Subsunk

Subsunk on May 10, 2007 at 8:41 AM

FWIW thank you for your excellent posts Subsunk, georgej and LegendHasIt!

RD on May 10, 2007 at 8:50 AM

Here are some FACTS about the radiation exposure for one ‘ground zero’ site a mere 62 years after the event. (It, admittedly, wasn’t big by modern standards)

Not very big, and using a completely different type of mechanism than modern weapons, which has a great deal to do with the amount of contamination produced.

In general, though, it’s well-established that the closer to the surface an explosion takes place, the greater the amount of environmental irradiation there will be. An air burst is relatively clean; a ground burst (though actually less destructive) is radiologically far more dirty (literally).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/watson/watson27.html
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1290.html

Blacklake on May 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Who do we nuke? Saudi Arabia. Every Islamic terrorist act leads back to Saudi Arabia. And really, who else but the Saudis have so much extra cash laying around that they can buy a nuke to give away to terrorists? All the big Islamic terrorists run on Saudi petrodollars.

I would nuke Buraday in the north, the home of the Wahhabi death cult; Riyadh, the capital; and then scour out the southern corner where the evil Al Ghamdi tribe live. Two of the Sep 11 skyjackers were Al Ghamdis.

Leave the Hijaz and Eastern Province alone. The Hijaz are somewhat civilized for Saudi barbarians. They can run Mecca. The Eastern Province has the oil wells and is largely oppressed Shiite in a Sunni Saudi Arabia.

And don’t worry about anybody missing the Saudis. They won’t.

Tantor on May 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM

And none of those links provided bolster your point that the ‘nuked’ regions would:

“… be centuries before anybody could go there and survive again..”

I’m not trying to argue your other points; (not that I agree with ALL of them), just trying to interject some real world measurements and experience into the equation.

Don’t make me go get my long time friend who was an engineer up at the Nevada Test Site and has direct and timely experience of what happens after some pretty big nuke explosions. ;-)

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Apologies to Blacklake:
After re-reading, far above, one statement that I was under the impression you wrote was actually written by someone else (Griz). Had I been more accurate in the proper attributions, I probably wouldn’t have bothered trying to refute yours, or at least addressed it less directly.

LegendHasIt on May 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3