Feds wonder: If jihadis nuke us, who do we nuke in return?
posted at 10:09 pm on May 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Everyone.
Simply announce to the world: “We get nuked, we’ll nuke everyone else, from Mecca to Beijing to Caracas and back again.”
Keeps it simple and will put the rest of the world on their toes to keep the big dog happy.
I suggest a nice little warm up nuking, some country no one likes, just to show that we really are that crazy.
;)
MoxArgon on May 8, 2007 at 10:15 PM
In this scenario, I’m a strong advocate of The Patton Doctrine.
wordwarp on May 8, 2007 at 10:15 PM
If we get hit with a jihadi nuke, I know exactly what out first target should be, but if I say it, I’ll get banned. But if we do get hit with a jihadi nuke, I’m pretty sure that place I’m not allow to mention, will be no more.
Maxx on May 8, 2007 at 10:19 PM
I kind of like Frank J’s idea.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 10:20 PM
No, I won’t ban you for it in this thread. But give me a reason, at least. How would nuking Mecca do more good than harm?
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Why nuke anything ? A couple of good tomahawk strikes and that Mecca shrine is turned to ruins using just conventional ammo and little if no loss of life.
That should be our deterrent. Warn the Islamonazis that their favorite holi site will no long exist in its current form.
That shrine and Medina are the only things they treasure. Their loss would be devistating to them. And not one nuke need be used.
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM
reminds me of The Onion’s first post-9/11 issue — “President Bush vows to defeat whoever it is we’re at war with”
or something like that.
Allah – re Maxx, I think if it ends the jihad threat, and ends what is projected to be a very long war, and saves American lives, the case can be made it therefore does more good than harm. It all depends, I guess, whether one thinks the jihadist threat is real or not real.
BillLalor on May 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Oh yeah. Mecca,Medina get vaped. No ifs ands or buts.
ANd we should make it our clear policy. Put the fear of the moongod into the Saudis to get their heads on straight. What’s the point of having power if you’re afraid to use it. And why aren’t these assholes bending over with tubs of K-Y trying to appease US? So what if the ground glows, the oil will be OK.
I’d also blow (non-nuke so the Jews can build their temple on it) up the Golden Dome and seize Haiga Sophia and give it to the Pope.
And to really hurt Chavez, just sink his oil wells. Heck we paid for most of them anyway.
We’ve been talking waaaay too softly, and we need to break out the aluminum sticks, cause they ain’t respectin’ the Louisville slugger.
Iblis on May 8, 2007 at 10:27 PM
How would it end the jihadist threat? It would be a de facto declaration of war on Islam. You’d turn a billion people into jihadis instantly. I can’t imagine anything that would make the jihadist threat worse.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM
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
…and we put Allahpundit in prison because he is too soft!
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM
We start with Mecca and work our way out. Every stinkin muslem country gets its capital (at the very least) made into a parking lot and after they are all ready to be striped we will have time to sort out just who else needs to be leveled!
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on May 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I disagree with this Allah I think the reason that Islam has been so militant for so long is that their holy sites have never been threated in almost 2,000 years. That convinces them that they have God on their side because they are left alone in their main nest.
I hope it never comes down to this. but if they nuke say NYC and we do nothing then that truely means they win.
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:32 PM
On a purely kneejerk reaction level; I’d nuke the people they showed cheering in the streets. Clearly, on 9/11 those palestinians cheering deserved a few missiles aimed their way. People who cheer terrorists today are closer to becoming terrorists tomorrow.
On a more reasonable level, I think the targets are obvious, aren’t they? If a nuke goes off here; Pakistan (at least the area where the Taliban are known to be) is made uninhabitable.
If there is any evidence of Iranian or NK backing, clearly, they’d get one too. maybe venezuela too, just for grins.
lorien1973 on May 8, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Bombing Mecca would be worse than a war on Islam. If I understand Islamic theology correctly, a hajj is essential to salvation. If we destroyed Mecca, we would be responsible, in the eyes of Muslims around the world, for ending their chance to spend enternity in paradise.
I’d say that would create some resentment.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Allah -
I disagree with the idea that massive, furious retaliation aids recruitment. Nothing personal, but I hear that from a lot of my liberal friends on Iraq et al. Jihadis seem intent on killing all of us. They hate us already (as they did before Iraq)
IMO there’s a point at which a little savagery, while it doesn’t make friends, convinces people not to screw with the US. I realize many jihadis are suicidal, but that doesn’t mean they want to see family members incinerated. Call it the Hiroshima effect. The Japanese only quit once they thought we were nuts.
BillLalor on May 8, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Channeling a truther:
Isn’t Mecca turning our way anyways? I read a story a few weeks back where shopping malls are all over Mecca now. Fundamentalists hate it.
lorien1973 on May 8, 2007 at 10:38 PM
The Japanese -were- sane though. I have seen no such evidence in the islamic fundamentalist side. They will send their kids to die; their mothers, their wives. And blow themselves up for absolutely nothing.
lorien1973 on May 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM
There have been reports that they already have suitcase nukes in the US, since before 9/11 and that is the next 9/11 attack….when the time is right. Former FBI Paul L. Williams has wrote about it, and others. Supposedly want to bomb 8 US cities at same time
jp on May 8, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Yes, but why does that require attacking Mecca? I agree with you that a nuclear response would be warranted; so do/would 90+% of Americans, I’d bet. The key is to find a target whose destruction would do more good than harm. Hitting Mecca is quite literally the worst possible choice.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Amen to that!
But it is a difficult scenario to be sure. You are probably right about the pakistan region. The scary part would be the impetus at home to radically change the society in the name of protection. It would make the Patriot Act seem like a nonbinding resolution in terms of the suspension of liberties.
But you probably saw that ABC Nightline in the mid 90’s where they showed how easy a beaker of anthrax could wreck havoc on NYC by using the subway tunnel system as the means of delivery.
I still think this type of attack is what we are more at risk of currently.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 10:42 PM
The concept is total war. It happened in WWII. You have to utterly demoralize your enemy or the war will go on and on.
Which is why WWII is the last war we have won. We have given up the concept of total war in the belief that if we hold back we will appear the “Good Guys’
We are holding back in Iraq and we are not seen as the Good guys.
I guess we just have to cross our fingers and hope the best.
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:43 PM
If we get nuked, we definitely have to nuke someone in response just for the message’s sake (you can’t hit us without greater punishment elsewhere; the “eye for a city” principle). Otherwise, nuclear attacks become acceptable.
If Russia is involved, that certainly complicates things. Then again, with the state that that country is in, I’d think we could subvert a lot of their nuclear missile launchers with a strong tap of a hammer. Someone has to smack that regime soon (hopefully it will happen from inside the country).
frankj on May 8, 2007 at 10:45 PM
forgot Jakarta, nuke them too
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I disagree Allah and for another reason. There are jihadists from Indonesia, From Iraq, from Saudi Arabia, from Chechnya, from Pakistan, From Yemen, From Sudan, From Somalia.
Pick me a target that will effect all those jihadists ? Which target in those countries has any meaning for them ?
They attacked the WTC and the Pentagon because of its symbolic representation to the US. What symbol means anything to all these diverse groups ?
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Attacking Mecca isn’t going to demoralize them. It’s going to radicalize them. If memory serves, there were specific holy cities in Japan that the U.S. refused to bomb for that very reason — if we hit them, the Japanese would have no choice but to fight to the end to defend their faith. As it is, they surrendered. Seems like a good decision in hindsight.
Bryan knows a lot more about WWII than I do so hopefully he’ll show up and correct me if I’m wrong.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Nuclear response warranted? Are you crazy? What will nuking someplace solve that we couldn’t solve with an ordinary missile response? Sure, if we get nuked everyone would be all for responding, but with more nukes? Why? Because we’re mad and want to get “even”? This isn’t state to state warfare. If an Egyptian-American managed to nuke a major city would we nuke Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Why?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Your nightmare is much closer than you think
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070509/wl_asia_afp/uspakistanirannuclearpolitics;_ylt=AqSzt79PTu9_3pNHhAqCw1wBxg8F
A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling ring may resume business, warning by P. Parameswaran
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A Pakistani nuclear smuggling network that was reportedly crippled three years ago could resume business amid strong demand for atomic technology from governments and terrorist groups, a new study says.
Although the United States had declared that the network led by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan had been rolled up, only a few of the 40 individuals identified as having worked with him are in prison, said the report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
Investigators are confident that none remain involved in the proliferation business but they “are less certain, however, about the more shadowy recesses of the network,” said the report, released in Washington Tuesday.
“At least some of Khan’s associates appear to have escaped law-enforcement attention and could, after a period of lying low, resume their black market business,” said the 176-page dossier, “Nuclear black markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the rise of proliferation networks.”
“Decapitating the nodes of non-hierarchical networks does not necessarily eradicate the enterprise,” it warned.
Aside from Iran and North Korea, Khan also reportedly sold nuclear equipment or technology to Libya and Syria.
Khan, apprehended in January 2004, is currently under house arrest after being pardoned by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf.
Some information has been passed from Musharraf to the United States based on Pakistani debriefings of Khan, but neither Islamabad nor the Bush administration have made any public statements about what Khan may have said.
The IISS report also highlighted concerns over the penetration of organized crime groups into the nuclear materials black market.
A conservative estimate of some 429 nuclear trafficking cases recorded in the 2001-2005 period suggested that about 10 percent of them appear to have involved organized crime groups, it said.
“The true extent of their involvement is likely to be greater,” it said.
The report pointed out that “the strongest evidence of a real demand for illicit nuclear material involves groups set on terrorism, not nation states.”
It identified a dozen countries — Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Libya, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, Syria and Israel — that allegedly sought nuclear technologies through illicit means.
“Some of these are still trying, those who have an active nuclear weapons program are trying to maintain that program,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US State Department non-proliferation official who edited the IISS study.
“This is particularly evident in the case of Iran, in the case of Pakistan and, though lesser degree, India,” he told reporters.
The Khan network imported nuclear-related goods from companies in at least seven primary supplier countries — Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Britain, the report said.
It also worked with “private actors” in Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
South Korea, South Africa and Singapore have since established export controls and have begun to license the trade of “dual-use” items, which can be uitilized for both peaceful and military purposes, the report said.
But Malaysia and UAE still lack laws and regulations that govern trade in nuclear related goods and technologies, it said.
The international framework of export controls “still contains serious gaps that could be exploited” by a network similar to Khan’s, the report warned.
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM
These countries are (or are appointed to be) members of the UN Human Rights Council: Algeria, China, Cuba, Indinesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.
If somebody nukes us, do we have to care what others think of us? or we should re-create the Department of War and unleash Hell?
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Interesting question. If it happened the automatic assumtion would be Islamic Jihadis and would not be changed unless incontrovertable proof was given imedeately. Once the mushroom is planted I think all conventional rules of engagement, Geneva, etc. would become socondary if not completely moot. It would wake up this country and the rest of the western world something terrible. Public opinion would swing (pardon the expresion) violently to the extreme right and the antiwar, terminaly PC crowd would be viewed as traiters to mankind in general and the western/non-Mulim world in general.
Assuming Jihadi responsabillity it would be a case of their shooting themselves in the foot, big time. It would do conciderable damage no doubt, but the ensueing war would be devistating to the entire Mulim world. Yes the thought of hundreds of millions of pissed off jihadis is something to take seriously, but I could think of nothing scarrier to the rest of the world than an America truely pissed and commited to their destruction.
They want a “total war”? They should be very careful what they ask for.
P. James Moriarty on May 8, 2007 at 10:50 PM
The Japan comparison is way off track.
1. They were a nation state that was capable of ordering the military to cease and desist
2. We didn’t target Tokyo, which had been heavily damaged already. Half of Japan’s population lives between Tokyo and Osaka. Tokyo would have been seen by the Japanese as a very symbolic target and it would have only worsened since much of their decision making authorities would have been dead and unable to order cessation of hostilities.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 10:51 PM
I have another question. What if somebody nukes us and we don’t know who it is? Nobody takes claim for the attack. Do we nuke someplace out of the blue just to show the world not to mess with America? How can more good come from that than harm?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Who do you nuke? It’s my opinion that you can’t nuke anyone without a real backlash abroad and at home, regardless of it being retaliatory.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Allah – the enemy being jihadists without a political body to take out, Mecca is I the only option. It’s the heart of Jihdaism, and of the culture that has declared war on us, just like the capital city of an enemy state. I realize it’s not the same, but that’s the screwy war we’re in, and again, we didn’t start it. If a nuke goes off in Times Square, the other option is to take feckless swipes at state sponsors who will pop up again like the tumors they are.
Drop leaflets, I guess. There’s no reason not to be humane. But I think if you’re looking for a sensible target, you’re trying to fit this square peg of a war into the proverbial round hole. And IMO that won’t work.
BillLalor on May 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM
And let’s not forget that if the world thought this would be our response, someone like Kim Jong of NK would have a much better motive for blowing up a city so that the US would become a pariah for the next hundred years.
Whether one cares or not about being seen as a pariah we risk a madman like that doing just such an act if we make that our first reaction.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM
While I agree that Mecca might not be the best choice, it probably isn’t the worst. We could give them notice and let them remove the moon rock before we hit.
I don’t know the details, but I think Muslims believe that Mecca will rise up from the ashes if it were ever attacked. Assuming that that resurrection would not happen, perhaps the destruction of Mecca would disillusion enough of them that they would question their beliefs.
IrishEi on May 8, 2007 at 10:53 PM
The US secretary of State didnt want to bomb the anceint city of Kyoto because it had such a historic and cultural meaning to the Japanese.
Again I never advocated nuking Mecca. Just bombing the shrine. They have not learn the lession that they can loose until that happens they wont stop. The Japanese during WWII believe that they were going to win just using Kamakazees. They thought if they killed enough americans that would end the war in their favor. It took TWO A bombs to change that thinking.
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Are you kidding? I specifically mentioned the Pakistani tribal areas. Do you think, after Tora Bora, that conventional missile strikes are going to finish off Al Qaeda and its leadership? And if it is state to state warfare — which it would be if a Hezbollah cell set off a bomb from Iran — why on earth would you prefer to bomb Tehran conventionally? You want the U.S. Air Force flying tens of thousands of sorties carpet-bombing the city into dust day after day after day to do the job one nuclear weapon would do?
Really, please knock it off with your wilting flower “oh, the humanity” routine.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Demoralize the enemy by destroying the most recognized symbol of their Nazi-like belief system. This would be taking off the gloves, no more trying to reason with them, no more “sensitivity” for the Islamic community. And this would let them know we were serious about our new plan, which would be to engage them and kill them.
While writing this, I already see you’ve posted the counterpoint I expected, which basically says: “this will REALLY make them mad at us and only make the situation worse.” This is wrong thinking in a war with an enemy that cannot be dissuaded from attacking you. They ALREADY hate us and want to kill us, so the situation would not be any worse, and I really think the act of nuking Mecca might just strike a little fear into the most devoted Islamic heart.
Maxx on May 8, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Bradky, with all due respect, re-read histoty. There was no Tokyo! Incendiary bombing left nothing of it prior to Little Boy and Fat Man.
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:56 PM
I don’t know about that. Islam has been around for centuries. The belief system is firmly embedded into their culture.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Why, in that case we do nothing at all. We simply absorb the blow and clasp hands to pray. Then I’ll write a post complaining about the lack of response, assuming I’m not dead, and all the commenters who are still alive will complain too, and then you’ll act offended and wonder why everyone can’t be civilized enough to see that we must accept our fate.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Let me just amend that last one – when I say “sensible,” that was a bad word. I am not suggesting doing something non-sensible. I am saying that by 2007 standards, winning this damn war won’t feel sensible, or maybe even humane. We will have conversations about it like we do today about Japan. But IMO we will have won the war. If we don’t win the war, nothing else matters.
BillLalor on May 8, 2007 at 10:59 PM
and one more thing…we have to close the borders
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 10:59 PM
The Pakistini tribal areas would actually be a good strategic choice as well, whatever fighters were left would flee into the areas controlled by the US.
Whoever would be president would need to be extremely strong willed – calls for total annihilation would be deafening.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Actually, if we take away their source of salvation, that would make them hate us more. And it would make all of them – not just those inclined to radicalism – hate us.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Lets pretend like there’s no such thing as radiation. And just because some crazy person/group/government is willing to kill innocent civilians by the bucket load doesn’t mean we should be willing to. If we nuke someplace else will it stop that same person/group/government from nuking us again? They obviously don’t care about consequences in the first place if they’re using nukes.
Are you telling me that you think it is just to nuke the capital city of a country because the government of said country might have supplied an organization with a nuke? Regardless of how many innocent lives are lost?
I didn’t say that at all.
Believe it or not everybody is so willing to throw caution to the wind and launch nuclear bombs simply because someone else did it.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:00 PM
I have an idea. If we get nuked, and we don’t know who did it lets close our eyes, point at a spot on the map and nuke the hell out of it (if we pick America we get to pick again).
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Well, that is why it’s called a retaliatory strike.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Ropera,
Many of the existing structures were gone I agree but it doesn’t change the fact that hundreds of thousands more casualties would have resulted and some of the most revered Japanese symbols would be no more.
Credit to Truman for the wiser decision to go with Hiroshima.
But we could have waited a few more days before hitting Nagasaki. The Japanese formal decision making process needed more time to digest what had occurred.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Between the American innocent lives and another county’s innocent lives, guess which one I choose?
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I’ve actually got that DEFCON game. Awesome game, really. All it needs is WOPR and “Greetings Professor Faulken, how about a nice game of….chess?”
JG2K6 on May 8, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Bradky: Too much rice = slow digestion :)
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:06 PM
William Amos (10:43) You just said a mouthful. Amen to all dat.
As to the last link in Allah’s post, I feel that to have not paid all possible attention to ANY POSSIBLE source of fissionable material on the “black” market or otherwise was blindingly stupid. George Tenent and his underlings are incompetant boobs.
Glad I got that off my chest…
hillbillyjim on May 8, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Mecca.
Since the jihad comes from Mecca.
And only threatening to erase the source will give pause to the militant marching maniacs.
profitsbeard on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Another point that one should consider is that if our leadership lost its collective mind and nuked everything, China would step into the role as peacemaker and really complicate the whole mess.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
I say we nuke Iran, North Korea, Pakistan (especially the border area) and Riydah
Defector01 on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
What does this stupid axiom have anything to do with anything? We’re not talking about either America gets nuked or another country gets nuke; we’re talking about whether or not we nuke a place after America gets nuked.
I don’t care what it’s called, I wanted to know whether or not he thought it was just.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Bradky: then we stop buying their stuff and they die from starvation!
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Nonfactor: and you go to Gitmo!
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Oh yeah, that’s gonna happen.
(You were kidding, right?)
IrishEi on May 8, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I’m more interested in figuring out whether it’s justified. If a U.S. city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon and we can track that weapon to a regime, then yes – I believe we’d be justified in destroying a city in return.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Ropera,
Not quite sure what you meant. We can agree to disagree but I think Truman made the right call for the first one. Had we had thousands of troops on the ground getting hammered the quick trigger for the second one might be understandable. Can’t change the fact of the second one so the point is academic.
Not sure if you knew this or not but the Japanese actually kept McArthur’s office intact in Tokyo somewhere. They always appreciated the compassion and fairness with which he administered the initial post war occupation.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:13 PM
The nuclear material is traceable. The problem is that a lot of that material surely will come from the former USSR.
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I want to make this 100% clear: No matter how many innocent lives are killed?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:14 PM
No, not at all. Think it through – USA mad bombers, destroyers of a civilization. Who could stand up to us and make us back off? China.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:14 PM
>there were specific holy cities in Japan that the U.S. refused to bomb for that very reason — if we hit them, the Japanese would have no choice but to fight to the end to defend their faith
There aren’t really any “holy cities” per se in Japan, but Kyoto and Nara, for example, have been the home of many important Buddhist temples for many centuries, as well as important Shinto sites. More important than the religious attachment of the Japanese to those areas, though, was their status as important historical sites.
However, the main reason that they weren’t heavily attacked is probably that they weren’t really significant military targets. The Shinto shrines at Ise (the most important in Shintoism) were also not near important targets, so they really weren’t in danger.
I am absolutely convinced that the Japanese would have continued to fight if the atomic bombs hadn’t been dropped, but I don’t think it would have been because of religious conviction. Even then, the prevailing “State Shinto” wasn’t so much spiritual as patriotic/nationalistic fervor. (State Shinto, in fact, was a modern invention.) There were other factors at play, involving things such as group loyalty, national identity, etc., that had more influence on the average Japanese person than anything directly religious in nature.
>We didn’t target Tokyo, which had been heavily damaged already.
I think “heavily damaged” is an understatement!
Doghouse on May 8, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Bradky: I meant that they should have decided faster, that’s all.
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:15 PM
That works both ways. But to ignore the possibility is beyond irresponsible for a sitting president or congress.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM
>No matter how many innocent lives are killed?
Yes. At that point it doesn’t really matter. All bets are off. The only other option would be to play liberal and apologize for being nuked then ask for more.
Doghouse on May 8, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Ok guys, you convinced me!
I am going to Glenn Beck’s site to buy one of those t-shirts that he sells: “We’ll all gonna die!”
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:20 PM
You want to make what 100% clear? I’m sorry, but the “oh, the poor innocent lives” argument goes out the window after they’ve nuked a city and ended a lot of innocent lives.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 11:21 PM
The key to Nuclear Deterence is THREAT!
We need to make the statement NOW that if we are nuked by ANYONE using Jihad as an excuse, we will declare war on Islam itself, and Nuke Mecca, and other sites holy to Islam, including in Saudi Arabia.
What you have to do is make the threat large enough that reasonable Moslems will ensure the rabid jihadists are not able to carry through an attack… you have to threaten all the holy sites of Islam itself.
MAD worked in the Cold War because it was in BOTH major powers interests to reign in the crazies…. we need to bring the Islamic people into reigining in theirs.
Its the THREAT that needs to be made… and I’d do it on National TV to the Congress, and the UN.
Romeo13 on May 8, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Looks like my stupid axiom is not so stupid after all, huh Nonfactor?
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Allahs back In style. There’s only one answer… MECCA.
Griz on May 8, 2007 at 11:23 PM
That makes no sense at all. Because of the actions of a radical person/organization/government we should respond in kind against a populated city? The person/organization/government who nukes us probably doesn’t care about consequences, and the fact that a city of theirs (assuming we know what person/organization/government this is) gets nuked probably won’t make them too sorry.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Allahpundit is right. Nuke Mecca bad. Enough MOAB’s to block the sun over tribal areas of Pakistan good. Follow up by putting craters around current leaders of Islamic regimes just peachy. We don’t have to kill them just make enormous potholes around their palaces.
Theworldisnotenough on May 8, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I think we would only have to nuke two or three places at most, and just threaten to nuke more.
Our enemies have seen us as nothing more than a paper tiger since WWII (thanks libs.) If the world sees that the US has finally had enough of this BS and we start to go nuclear, they will crap in their collective pants. (Shades of Yamamoto and the sleeping giant.)
There is no other country in the world that can stop us and they all know that. China, while a nuclear power, is a dysfunctional mess, and their economy would be the first to suffer total collapse should this nuclear scenario ever play out.
IrishEi on May 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM
As I mentioned before you practically guarantee some nutcase such as Kim Jong or a Timothy McVeigh type would do it just to start the apocolyptic vision they have in their nutty minds.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Nonfactor, that is why I stated that you should be put in Gitmo.
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM
I agree with many here – put the word out in the jihadist street that their holiest shrine will be vaporized if an American city gets nuked. Not that we would really do it, but we just might do it. Even in their darkened mind they may want to avoid the possible risk
After the radioactivity cools off Disney could put in the new Alladin theme park there, so families could still come.
Texas Mike on May 8, 2007 at 11:26 PM
The first place(s) we would attack would be those viewed as a threat. That means the Iranian and Pakistani nuclear infrastructures. Since they are hardened, they would require small scale nuclear strikes to wipe out with any high level of confidence.
The rest the potential targets, the tribal areas, etc., would probably be saturation bombed rather than nuked if for no other reason than to limit the damage to the whole global atmosphere…
TheBigOldDog on May 8, 2007 at 11:26 PM
As justifiable as it would be to retaliate against anyone and everyone who was involved in nuking us, for once I agree with the NYT, we won’t nuke anyone back. Our pussified rules of engagement won’t let us. Our ROE in Iraq is a joke. We could have won decisively long ago if the total war policy of WW2 was employed there from the beginning. As a nation we have the most devastating military force in the history of mankind, but our leaders are too concerned about PR to use it. They are pussies, plain and simple. Until we have another strong decisive leader like Reagan, the USA will remain the strongest pussy nation ever.
infidel4life on May 8, 2007 at 11:27 PM
You underestimate China very badly. Who would we sell to if we became the pariahs of the world? Something tells me that most Americans are not ready to go back to farming for their own food and a more Amish style existence.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:27 PM
IrishIe is absolutely right. Three nukes, 1.5 million evaporated and the madness ends right there. But you have to do it, and threaten with more…
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Okay, we get it. “Oh, the humanity.”
Maybe we should just give them our nukes. You know, for safekeeping. To make sure we don’t go crazy or something. Because I’ll be honest – you seem more worried about our retaliation than the fact that one of our cities had been turned into radioactive rubble.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 11:30 PM
It rhymes with “pecka.”
Brilliant minds like Robert Spencer and Tom Clancy argue against it because it will unify the rest of the muslim world against us. I ask, what are the “moderate” muslims doing now to help contain those who are “perverting” their “religion?” I say nothing, because the terrorists are acting within the parameters of the Qu’ran.
This is yet another situation that calls for unconditional surrender. In WWII, the emporer was divine to the Japanese people who used the same kamikaze tactics as today’s muslims.
The war on terror has been going on since the Carter years. If it is allowed to bleed out another 30 years, we will lose because of demographic shifts and the left wing/terrorist alliance.
Surely, Allah will protect the most holy site of Islam.
Wake up people! These camel humpers believe they are going to hell if they get within a few feet of a piece of pork. It mandates a pilgrinage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime. This is not a religion but a false ideology akin to emporer worship immersed in a cult of death.
Valiant on May 8, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Because I’m sure the people who nuked us care so much about how many innocent lives are killed (innocent lives of a country that might not even be theirs).
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Estimates of the “extremists” are as much as 200 million. How many more would join the cause. It wouldn’t matter at that point – we would lose most of our major population centers in the retaliations.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:31 PM
I truly believe, that when push comes to shove, Americans will eat sh*t before relinquish their freedom.
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:31 PM
To nuke Mecca would be a mistake. The whole point of using a nuke is to make the death toll unbearable for the enemy, which is what it did to the Japanese.
There’s no way it would have that effect on the jihadis. Lets face it, as much as we’d all like to see people get vaporized on a mass scale after something like that, nukes just might not be the way to go.
Anyways, I’m in NYC which would most likely be the target of a terrorist nuclear attack. You’ll all be breathing me in by the time you figure out what to do…
Verbal Abuse on May 8, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Of course it would be just. It would be imbecilic to suggest that we not respond in kind or to an even greater degree. Anything less would be an open invitation for the same bad actors or other bad actors to repeat their action, thus creating the same or a worse level of destruction, only in a different place.
Simple.
hillbillyjim on May 8, 2007 at 11:33 PM
No, you don’t get it. If you got it you’d know that I’m arguing against nukes primarily for the reason that it is likely not to solve anything and cause more harm than good.
You realize this is a hypothetical question, right? Should I have prefaced my post with a statement about how mad I am at the person/organization/government who nuked one of our cities in this hypothetical situation?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:34 PM
So what’s your answer? Harsh language? A UN resolution?
If a U.S. city was destroyed by a nuclear explosion using a weapon from a specific country (yes, Mr. Obvious, I’m aware this is hypothetical) what would be your response?
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I don’t think so. I think you are underestimating the utterly enormous political, economic, and social devastation this whole nuclear scenario will unleash.
The world will be forever changed for the worse once the first nuclear weapon is detonated.
You picture the US absolutely flipping out and nuking half the planet, a la “Threads,” with China (!) standing up as the voice of reason. Neither scenario is plausible.
My money is on the USA to both restrain ourselves from destroying the entire planet, and leading the reconstructive efforts in the horrific aftermath.
IrishEi on May 8, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Some seem to be looking for the one hour television show solution for what would be an enormously complicated situation. I can remember during the Cuban missile crisis when my Dad bought a short wave radio just in case it all went to hell. Fortunately Kennedy managed to save it from unraveling into the abyss.
Bradky on May 8, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Nonfactor, you don’t have to worry. I told you already. You’ll be locked up in Gitmo. No Human Rights!
Ropera on May 8, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Think of the problem in this terms. Why dont we hear of Israel feeling the threat of a smuggled nuke into its lands ?
Israel has as many reasons if not more to worry about an Islamic attack. In fact it would be easier to nuke a city in Israel than in the US because smuggling a bomb would mean less distance to do so.
And why does a Sudanese Muslim or a Indonesia muslim so hate Israel ? One reason because the magic kingdom is within Israeli missile strike distance.
If a nuke goes off in haifa or Tel Aviv it isnt damascus or Cairo that they will retaliate against. Its mecca itself that is the number one target of Israel.
and that thought terrifies the Muslims to the point they want to committ genocide on the Israelis. Nothing scares them more than that thought.
Its the loss of Mecca that spooks muslims and only that
William Amos on May 8, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Have you even read the rest of my posts in this very thread? Just read my first post, that’s all I ask, before you start asking stupid questions. But, I can’t give you that much credit, sadly.
If a government nuked one of our cities I’d suggest we take out that government, something we are perfectly capable of doing without the use of nuclear weapons.
And a side question: Does anybody think that a foreign country could nuke the United States for a “just” reason?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Sorry, don’t buy it.
First off, you have to get a nuke, and deliver it.
Timothy McVeigh had neither the knowledge of capability of doing so.
If NK does it? we’d know it… we know what materials they have, and by the way, their little nuke last year fizzled because of basic physics.
And I never said you would have to Nuke at all… the very THREAT worked in the Cold War. It wouldn’t have to be a knee jerk right now kind of response… we could wait days if needed to make sure it was them… then strike…
But as I said… we need to make the threat, and make it credible so the Intelligent Moslems will reign in the crazies… right now our silly don’t hurt the civvys attitude does not give them any incentive to risk the wrath of jihadists… we need to make them more afraid of us, then the crazies…
Romeo13 on May 8, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »