Mitt: Nuke me and I’ll nuke you back
posted at 3:30 pm on September 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A gimme question which he answered correctly, of course. I’m posting it not because it’s newsworthy in itself but because it’d be nice to push this subject onto the national agenda and have Hillary, Obama, and Silky enjoy a golden deer-in-the-headlights moment when someone finally broaches it with them.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says that if terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city while he was president he would retaliate “in a very dramatic and clear way.”…
“The answer is you would retaliate and you’d retaliate in a very dramatic and clear way. I don’t want to be terribly more specific than that,” the former Massachusetts governor said.
“But there’s no question that people understand that the reason that we have the thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads we have is that we intend to protect ourselves. And I would never shrink from protecting the American nation, the American people, nor shrink from retaliation if somebody used something as awful as a nuclear device. We will be safe.”
The key is preventing nuclear proliferation, Romney said. He cited Iran, which has been accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge its leaders have denied while claiming it’s interested only in a nuclear energy program.
I wrote about this subject a few months ago but I’ll pose the exit question again: If it happens and you can’t ID the perpetrators, what do you do?
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 Next »
Nuke Iran.
Bugler on September 1, 2007 at 3:15 PM
The liberal answer would be to snivel, dither, whine, self-flagellate and urge the international community to do something about it.
My take is you play the odds. If you don’t know exactly who the perpetrators are, you go with whatever intel you have, pick the most likely sponsor country, and light up its major military centers and its capital. It’s not a great option, but it’s a much worse option, in my opinion, to display anything less than utter ruthlessness in the face of a nuclear attack.
Or, if you wanted to get really nasty, nuke the single largest population center in each Middle-Eastern country known to sponsor terrorism. I know you might not like that scenario, AP, but you did ask. Again, I think the only response is complete ruthlessness, unless you want it happening again.
As an aside, if terrorists detonated a nuclear weapon in a U.S. city, and we did not retaliate with overwhelming vengeance, I think that would signal the death of the United States and Western civilization. It would show there is no longer any will to live or survive as a nation or culture.
Insomniac on September 1, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Don’t forget Syria and maybe North Korea
Defector01 on September 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I can’t answer that question, because it’s one of the things you threaten to ban people for.
RightWinged on September 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I think this is at least part of the reason we invaded Iraq. Someone’s getting their butt kicked for an assault on the United States. Iraq made a lot of strategic sense.
see-dubya on September 1, 2007 at 3:34 PM
One option, drop one. If you don’t the world will drop more on you. If you do they’ll just hate you. Drop where? Anywhere.
Limerick on September 1, 2007 at 3:34 PM
No, you can go ahead and make the strategic argument for nuking Mecca in this thread if you like. It’s beyond silly but as a genuine intellectual argument, it’s permissible. I just don’t like when people use it as a sort of angry catch-all synonym for “kill all Muslims.” That sort of rhetoric isn’t allowed.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM
This is why it is important to have a doctrine whereby any nuclear attack on America, of a terrorist variety, will be attributed to certain arabic nations, regardless of circumstances. That will force those nations to use their resources to reign in the terrorists lest one of them cause the destruction of an arab land.
Right now, no arab nation has any vested interest in stopping terrorism. In fact, they finance terrorism. That needs to change. We need to give them a vested interest in the safety or the west. They need to understand that a nuke in NYC is the same as a nuke in Mecca. If they understand the equation like that, I imagine the likes of al-qaeda will simply disappear in the night. Indeed, if the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Jordan, and Egypt wanted to eliminate terrorism, they could do so almost immediately. And they would do so, if such a doctrine was implemented. They fact that terrorists function is a reflection that those same nations wish them to exist. Make the terrorists the liability of the arab governments, and those arab governments will eliminate them.
Therefore, under such a doctrine, there is no need to identify the culprit.
jihadwatcher on September 1, 2007 at 3:40 PM
http://i9.tinypic.com/4zdtrfd.jpg
Nonfactor on September 1, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Admittedly, I’m asking for trouble with this one.
Allahpundit on September 1, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Perhaps, but it is a significant – and not entirely unrealistic – strategic question.
Insomniac on September 1, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I think Jihadwatcher’s doctrine could be called collectively assured destruction.
Insomniac on September 1, 2007 at 3:45 PM
This is why, I think, Tancredo likes Mecca as a “hostage” target. He’d hold a figurative gun to Mecca’s head and say “Try anything, and the holy site gets it.” A pretty crappy solution, I think. Regardless of who the perpetrator actually was, you’ve just made instant and perpetual enemies out of the world’s eleventy gazillion Muslims.
But, that doesn’t answer the question. So, I suppose a handful of low-yield nukes dropped into the mountainous border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan might send a strong message.
flipflop on September 1, 2007 at 3:46 PM
The threat is enough. One target we could nuke would be a nation, and we better be dang sure we got the right one. If we knew it came from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, we nuke the area without warning. At least they wont be able to occupy that area any longer.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Again I like Tanc’s responce. Tell all the Islamic nutcases out there “hey if you nuke a SINGLE US city then say bye bye to the holy Shrines of Mecca and Medina”
And again I point out I dont suggest a nuke strike on them. Just a conventional missile strike on the shrines itself without targeting the people.
We again are talking about millions of dead or maimed Americans. You can play Clinton and send out police to arrest them (good luck) or you can let your enemies know that their is a price to pay for that kind of attack.
Deterrence is perferable to risk. The MAD polcy is what ket the Soviet Union at bay all those years.
If you remove the risk from such an attack you garauntee it will happen.
I think the question again should be frame as this
“Mr Presidentual Candidate. A Middle Eastern country backing terrorists has given them a nuclear bomb. Do you try and intercept the bomb or do you threaten said country with an attack ?”
William Amos on September 1, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Gotta disagree with ya flipflop. To me that sends the ‘aspirin factory message’. One big city one titanic flash. Jihadwatcher is right. If they think we will blink they will. If they know they will melt they will do everything to stop it.
Limerick on September 1, 2007 at 3:49 PM
I don’t think we’d ever be in that position, we could find approximately who did it, and retaliate accordingly.
Beyond that, we could make a mutually assured destruction policy on terror states, we get hit with a WMD, they get a retaliation X10, might make them a little less brazen about inciting and funding jihad. And assuming that these people were say jihadists living in the West, we follow the money trail and flatten wherever the green came from. You don’t buy nukes on the cheap.
Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Haha, I was only (half) joking… Though one could make the case that we need to just “get on with it”… Pussyfootin’ around with the Islamic world is never going to get us anywhere. We need to tranform the region and it’s thinking, and as we know they’re only training jihadists at younger and younger ages… it’s sad, but I don’t think there’s any way around an all out war eventually.
Leaving or staying in Iraq, does anyone think that conflict is the end to all this? Well, liberals do because they think 9/11 “is in the past, man”. They don’t realize that it was the beginning of a new era… and as Dubya even said time and time again IT’S GOING TO BE A LONG WAR THAT WON’T END UNTIL LONG AFTER HE’S OUT OF OFFICE!
So I was joking with the “nuke Mecca” insinuation, however it’s not that far off in that we’re going to have to deal with all of the countries in the region at some point.
RightWinged on September 1, 2007 at 3:50 PM
You marshall all the forces of the intelligence community to ID them, then if you still can’t ID them, nuke Iran.
This reminds me of what Don Corleone said in The Godfather, that even if a bolt of lightning were to strike one of his surviving sons he would retaliate against his enemies.
infidel4life on September 1, 2007 at 3:51 PM
HAHA.
Theworldisnotenough on September 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Again will point out that Al Queda is made up of jihadists of many countries.
So an malayasian Islamic doesnt care if you nuke a remote corner of Pakistan. Nor does a Saudi Islamicist or an egyptian one.
One thing we should have learned by now is that the whole idea of Al Queda or the war on terrorism isnt a war against a nation but a belief system. We invaded and defeated Al Queda in Afganistan and know what ? They didnt die. We are fighting them in Iraq and know what ? It doesnt matter how many we kill there because it isnt about Iraq or Afganistan or any other territory.
This is a totalitarian march of ideology and liek WWII just defeating Germany didnt end WWII because their allies the Japanese were still fighting.
Only a direct threat to the very core of the ideology is the answer to this question
William Amos on September 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Good one by Mitt, we’ll see if his liberal counterparts get to answer the same question.
I’m still waiting for Hill to asked when was the first time she had sex with Bill and was it consensual.
I should hope that no one in this country would be naive enough to assume Iran would leave us out of the Iranian nuke attack equation, they are not just out to attack Israel.
If something that catastrophic happens the nuclear signature would almost certainly point to the guilty party(s).
The question might be, would Russia or China really, really want to be associated with the perpetrators and in turn share the consequences? Even by the most remote extension?
Speakup on September 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Unless you had some strong evidence pointing towards Iran or Syria, I think you would almost have to choose Mecca. Most of the terrorists attacks outside the Middle East come from the Wahhabist Sunnis funded by Wahhabists from inside Saudi. As of right now the Shiites terrorists have been pretty much contained to the Middle East.
lowandslow on September 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM
I always thought that because the number of terror-supporting countries were too numerous, we invaded Iraq to hold a sort of “terrorist olympics”, since we knew we’d attract jihadis from all over the world and kill ‘em by the score.
Then again, that was just more likely a ‘fortunate’ by-product.
flipflop on September 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
What if a nuke took out NY or Washington DC and we determined it was from our ally Pakistan?
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
I think people are going to try to think rationally about this, but it isn’t realistic. Why would the terrorists that organized a nuclear strike care one bit about whether or not they (or anyone else) dies via retaliation? In a way I agree with Bad Candy — I don’t think there will ever be a situation where we won’t be able to identify where a nuke came from and why, but if there is what good is the threat of retaliation? And if we threaten to retaliate against one enemy what is to say another won’t see this as an opening to attack?
A more realistic question would be “If a known terrorist organization nuked/attacked the United States on U.S. soil what would our response be?” Until said terrorist organization is in complete control of a city any nuclear response will be overkill.
Nonfactor on September 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Agreed 100%
Nonfactor on September 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I imagine if a US city got nuked, any decent leader would say something along the lines of:
“We are going to hunt down and kill every, single, solitary opponent of the United States. We will smoke you out and we will destroy you. We will decimate your power structure and ruthlessly seek you out and cut you down. To the rest of the world, you have three options. The easy way, which is you out every single radical in your communities and hand them over to US authorities or otherwise incapacitate them immediately, the hard way, in which you try and stonewall the US from seeking justice, dooming your own nations to the same fate in the process, or three, the Iranian way, which can be summarized as: I hope you enjoyed Tehran Ahmedinijad, because by the time this broadcast is over, it won’t be there anymore!”
BKennedy on September 1, 2007 at 4:04 PM
IMO nuking Mecca/Medina is a strategic option that the Jihadists must understand is on the table.
infidel4life on September 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM
As with the Cold War, we should have a list of targets drawn up that will be the likely recipients of retaliation in this case. It needs to be stressed that it doesn’t matter if they were “directly” involved, but that they will suffer with the US, no matter.
Along these lines, let me just go along with the idea behind JFK’s explicit threat made on national TV, with regards to Cuba:
In other words, the US was holding the USSR responsible for Cuban actions, whether they affected the US or not. If Cuba had launched a nuke at French Guyana, the USSR would have been hit with a “full retaliatory response”, as if the US had been nuked.
Now, the problem these days is that no one would believe that threat, and there is no deterrence if people don’t believe the threat will be carried out. The US’ actions, and the refusal of people here (in the US) to even want to talk about nuking anyone, combined with our ROE in combat that holds civilians of enemy territory to be as valuable as US citizens (and even more than US military personnel in many cases) serve to render any threats of this type worthless.
One cannot make ruthless threats while declaring ruthlessness to be illegal. This is our dilemma, at the moment. The best way to insure that nukes are used in the future is to declare their use illegal, immoral, … So, without changing our methods of fighting, and making clear to the enemy that we value American lives far, far, far greater than we value their lives, there is little hope for serious threats to be taken seriously.
But, in any case, if we got nuked then I would look at the major problem areas (those countries that have enjoyed their “Death to America” rallies) and nuke them, first off. The arab and persian world would disappear, along with more than a few muslim countries. Maybe not exactly using nukes, but totally destroy them and most of their inhabitants. The oil fields in the gulf would all be taken. And then we’d see what the situation was.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Waiting for the ‘what-about-the-innocents’ argument.
There are no good choices here, only survival choices. That is the only path to take on this one. You pick the target with the most likely connection and send your reply.
If the terrorist explode a nuke the world will do what exactly? Be shocked? Be scared? Sure….and then the wallets will come open and everyone will want to buy their security back by paying ransom. If we explode a nuke it won’t be for ransom, it will be to kill people, and demonstrate the willingness to kill more if need be. Harsh, cruel, evil……play a violin then…..survival. The scenario calls for survival.
Limerick on September 1, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Nuke Mecca, Medina, Teheren, and Qom.
VinceP1974 on September 1, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Yeah sure, but don’t dare even suggest the possibility of nuking Mecca, which happens to be the ONLY thing radical Islamists care about. Why? Because of who said it of course. And never mind that the suggestion wasn’t even to actually DO it, but was in fact only a suggestion to use the THREAT as a deterrent. Pointing that out wouldn’t fit the anti-Tancredo agenda.
One has to wonder if Giuliani or Romney would have been attacked for suggesting the same thing, or if they would have magically been proclaimed to have “answered correctly.”
Gregor on September 1, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Armageddon.
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Excellent.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Exit question answer: You go after everyone was has threatened the Great Satan with annihilation. Words have consequences, especially when accompanied by mass slaughter.
Clark1 on September 1, 2007 at 4:19 PM
LOL, I think you’re right.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM
My answer to your your question:
I would’ve told Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any other appropriate party that if a nuke explodes in the US, then Riyadh goes. If another nuke explodes, Tehran goes bye-bye. If another nuke explodes, Damascus is no more.
That should keep them from supporting nuclear terrorism.
AntonK on September 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Not an Iraq redux.
1. Cripple the jihad infrastructure.
A)Banking, shipping, communications, etc. Create a worldwide paranoia amongst ALL jihadists. Intel, intel, intel!
B) Terrorists need to be detained or killed, loudly, publicly, and as messy as possible. Violate a border just for kicks, then dare the host government to say anything. We already took down Iraq, they’ll play ball.
The sight of an orbiting AC130 will work wonders on the popularity of jihad. Shouldn’t we be doing that already? Our last operation in Africa was only a good start. That kind of operation should be happening monthly. There can’t be anywhere to hide.
After a sending a message to the jihadists and the world. We should scale back and let them look over their shoulders while we gather intel and maintain smaller operations.
2. Be definitive from the beginning.
Any and all nations that celebrate the detonation of a nuke on U.S. soil is immediately on the outs. Our lack of response to the Suadis culturally exporting jihad and attempting to radicalize benign Muslims has been atrocious. Their has not been a real effort to discredit political Islam. The only man willing to o it was John Bolton and now he’s is not in a position to push that agenda.
3. Put the U.N. on notice
The U.N. would need to support us end it support for every anti-U.S. tinpot dictator. Or face a call from the U.S. to fund the U.N. equally between all nations, charge them rent for what is probably the most expensive piece of real estate in the nation.
4. Develop our own economy, and make free trade, you know, free
We are sitting on the largest oil reserve in the world. Shale oil. We do not need the Middle East at all. We can saturate the world supply and become completely self sufficient, and
pull the rug out from under Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and any other oil based nation.
Develop manufacturing in Central America. They can make t-shirts just as well as the Chinese can and we wil have greater control of our textile needs.
Free trade should be exactly that. We need to support unfettered free trade between nations. No tariffs at all. What they can sell to us more cheaply thatn we can make it, U.S. companies can buy as much as they want, and vice versa. That policy would greatly benefit any Latin American nation.
5. End immigration from any country with a significant Muslim community/ Jihad sympathetic.
Post 1865 immigration from Africa did not happen. They were trying to populate Liberia. Right or wrong that attitude will save us from looking over our shoulders at every immigrant froma majority muslims country.
Theworldisnotenough on September 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM
It would be nice; however, only one of them MIGHT get that deer-in-the-headlights moment as the question will not be asked before next fall’s D-v-R Presidential debate season (if it is asked of the D half at all).
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 4:26 PM
One major problem with this approach. All enemies of Riyadh, Tehran, and Damascus would now have motivation to set off nukes in the U.S. It’s much better to find something that is equally distasteful to all of Islam.
Gregor on September 1, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I did consider an alternative punishment
If a nuke goes off in the US and it is shown to be Islamic fundamentalists then I thought about the scenario where we institute a complete air and naval blockade of Saudi Arabia.
No one goes in and no one gets out. We only allow food and medicine to go in.
The important point ? The Hadj can not take place anymore. Mecca is a city where millions go on a pilgramige. If we stop the Haji from happening then Islam is directly affected and we dont have to bomb anyone.
William Amos on September 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
The west has been at war with Islam since 640 AD. There are those who interpret what its holy book says as the obligation to spread Islam to the world by what ever means necessary and to destroy those who will not submit. War has been declared upon us by factions of Islam. If Islam is not able or willing to reform itself, which it will not, then those who do not wish to submit must resist. When an enemy understands there goal cannot be reached and the punishment for attempting that goal is so great as to change their future one can only hope reason will prevail. Men willing to strap bombs to children to serve their God understand only one thing. That is raw violent power. The utter destruction of thier holy sites, the assured annihilation of their population centers will, for a time prevent attacks upon us. If that means 10 megaton air bursts over Mecca and Medina, which would make those places uninhabitable for centuries, so be it.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on September 1, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Insane.
Nonfactor on September 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Hate to quibble, but you’d need ground bursts with enhanced-radiation nuclear weapons to do that. Air bursts, while more-destructive of above-ground structures, do not leave a lot of radiation. Normal nuclear weapons do not leave a lot of long-lasting radiation.
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 4:41 PM
For those for whom a nuclear strike is verbotten, would a conventional retaliation be more to your liking? Would reducing a major city with millions of people in it to ash using convention munitions, a la Dresden, be okay? To me, it makes no difference.
And for those for whom even that is overkill, like our resident leftist troll, what about dropping pork on them? Imagine bomber after bomber filled with pork. Would that be unnacceptable as well? Because to me, that might be the best retaliation of all. Pork to them, is radioactive for their souls.
But something tells me that if NYC was nuked, no president would order a retailation of such a nature. They don’t have the cajones. I think even the pork option would be off the table.
jihadwatcher on September 1, 2007 at 4:44 PM
While I agree with Tancredo as far as he goes, I don’t think his response is adequate. As Ragshaft recently mentioned, Islam has been at war with us for over 14 centuries. Thus, not only should a few nukes fly, but it’s time to do something about the problem. We should invade the muslim countries and kill anyone who won’t convert to another religion or give up religion entirely. I’m not saying that we should have a permanent Inquisition, but I am saying that Islam is a cancer we must excise.
Please note that this is not a repeat of past thought control. In the past, people were forced to accept some piece of intellectual nonsense or another. Here all we are asking is that people don’t believe some nonsense dangerous to the rest us. Think of it this way, we reply to gun control advocates by saying “Guns don’t kill, people do.” Well, people under the influence of Islam do kill.
thuja on September 1, 2007 at 4:48 PM
It has to be the pre-delivered threat to Muslims that, if they will not control their jihadist lunatics themselves, and they allow (through complicity, as sympathetic members of the imperialistic Ummah) their own madmen to strike us with a nuke, then they will have 24 hours to evacuate Mecca.
Then let lose the hounds of thermonuclear clarity.
And witness the Black Rock being blown back into orbit.
Without having this existential-theocratic fear of losing their Holy Site driven into their skulls, beforehand, the Muslim leaders will have nothing to motivate them to stop their own terrorists from hitting us with a nuke.
Nothing can ever restrain the fatalistic lunatics but being caught first, and killed.
Which we cannot do, effeciently, inside Islamic countries as easily as the Muslims can manage it themselves.
This NUKE MECCA consequence forces them to police their own psychotic militants.
Without some DEADLY consequences, they will not take us- or the danger itself- seriously
profitsbeard on September 1, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Sadly, I agree.
infidel4life on September 1, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Since nobody’s answered my question about Pakistan yet, forgive me for a moment while I do:
(Question) What if a nuke took out NY or DC and we determined it was from Pakistan?
(Hypothetical answer) Then we retaliate by nuking city X in Pakistan and/or the tribal areas and/or Mecca.
(Question) But what if the nuke is detonated in our city at some point in the future after Pakistan has a full compliment of nuclear ICBM’s that can reach any part of the US mainland in ~30 minutes?
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Floating Rock-
That’s how Pakistan vanishes.
But is also HIGHLY unlikley, technologically, before a true ABM shield is up from our side.
profitsbeard on September 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM
To answer your question:
Nuke ‘em. Disproportionate response. Iran, Syria, Mecca, any home or place of importance to Islamic extremists. Make sure they know what its like to blow up and not kill infidels at the same time. Same response for a chemical, biological or dirty bomb attack.
Make the cost so high that even suicidal, homicidal psychotic muslims won’t pay. The object, of course, is to prevent such an attack from happening in the first place.
Or, failing that, prevent one from ever happening again.
rakofgor on September 1, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I can’t help wonder what hell would break loose domestically after a nuke attack on a US city. Would it trigger a purge. Remember this?
laelaps on September 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Somehow, I doubt that Pakistan’s ICBMs will be exactly invulnerable. I’m sure you’ve heard the term “counterforce”.
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Sorry, I didn’t mention it, explicitly, but Pakistan was one of the “muslim” countries I was talking about.
Personally, I think that Bush screwed up after 9/11 by not taking care of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, then. It will have to be done, sometime, and I’d rather it be done before we’ve been nuked. There was a possibility that India and Pakistan were going to go nuclear on each other (threats of exterminating tens of millions were being bandied about by both sides, with no one in the world complaining about dead civilians) which would have had the effect of allowing us (or, us allowing ourselves) to tell nations like Iran and North Korea, “That’s it. No more games. Either open up your nuke programs to us, right now, or you disappear,” and after a nuke exchange between Pakistan and India, there wouldn’t be five people left in the US who would disagree with that. But … the world worked hard to keep Pakistan and India at “peace”, so that they can both work on building their arsenals even more. Great.
Instead of waiting for a nuke to hit the US, or Europe, or Israel (which could retaliate on its own), it is a much better course for the US to decide that certain countries cannot have nukes and must give them up, now.
But, with the patsy-cake we’ve been playing with Iran and North Korea and their nuke ambitions, it’s clear to the world that the US doesn’t have the guts or foresight, and there is no reason for any of these rogue nations to worry about us doing anything to them. That is extremely dangerous, for all of us.
Interesting is the fact that Russia hasn’t been mentioned by anyone, myself included – which is the reason that I felt that the correct allies after 9/11 for us were: Russia, Israel, India, and all the usual stalwart US allies. Bush made a horrible mistake, in my opinion, in how he tried to get the whole world on our side (except for Israel, which was totally ignored – which is what spurred the greatest spurt of palestinian suicide bombing ever) which was just idiotic, in my view. But, I guess we’ll see.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Remember it? It’s one of my favorite videos.
infidel4life on September 1, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Al Qaeda, Hamas et al., don’t have the capability to assemble a nuclear bomb. They would have to be provided the device from a government entity. Now good old bin Laden may not care if we retaliated against Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other country, but the one who provided the device should care. Personally I believe at the rate we as a world are going this Earth only has a shelf life of about 10 years left.
SPIFF1669 on September 1, 2007 at 5:13 PM
SPIFF1669-
SP, people have been saying that for 1000 years, now.
Earth, and humanity, are doggedly resilient.
profitsbeard on September 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM
True, but things are qualitatively different today than they were for most of history, and many different people have their hands on triggers. I don’t envision the end of mankind, but the resilience you are speaking of is best found in our race into space, which is (should be, IMO) the most important pursuit of man, now, for all the reasons listed in the posts above – besides the fact that growth and progress demand that we move into space.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 5:27 PM
progressiveoverpeace-
Agreed.
NASA and all Presidents since Ford have betrayed our destiny in the stars.
Don’t put all of your genotype on one planet
(to upgrade the “eggs”/nest” metaphor).
profitsbeard on September 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Hear, Hear.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Not being privy to the intelligence regarding Pakistan’s development of ICBM’s and whether the missile shield will be adequate to the task, I can only hope that you’re correct. However, in order for us to have the best chance of survival possible, I sure hope that we are dedicating many times as many resources toward our missile defense program as we feel is necessary to stay WAY out in front of Pakistan’s ICBM capabilities, as well as other rogue nations.
Absolutely. I’m all for the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign, although I don’t agree with the overall strategy and tactics, but they are not the end of the war, only the beginning. So far we’ve been avoiding the hard targets while those targets have been getting harder. So many people talk about the “long war”, but nobody has ever explained to me how they could possibly know how “long” we have before Jihadis get their hands on deliverable WMDs or until Islamic nations have their own ICBM’s that can reach the USA or Europe, and thus stay our hand in the WOT through MAD.
We seem to be planning on complete and total dependence on a missile shield, which is fine so long as it works and we have enough confidence to rely on it if needed.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I agree with your post. I love this line:
Short. Direct. True.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM
In answer to the exit question. There is no correct answer.
We would be able to identify the source country for the radioactive material. But so what? What if the source is Russia? Do we start a war with Russia because terrorists either bought or stole nuclear material? I would say no. What if the source was anybody but Iran? Again the answer would likely be no. So what to do?
I think that those who have said that holding Mecca as a hostage is the most viable solution. In order for this to be a deterrent though it must be stated that any attack on America will be viewed as an ISLAMIC attack which would require an ISLAMIC punishment.
This needs to be stated policy BEFORE an attack happens. Even if it’s not stated as formal policy I would still defer to the Islamic attack warrants an Islamic punishment. Put the pressure on the Muslims for a change.
The destruction of Mecca would go a long way towards the downfall of Islam since all Muslims are required to go there at least once if possible. Many muslims may look elsewhere for salvation if their afterlife is in jeopardy.
In any event Islam needs to be reclassified as a cult. Not a religion. I think one rule requiring a belief system to be recognized as a religion is that it MUST NOT be a threat to anyone. Believer or not. PERIOD. If a belief is a threat to anyone it is a cult. No discussion needed.
Guardian on September 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
i don’t think that we need to “nuke” that many places.
you see these guys have a habit of assembling in various buildings about 10:00 am on friday mornings to work themselves up into a frenzy for the tv cameras.
we have had for about 15 years bombs that are accurate enough to literally fly in the front door of all of these places and then put the entire place on the ground. a B52 at altitude could put one in the front door, one in the side door, one in the back door you get my drift?
so we have a huge mob “seething” about something and one of our “fast flyers” [they can literally fly faster than a speeding bullet] goes over really fast and dumps what amounts to five or six tons of one oz. fishing weights on the crowd and then we see what happens. [they used to call them "Lazy Dogs" and the various groups that pursue their politics as mobs in the street managed to get them banned, but war is war so wth.]
have you seen fragmentation bombing and its results?
then there is good old napalm. very good crowd control tool.
and so we have a bunch that is driven by demagogues that “whip up the troops” and threaten us with them. they don’t have many “weapons of war” but are very good at propaganda.
i have outlined 4 methods of killing literally millions of opponents if they are dumb enough to concentrate that have nothing to do with radioactive aftermath. all of these weapons that i have mentioned are old technilogy and many of them are still in warehouses as i speak. they are “weapons of war”.
yes the islamic countries have weapons of formal warefare but that is where the united states excells. our military looks forward to the opportunity to demonstrate their skills against a worthy opponent.
i would speculate that on the atomic bombing of an american city the “rules of engagement” would be off.
in that scenario the great crowds on the streets would be a definate disadvantage to the mullaaas and various other screamers and shouters.
C
pk on September 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I agree. On the other hand, we’re just dumb enough that we would take the Jihadis with us. :)
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
In Tom Clancy’s book, “The Sum of all Fears” the point is presented that every plutonium based nuclear device has a chemical fingerprint. That each process that produces plutonium has within it chemical impurities that will identify the source of that plutonium. I do not know if this is fact or fiction. If true, I would presume that a similar chemical analysis of the nuclear fallout from a detonation of a uranium based device would also identify the source of the uranium.
If true, this would identify the source of the material, and probabilities for the builder. It might not identify who carried out the attack, nor who supported the effort.
As
posted:
At that point, you make it clear to the head of state of every government on the planet, that you intend to identify, locate, and kill or capture, the men responsible for the organization of that attack; the financiers, the recruiters, the trainers, those who supplied logistics support, and the man, or group of men who gave the order for the attack.
You make it clear that there is not one inch of this planet where these men can find sanctuary. You make it clear that no government will be allowed to interfere with our efforts to identify, locate and capture these men.
You make it clear that any government, any nation that attempts to interfere with our retribution will be destroyed.
Then you do it.
You don’t have to know who did it. Anyone who doesn’t help us find these madmen dooms themselves.
rockhauler on September 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM
The same exact thought crossed my mind. Muslims are going to demand to be included in space colonies and that is where the line is going to have to be drawn by someone with guts and brains. Not to paint all muslims as terrorists, but anyone who would let that ideology escape the Earth’s atmosphere is just asking for major trouble to follow mankind into the future. We already sent a Saudi into space, for some stupid reason that I will never understand.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM
This response is exactly why we continue to lose to animals who still live in the stone age. Perhaps we should all sit down over tea?
Gregor on September 1, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I understand your position, but that’s not good enough. You are thinking as an individual, coming from an individualistic society. But our enemies (arab/persian/muslim) are not individualistic, they are tribal, and the punishment must be tribal in nature. It is not good enough to punish those responsible. The societies that they came from must suffer worse (much, much worse) than what the US suffered. The response must be, as was already mentioned by rakofgor, DISPROPORTIONATE, and hugely so.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Well, how did the allies get rid of Nazis? They didn’t kill all the Nazis, they just killed enough of them until anyone in their right mind didn’t want to be a Nazi. If Muslims nuked us, we would probably employ the same tactic.
I really, really, really hope it doesn’t come to that.
Little Boomer on September 1, 2007 at 5:59 PM
I think the question is kinda a non sequiter. Nukes, as opposed to dirty-bombs, are very hard to assemble. In fact, that is one of the few things a government does well. So if we get hit with a nuke it will be traceable to a government which will shortly cease to exist.
If we truly have no clue how a nuke was detonated in one of our cities, then I would say the struggle has already been lost. Barring that, swift and unrelenting force against the offenders and their allies until they are no more.
VolMagic on September 1, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Yes. I’ve been calling for this for years, though I would classify islam as a political ideology, like Communism.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Rather than killing a city full of clueless people, I would use the brief period of sympathy we would get in the world to sieze oil fields and throw the bums out. We could maintain that sympathy by selling the oil cheaply to any country that assists us.
This way we don’t make martyrs of them. Plus we make it clear that Allah no longer favors them and they need to make their human sacrifices to some other idol.
pedestrian on September 1, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I take the ‘Big Jake’ (John Wayne) approach;
The shrines (not the towns) at Mecca, Medina (plus the Fatima al-Masumeh Shrine at Qom, Iran) all go bye-bye with massive, but precision targeting. Not nukes. Conventional weapons. That is the first step. And it must be officially and widely and loudly announced NOW.
This isn’t to be done for revenge; it is as a deterrent When your enemy WANTS to die for Allah and the 72 virgins, threatening to take his life is useless…. So you threaten to take the only things in this world that he does value. And that will also pressure the ‘good’, ‘moderate’ muslims to try to keep their more fundamentalist brethren from doing anything rash.
After that, We try to determine who is actually responsible…. (We can take our time after the initial, immediate response on the shrines) …. If it is an actual State sponsor, their Capital gets Hiroshima-ed X 50.
Any further attacks against ANY American target, and the vital infrastructure of that state sponsor gets destroyed nation wide.
If we can’t prove (to our own satisfaction, not to the UN’s or ICC’s satisfaction) a State Sponsor, We go back to what ‘Bushie-poo’ said after 9-11; Either you are with us or you are are with them,…. Only this time, mean it. We target every terrorist organization that we can track down everywhere. If the governments won’t help us sort them out the easy way, we will sort it out the hard way, and any collateral damage is just tough noogies.
LegendHasIt on September 1, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Amen to that…jr. LOL
boomer on September 1, 2007 at 6:27 PM
You people know that the Democrats are trying to de-fund the missile-defense program don’t you? Why isn’t that being hotly debated? Oh, I remember, we let the Dems set the agenda on everything – sorry, I forgot the rules.
drunyan8315 on September 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM
The Three Conjectures.
georgej on September 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Can we vaporize said shrines with conventional weapons? If so, then I could live with that.
steveegg on September 1, 2007 at 7:06 PM
I just want to add that I think it more likely that we are going to be presented with the situation of someone else being hit by WMD, on a truly grand scale, first. The question should be what our reaction will be to that, since that would obviously bring the state of the world to a widely acknowledged unacceptable position – which 9/11 only did for a short time, and which we wasted, IMO. But if Europe is hit, which I think far more likely, what will we do – both at home and abroad?
And what about Russia? In both cases.
I think that we have treated Russia poorly since 9/11. It is a superpower (the only one able to physically extinguish us) and should have been a natural ally after 9/11 (given its own problems with jihadis). I would be wary, as Roosevelt and Churchill were, but I think that Russia needs to be treated like the powerful country that it is. I never understood this “sole superpower” talk after the fall of the USSR. The nuclear arsenal remained, and the sub fleet remained (degraded as it is). And we just ignored them and complained about the poor Chechens every so often. I just never understood this.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 7:07 PM
RE: Tribal support.
When the insane madmen who ordered the attack are identified, or even before, when ‘tribes’ or governments interfere with our attempts to identify and locate the individuals responsible, those same tribes or governments then suffer total destruction.
In my previous post, it was my final point. When you don’t help us, you become the enemy, and we will destroy you; tribe, neighborhood, government, nation, region.
I was expecting someone to ask me if it was a large and power full nation, such as Russia, or China, or what about 4 billion Muslims then what.
My though was gather up your courage, pray to God for mercy for what you are about to do, and pull the trigger. [push the button, give the launch order].
If a nuke is detonated in the United States, at that instant
everyone on the planet will choose sides.
I hope, and pray, that if this should actually happen, that our president would have the courage to exterminate our enemies, where ever they might be found, and in what ever numbers.
rockhauler on September 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
They’re finding more parts of Herod’s second temple in Jerusalem. So we should also help Israel by tearing down the Al-Aqsa mosque and let them continue with their restoration.
pedestrian on September 1, 2007 at 7:14 PM
every once in a while you have to beat your enemies like a gorilla playing drums.
coondawg on September 1, 2007 at 7:19 PM
I think that NY is worth far more than Mecca. If they nuke us and we respond by merely destroying a few religious sites or by seizing some oil fields, we are devaluing ourselves in the eyes of the world and the entire strategy will not be nearly as successful in preventing such a scenario from occurring in the first place. The ratio should not even be 1:1; it should be 2:1 or better and then multiply from there. The entire point of the strategy is to scare the enemy out of their minds so that they will be to paralyzed with fear to continue their Jihad.
And if Islamists nuke a US city, why should we be concerned about creating some martyrs in response? Again, the point of all this is to that the enemy should be far more afraid of turning any of us into martyrs than the other way around. After a nuke goes off in an American city, if the enemy wants to be martyred, bring it on, baby! The more the merrier! The opposite puts us at a disadvantage and ensures our own martyrdom.
(Holy cow: I just tried to post this and it said I wasn’t allowed to post comments on this site! Banned? Then I refreshed and realized that my sign-in period had elapsed. Whew!)
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Good question! You should send that into Fox News and we can hope they’ll actually ask the question.
Back in 1999 there was a primary debate between McCain and Bush. Ted Koppel asked his viewers at the time to send in their email questions that they would like asked during the debate. I considered asking a question about how the two candidates would deal with the rising threat of China, but I decided that Bin Laden was a more immediate threat and asked my question about al Qaeda instead.
Unfortunately there wasn’t a single foreign policy question asked during the entire debate. Not one.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Same thing happened to me. I might not have tried to log back in if I hadn’t seen this.
progressoverpeace on September 1, 2007 at 8:00 PM
LOL! Probably something going on with HA then.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 8:03 PM
“Tit-for-tat” isn’t the way to go when you’re thinking nukes. If you want a nuclear strategy that defends this nation, here it is. Many for One. A modern-day conversion of Mutually Assured Destruction that means “I’ll live, you’ll have a hard time doing the same.”
If it’s not an overt missile launch from a nuclear power, we must assume terrorism is the root of it. Period. I mean…it’s not going to be the Brits, Frogs, EVIL JOOS, Russians, Indians or Chinese.
So, knowing in advance who the most likely perpetrators are, we need to establish a doctrine that will take out major population/revenue centers in nations known to fund and promote terrorism.
Tehran (and port facilities), goodbye. Damascus, smoking hole (along with port facilities). Riyadh, sheet of glass (as well as port facilities). Pyongyang, particles in the wind (again, port facilties included). If you’re feeling snarky, toss Mecca in, although I would not.
The point is, a Many for One stategy ought to make even insane leaders stop and think. MAD is something between the US and Russia (and maybe China). It’s not even close to the imbalance between the US and terrorist-sponsoring nations.
This strategy should also have our enemies fighting with each other to STOP an attack. We all know, every nuke-nation would be falling all over themselves in the UN chambers to deny anything to do with it, so we put enemy nations on notice…if it happens, this is what’s going to happen to you.
Hell, we might as well even publicize the target list if a nuke goes off in the US. That ought to scare the hell out of whoever thinks it might be worth it.
The real key to this strategy is waiting a bit to retaliate. We’d obviously need to wait at least one day to see if the FBI could turn up anything. Once it’s determined “terrorist nuke,” we drop the bombs at our leisure. We can even warn terrorist nations that they have between 90 minutes and 10 days to evacuate target city populations.
Our goal ought not to be kill as many “civilians” as we can in revenge. It ought to be crippling infrastructure for a very long time so they know not to mess with us anymore. People worried about feeding their family when their economy is in shambles are far less likely to worry about “The Great Satan.”
American_Jihadist on September 1, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Some of the comments on this thread, including my own, have help me to understand Russia’s opposition to a missile defense system.
I could not understand that opposition, because I could not believe the United States would ever threaten Russia, or China. I also could not understand why Russia or China would feel threatened by anything done by the United States.
However, the event of a nuclear weapon detonation inside the US, by persons unknown, changes the equations.
Russia or China might want to reject any aggressive demands place on those countries by an aggrieved US, for reasons unrelated to a terrorist attack. Or perhaps even worse might consider a weaken US as vulnerable to threats or even an overt attack. A working missile defense system lowers the effectiveness of those threats.
Since it is widely reported that Ahmadinejad wants Armageddon, that is precisely the last thing we should give him.
Uh.. well.. it would be the last thing, wouldn’t it?
rockhauler on September 1, 2007 at 8:13 PM
RE: logging in again….
If you really want to spike your paranoia,
think nuclear bomb, tracking cookies, electronic surveillance.
Oh, just a caution, don’t put the words “airport” and “bomb” in your emails!
have a nice day
rockhauler on September 1, 2007 at 8:19 PM
My take is you play the odds. If you don’t know exactly who the perpetrators are, you go with whatever intel you have, pick the most likely sponsor country, and light up its major military centers and its capital. It’s not a great option, but it’s a much worse option, in my opinion, to display anything less than utter ruthlessness in the face of a nuclear attack.
No! Vaporising population centres isn’t ruthless, it’s deranged. Ruthlessness would be targeting say Dubai, the financial centre of the Islamic world, miliotary tragets in Iran and Syria, things like that.
If a US President failed to respond they could pretty much say goodbye to their term and then the next US President would respond. That’s why democracy is so dynamic. Failed governments get replaced very quickly, the best example would the springboard effect from Carter to Reagan.
aengus on September 1, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Here’s a slightly harder exit question: What does the US do if Islamic terrorists nuke a city in a European country, say an unreliable ally like Sweden or Belguim?
aengus on September 1, 2007 at 8:25 PM
That’s not really that hard a question…. For me anyway.
We HELP them if they ask REALLY nicely and can guarantee that THEY won’t change their minds when their peace at any price factions start to whine.
And they have to put themselves on a war footing, economically, militarily and politically.
LegendHasIt on September 1, 2007 at 8:37 PM
We have treated Russia much better than they deserve. They (not their people but their politicians and military-industrial complex) have screwed us over every chance they had after 9-11.
In the UN. By selling weapons and weapons technologies to declared enemies of America and the west….
Even at the cost of their OWN long term security and economy.
LegendHasIt on September 1, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Good answer LegendHasIt.
aengus on September 1, 2007 at 8:56 PM
After 9/11 I was also disappointed when we continued carping at Russia about Chechnya. In far too many ways the USA seems to have gone on with business as usual after 9/11. Wouldn’t it have been nice if every country on earth being threatened by the Jihad had come together, at least in this regard, and exclaimed “ENOUGH”? We should also be doing our best to develop a lasting relationship with India. Hopefully we will quietly be installing a missile shield for them at our earliest opportunity.
Also, if China’s belligerence towards Taiwan ever exceeds allowable levels, all of a sudden we should be learning about Taiwan’s first successful underground nuke tests and the corresponding missile tests that can carry the payloads deep into China.
In regard to America’s response to a nuclear Jihad strike in Europe, I honestly haven’t given it too much thought. While I hope that Europe survives Islamism and would be willing to help them out, Europe’s problems are mental in nature and they are the hardest to deal with. I have a feeling that a nuke strike on a European city might be similar to 9/11, in that most everybody would rally together for a bit and express their sympathy while the leftists would try to calculate ways to take advantage of the situation. Eventually everybody would tune out the 24hr news and get back to their favorite TV programs and we’d be back where we started.
How would the USA react to a nuclear detonation in Europe? Hmmm… I think that perhaps our politicians might reluctantly build that fence and finally take some serious action to fix our immigration mess. Perhaps we might start monitoring mosques, although hopefully that’s already being done surreptitiously.
FloatingRock on September 1, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Well, let’s think about that for a minute. Do you believe that the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and a number of other Axis cities, and the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were products of derangement?
Were President Harry S. Truman, Gen. Curtis LeMay, and Cmdr. “Bomber” Harris all deranged?
Were the pilots and airmen that dropped incendiary ordnance on cities with large civilian populations deranged?
I suppose one of the counterarguments would be that Fat Man and Little Boy were not as powerful as current thermonuclear weapons, and the number of civilian deaths would be much higher than a few hundred thousand. That may be. But how does that figure into deciding the strategic legitimacy or value of destroying terrorism-sponsoring nations’ population centers, particularly if a nuclear weapon is detonated in a major population center within the United States?
Insomniac on September 1, 2007 at 9:14 PM
If it happens and you can’t ID the perpetrators, what do you do?
Call Tom Tancredo I believe he had an idea.
Joey1974 on September 1, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »