I have just read the following and then started to wonder what some of the DTR members think of this idea. Wonder if this should be a poll?
-----------------------------------

A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities
Posted: December 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David C. Atkins
2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Back in the days of the Cold War, the U.S. had a nuclear-weapons doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. This doctrine held that if the U.S. were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, we would immediately and without debate counter-attack the homeland of the perpetrator in such a way and with such overwhelming nuclear force as to make the cost of the initial attack too much to bear.

For instance, if the Soviet Union or the Chinese would have attacked us with WMD in the Cold War, we would have counter-attacked at the very least by destroying their 100 largest cities. The theory was that once you have destroyed the 100 largest cities of any society, even an evil empire, that society effectively ceases to exist, perhaps for several generations, thus deterring any WMD attack. Variations of this same nuclear doctrine were held by our Cold War allies and advisories, including the evil empire.

Although gruesome sounding, the beauty of MAD is that it worked. Even though both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, none was ever used. In fact, both sides went to great lengths to establish hardened and redundant command, communication and control systems to prevent the accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons, fearing the dire consequences.

The primary reason MAD worked is because it was simple and unambiguous. Both sides let the other side know in no uncertain terms that a nuclear first strike would be followed immediately by an overwhelming nuclear counter-strike destroying the heartland, culture and society of the attacker. This was a price even the most evil 20th century dictators would not even contemplate.

We now have a new enemy, Islamic terrorism, hellbent to either enslave or destroy us. This enemy is in many ways much harder to cope with than an evil empire. It does not have an army, an economy, an infrastructure, a capital or a state to attack. This enemy refuses to show itself on the field of battle so we can destroy it with our superior weapons and tactics.

However, Islamic terrorism could not exist if it did not enjoy comfort, support and succor from the Islamic societies from which its members are recruited. Besides the overt state support from Syria, Iran, pre-invasion Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, etc., this enemy also enjoys popular support in Islamic states. The popular support of the terrorists is much larger than it is politically correct to discuss in most forums in the West. But, does anyone doubt that bin Laden would be elected dictator-for-life in Saudi Arabia if that nation had free elections? Let's not allow political correctness to blind us or kill us. The terrorists are merely an extreme form of widespread corruption, totalitarianism and venality prevalent in Islamic states and societies worldwide.

Now, here is the urgent problem. The Islamic terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy us. If and when they acquire a nuclear weapon with the help of their state sponsors, they will use it in the U.S. homeland without warning. Can you imagine the effect of just one nuclear weapon being detonated in New York or Washington? In addition to the initial horrific destruction and casualties, the U.S. economy and perhaps the world economy would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like Sunday school. Investment would stop for fear of further nuclear attacks. If they have one, maybe they have more? Our wealth would be dramatically reduced, and the economy would be in chaos for at least a generation. The American way of life would be dramatically altered, perhaps permanently. In short, the Islamic terrorists would win.

The stakes are as high as can be, and our current strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East may work too slowly or not work at all. How do we prevent that first nuclear attack and mobilize the world, even the Islamic societies, against the terrorists' nuclear ambitions? We need a new nuclear doctrine that puts everybody's skin in the game. We need a new nuclear doctrine that places the American people, the American society, the American economy and the American way of life far above politeness and political correctness.

I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine:

In the event of a WMD attack by terrorists on the U.S. homeland or U.S. military facilities overseas, the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth, regardless of state, and destroy all of the military facilities of Islamic-dominated states. This will include all of the capitals and at least the 10 largest cities of all Islamic-dominated states and the "holy" cities of Mecca and Medina. In addition, North Korean cities and military installations will be destroyed.

Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.

The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace," and it holds all Islamic states and North Korea accountable for their behavior. If you don't want your cities on the target list, you have to earn your way off the list. Give us the head of bin Laden on a stick, and you may get a pass. Shut down your nuclear programs in an open and verifiable way, and you can earn your way off the target list.

Another advantage of this doctrine is that it doesn't cost a nickel. We have the necessary weapons and delivery systems in place. This would only require a fraction of our existing nuclear warheads. I presume the platform of choice would be Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean.

Of course, the hand wringers, peaceniks and leftist elites would shout and scream bloody murder about how aggressive, unfair and politically incorrect this doctrine appears. However, I believe it would accomplish the same thing as MAD – namely, the successful deterrence of nuclear holocaust. All we need is the will to declare it.

David C. Atkins is president of ASA Solutions.

 

I have been saying it for months..... NUKE EM!

Fallujah was not worth 35 Marines. It was a town in Iraq with mud huts and a few mosques. We should have surrounded it and bombed it into the stone age instead of sending in Marines to go house to house to save the buildings. 35 brave Marines died to save mud huts, that is Vietnam mentality..and it is BULL CRAP! This is war.... we need to kill people and break things.

 

Americans have lost that sense of "threat". Even after 9/11...the sense of threat lingered for about a year, and now it's gone and the liberals have started opening their mouths again. We ARE at war w/ an enemy without a face or nationality. This war is worse than Vietnam because you really DON'T know where your enemy is or what means he will use to attack you.

I agree...start up the Cold War again. At least our economy flourished during that time from the 50's-80's.

 

Makes alot of sense to me. You can't be a mighty nation if your trying to be politcaly correct. The enemy is useing what is currently available to them. God help us all if they get there hands on nukes.

 

A better plan would be to convince the sniveling liberals and Hollywood elitists to visit and talk peace with their terrorist friends...and then we nuke 'em while they are there..eliminate more enemies with one nuke...turn 'em all to dust....good plan??

 

Why wait?

 

Got my vote

 

Bad idea Stan. Why? Ideology. The existing threat from terrorists today has nothing to do with the communist ideology from the Cold War. Nuke a city in the middle east and you'll have a hundred million rabid rats on the rampage. They do not listen to reason. They know nothing but hate. To incinerate 100 cities would do nothing more than inflame even more hatred and at that point, all gloves come off. Think Armageddon folks. At that point, the only solution would be genocide. The systematic elimination of all muslim people. And I'm not sure I want the US going down in the history books as being responsible for such an act.

 

TomW - I have to agree. Then China (you better keep your good eye on China)and N.K. jump on the wagon and the US is in big trouble. This will never end. - JKE

 

That's just it...radical Muslims won't listen to reason. So what do you do about it? It's like trying to get a stubborn mule to do something it doesn't wanna do. Just like the Cold War, neither side wants to see the end of their culture, so neither side made any moves to destroy the other. The Muslims are crazy, but they do have solid family bonds...possibly the thought of their families being destroyed would keep them in check. It seems that just talking it over doesn't get anything done...just look at the problems Israel and Palestine have been having. They've been talking and talking for years to no avail. All that culture wants is blood...and then when they get their blood, the other side wants blood for that blood...nasty cycle w/ no end.

Somebody has to figure something out before some terrorist finds nuclear waste to dump in a city, or a nuclear bomb, or heck, another 747.

 

The faster we get after it and start eliminating the threat the faster we can live in peace. I agree you cannot reason with these sub-human animals.

The only way to reason with a rabid animal is to kill it.

 

The whole Nuke Em thing is just stupid. Even if we were "lucky" enough to eliminate more than 1 billion muslums, the rest of the world wouldn't stand for such a thing. We would be mass murderers, worse than the people who ran countries like Iraq and Iran. Come on guys, use your heads. Do you think the rest of the world would site idly by while we murdered those people in such a way? Do you think we'd be any better than Hitler at that point? Hitler murdered people in the millions, we'd be doing it in the billions.

 

Finally, someone with some sense. Of course, history books might not even exist at that point.

 

I agree 100 cities might be a tad overkill. (pun intended) Hilter killed innocent people. These people are not innocent. They want to kill us, and your wife, and my grandkids. They have pledge their lives to ending ours. There is a huge difference.

I do not like saying these thing Jack, I hate it. I wish things were different. But the facts we are playing cops and robbers with these radicals and they need to be crushed. Trying to save buildings in Fallujah at the cost of 35 American Marine lives is wrong. We should have nuked the city and had done with it. There are 35 dead Marines because we have listened to what public opinion is. 35 greiving families because it was percieved that we should so slow, reason with them, try to be careful and save as many mud huts as we can. That is PC Vietnam mentality CRAP!. This is war and the faster we kill them the faster it will be over.

These animals are raised to hate western culture. Hate is bred into them from the day they are born. They teach hate in their schools. Mothers are proud when a 16 year kid straps a bomb on his back and climbs into a city bus full of kids. Families are rewared with money when a family member throws a grenade into a pizza place.

Japan surrendered when we destroyed two of their cities, and it saved millions of lives, ours and theirs from an invasion. They too had promised to fight to the death, but did not. The muslims will surrender too. Only until there is a massive strike on a strong hold city as a demonstration will they understand we are not going to "play" anymore, and they had better start teaching tolerance instead of hate, starting right now.

Wheww! I feel better now!

 

The actual use of WMDs by us on any country I think would instigate World war III, As mentioned China would step in and others. We would be looked upon as tyrants and murderers. I remember reading somewhere that China (I think )has more people in its army then the entire population of the USA. We would surely be in trouble. its just a matter of numbers. Its downright frightening to think of the enemy getting a nuke and using it on us. I firmly belive they would also without much thought. Even if they did and we retalliated I think we would see other countery intervention against us, after all we started it in their opinion.The thought of the aftermath of nukin is scary. Think I Better stock up on ammo.