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

[-Cp]

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

 

[Annie]

 

[no1tovote4]

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?

 

[Gabriella84]

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?

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

 

[Gabriella84]

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.

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.

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

 

[Annie]

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.

So you ARE saying that all Muslims are involved in 'their cause'?

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

So here Gabby you are stereotyping all Muslims into one group. I thought the regular "peaceful" Muslims were logical people...

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

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.

 

[Gabriella84]

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

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

 

[Mr. P]

...
Threatening the Islamic extremists with nuclear holocaust will do you zero good. ...

You're correct, we need to launch a few..A threat is nothing.

They are fully prepared to die en masse for their cause.

Yep, get most of em in one place first.

One of the tenets of Islam is that Allah will smite the planet of evil, leaving only "good" (them) to repopulate.

All the more reason to NUC em!

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

Not true..these guys don't have ICBMs..They "may" have dirty bombs..Big bang etc..not much else.

 

[no1tovote4]

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?

I can expect them to actually arrest and aggressively go after terrorists rather than to support them. Telling them what to do? Any government does that, it is called laws. If the Palestinians are unwilling to turn in the terrorists for fear of retaliation, and because of implied support through silence, we must take a different tactic to the tables. Until they are willing to police their own we cannot effectively offer a solution to Terrorism.

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.

However they do vote in the Imams and leaders of their Mosques, that they vote in ones that will support terrorist action tells much of the way that they are "peaceful".

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.

I fully understand it, that you cannot encompass the idea that they will actually have a better chance at policing terrorist activity is simply wishful thinking.

After all of this time we finally have one, and only one, Fatwah that speaks against the terrorist action. Steps are finally happening to make it not only socially acceptible, but possible to actually stop the Terrorists where they are made, at the Mosque.

If the peaceful Muslims work to take back their religion from those leaders that support terrorism we can "win". To say we should not work to coerce such action is simply an unworkable strategy that has already failed. It was only after Blair began taking actions such as searching Muslim neighborhoods that the Fatwah was finally issued against terrorism. Regular Muslims are beginning to understand that this Terrorism has a consequence directly to all Muslims.

 

[Gabriella84]

I give up. Too many of you are too dim to understand such a complex issue.

All the more reason to NUC em!

Not true..these guys don't have ICBMs..They "may" have dirty bombs..Big bang etc..not much else.

No one knows exactly what they have. We do know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Other Middle Eastern countries also may have nuclear weapons.

No we really WANT to play Nuclear Chicken? Are you really willing to sacrifice a large part of Western Society in order to obliterate some part of Islam? Are you really that stupid?

Anyone willing to risk a nuclear exchange just to exercise their hate needs to volunteer as a suicide bomber. That is the real way to go. Sneak yourself into some militant Islamic strongpoints and blow yourself up. We will all respect your sacrifice.

 

[Annie]

I give up. Too many of you are too dim to understand such a complex issue.







No one knows exactly what they have. We do know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Other Middle Eastern countries also may have nuclear weapons.

No we really WANT to play Nuclear Chicken? Are you really willing to sacrifice a large part of Western Society in order to obliterate some part of Islam? Are you really that stupid?

Anyone willing to risk a nuclear exchange just to exercise their hate needs to volunteer as a suicide bomber. That is the real way to go. Sneak yourself into some militant Islamic strongpoints and blow yourself up. We will all respect your sacrifice.

Your cute dancing is wearing thin. You have yet to answer any that have asked you questions about your post. They answer yours, whether you like their answers or not is certainly up to you. But it would be real great if you would stop with the condescension, since most of their posts are much more logical than yours.

 

[Gabriella84]

What questions? Known Islamic countries has nuclear weapons. They also have access to conventional weapons that can be converted to nuclear. They have access to ICBMs.
What else do you want me to answer?

 

[Annie]

What questions? Known Islamic countries has nuclear weapons. They also have access to conventional weapons that can be converted to nuclear. They have access to ICBMs.
What else do you want me to answer?

Do you read the threads, or just post for effect?

 

[Mr. P]

I give up. Too many of you are too dim to understand such a complex issue.







....

Young Lady, I worked with Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons 10 years before you were born. Don't tell me I don't understand a complex issue..I know better than most what
is involved here. Tis you that has no clue.

 

[Gabriella84]

Young Lady, I worked with Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons 10 years before you were born. Don't tell me I don't understand a complex issue..I know better than most what is involved here. Tis you that has no clue.

If you are so familiar with ground burst damage, radiation saturation and the lasting effects of nuclear fallout, why would you be advocating exchanges of nuclear weapons? Do you have a death wish? Or do yu merely want to kill as many people as possible before you die?

 

[Gunny]

If you are so familiar with ground burst damage, radiation saturation and the lasting effects of nuclear fallout, why would you be advocating exchanges of nuclear weapons? Do you have a death wish? Or do yu merely want to kill as many people as possible before you die?

I'm LMAO. Your condecension is a joke; esepcially when you aren't even arguing the topic. You were even told this one already by another poster.

It isn't "is this a viable option," it's "we've been hit, what's our response?"

Wake up. They aren't going to hit the nuclear test facilities in NM. They'll hit US cities inhabitted by millions of innocent US citizens -- the people YOU live with.

And you just want to try some sideways lecture on the effects of nuclear weapons. If they hit us, we retaliate, simple as that. If they take out a fourth to a third of our major cities/populations, who gives a rat's ass how many of them we blow up?

 

[archangel]

If you are so familiar with ground burst damage, radiation saturation and the lasting effects of nuclear fallout, why would you be advocating exchanges of nuclear weapons? Do you have a death wish? Or do yu merely want to kill as many people as possible before you die?

Studies that were done after the two Nuclear blasts in H&N Japan showed the only residual damage by fallout was in the immediate area of the blast...no residual effects outside the immediate blast area(approx 1/2 mile) So if tactical nukes are used by terrorist in the US the results would be the same.... as the mega is about the same!

People are just expressing their thoughts if radical Islam allows this to happen...and what our response should be...thats it in a nutshell...and I still agree that if we are hit... equal force should be felt in Islams home base...
:ali: rules no more I say!