In the event of a nuclear attack , all of our options stink

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by -Cp, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    In the event of a nuclear attack , all of our options stink

    By James Lileks


    One step forward: A group of British imams issued an honest-to-Allah fatwa against suicide bombers. According to the clerics, terrorists are not acting in the name of true Islam and will ride a hot, slick razor blade straight to hell. Good; more, please.

    Alas, there's also one step back: In the same news cycle Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., mused on a radio show about his preferred response to a nuclear attack on America: bombing Mecca.

    No doubt Osama bin Laden did a jig after hearing that. As a recruitment tool, it's better than learning that George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon are running to Canada to get married.

    Tancredo's supporters could say we need a few fellows who sling the loose talk, the better to concentrate the mind of the enemy on the swinging noose. After all, the foreign press is one of those places where the term "American congressman" actually commands some respect. What's the harm?

    Plenty.

    Bombing Mecca to revenge the acts of maniacs is like nuking the Vatican to protest the pedophilia scandal in Boston. The idea appeals to those whose nuanced study of Islam makes them conclude it's better to alienate 1 billion people than defeat a fraction of the same group. It appeals to those who believe that Islam is a metal shard that cannot be absorbed and must be removed, preferably by blowing up the body. And burying the remains in pig skins! That'll learn 'em!

    It's the mirror image of the politically correct conceit that holds Islam blameless for the terrorists who act in its name, as if there's nothing in the Quran but sweetness and light toward the infidel. Both groups are wrong; both groups' misapprehension of the situation will get the rest of us killed.

    Tancredo gets points for facing the grim question: How does one respond to a nuclear event on American soil? The horrible imperatives of war demand that you respond, lest anyone get the idea that the United States is just a dead carcass propped in the corner, food for any jackal.

    You could hit the nations that have concluded it's still safe to kill Americans. Iran comes to mind. Syria still seems gripped with a nagging case of the Stupids. Our dear bosom friends the Saudis still spread that old Wahhabi lovin' all across the globe and here at home. But do we really want to incinerate Tehran? You'll probably find more people in Tehran who dearly love America than you'll find in San Francisco.

    It's come to this: Some say we have to destroy Islam in order to save it. Or us. Whatever.

    But just imagine nuking Tehran 10 months after an attack, after the CIA concludes Iran helped with the bomb that was dropped on us. ("Sorry about the WMD thing, but this time you can trust us. If we're wrong, well, we'll all take early retirement. Seriously.") The world would see it as coldblooded murder. The world, for once, would be right.

    There aren't any good options. They all stink. It'll take regime change in Syria, a revolution in Iran and a true come-to-Eissa moment in Saudi Arabia to get us past this mess. And we need all that to happen, oh, next week.

    In the meantime, we need more big-name mullahs willing to disavow the raving clerics, more average Muslim Brits who'll drop a euro on their fanatical mosque-mates.

    And much less loose talk of Tancredo's variety. Thanks to idiot politicians and clueless media figures, our recent PR record is rather mixed, you know. "Uh, we don't flush Qurans, despite what those other guys said. But we're considering nuking Mecca. But this isn't a war on Islam. Sort of. Yet."

    Tancredo is a popular fellow on the right for his immigration stance, appealing to those who find Bush deaf and clueless on the issue. Providing he apologizes, this incident shouldn't discredit his concerns over border security. After all, if that nuke doesn't come in by cargo container, it'll be hauled over the southern border.

    But if he wants to be president? Roll the anti-Goldwater daisy-picking holocaust ads, and goodbye to all that.




    http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/12174006.htm
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    :clap: :clap:
     
  3. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    While I like Tom, he is my rep, I still get irritated with the fact that nobody mentions that Bush already has answered the question of the response to Nuclear attack issue. He stated that if the US was attacked with Nuclear material on US soil he would answer by bombing N. Korea, Iran, and Syria with Nuclear devices. He also stated that there may be warnings, but that it was unlikely that there really would be.

    Why am I the only person who seems to remember this?
     
  4. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I certainly enjoy the complete idiocy of anyone planning "options" to nuclear war. As well as those who believe nuclear war is "winnable."
    Albert Einstein said it best:

    "The third world war will be fought with nuclear weapons. The fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones."

    A full nuclear exchange would decimate a full two-thirds of North America. Modern nuclear weapons, which are meant to detonated as cloud bursts, would immediately destroy everything within 10 square miles. Second-stage fallout, at an average radiation exposure of 50 rads per hour, kills everyone exposed within three to seven days.
    The resulting nuclear winter would contaminate anything on the surface, down to a depth of six to eight inches. That includes soil and ground water. So you have no chance to grow crops for at least a year. Pretty much all farm animals would have been killed or contaminated during the initial blast and resulting fallout.

    Cloud burst detonations would totally destroy your electrical field and contaminate your gas supplies. You will be stuck with living in a country with no electricity, little food and water, very little health care and primitive living conditions.

    So big boys, still want to throw nukes at the enemy?
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    Gabby, the answer was in response to the question of if we were attacked by nukes on our soil.

    This is in answer to what has already happened, not a plan of attack.

    MAD (mutually assured destruction) is a concept that worked during the cold war, I believe that this is an attempt to apply the same thing in a differnt way. In effect an effort to tell them to police themselves because if this type of thing happens all options are on the table and the price is too high to ignore the warning.

    If you are saying we should not plan a response to a Nuclear attack then you are being naive and deliberately hypocritical. If such an attack came and no plan of response had been made not only you but all on the board would be calling for the President's head on a platter.

    This war will not be won by plugging every hole in the seive, that is impossible. In order to win we must get the "peaceful" Muslims to police the terrorists themselves or no action of ours can win. This will not happen until the price for the implied support of silence is too high. We must make them take direct action to police their own religious zealots or we can only rely on more attacks.
     
  6. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    There is already a "plan of attack." We have almost 500 nuclear missile silos in our country. We also have multiple plans and ships with nuclear capability.
    Threatening the Islamic extremists with nuclear holocaust will do you zero good. They are fully prepared to die en masse for their cause. One of the tenets of Islam is that Allah will smite the planet of evil, leaving only "good" (them) to repopulate.

    Like I said, if the attack comes, few will be left to call for anyone's head on a platter. Including the President.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    So you ARE saying that all Muslims are involved in 'their cause'?
     
  8. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    So here Gabby you are stereotyping all Muslims into one group. I thought the regular "peaceful" Muslims were logical people...


    It is doubtful that they would be able to stop a standing order from taking effect even if the President was taken in the attack.

    As I stated before it appears you are deliberately ignoring what can happen to make yourself feel better by attacking what you think of as political opposition. In other words, what exactly do you think the response to such an attack should be. What standing orders would you issue to the Military in the event of such an attack?

    A little foresight can go a long way, and an understanding of the fact that our enemies already are in a religious war and nothing we can do will stop that. The cost must be to the people who are not in the war, the "regular" Muslims that we must coerce into policing their own at all cost. Without the "peaceful" Muslims policing their own there can and will be no end to Terrorism.
     
  9. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    What you are failing to grasp is the disparity between the Muslim factions. That is like another country telling the U.S. that we need to reign in all our criminals.
    The peaceful Israelis can do little to control the hardliners. Same with the Palestinian cause. How can you expect the establish PLO government to tell independent groups like Hamas and Hezbollah what to do?

    Unlike Western secular governments and religions, Islam is not based around one central leader. There are numerous Muslim clerics scattered throughout the world. They don't necessarily listen to each other. Some are peaceful, some are radical. bin Laden or any of his clan are NOT the "leaders" of Islam. They are simply focal points of certain groups.
    Islam is a very complex religion. Most are peaceful. Unless provoked, they would die without a struggle. Simply because they believe that they will return to a better existance.

    Not that I expect you to understand any of this.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Too bad, have to give rep to others. Here you are again, condescending when your argument doesn't hold. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page