PDA

View Full Version : A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities


Fobra
12-05-2004, 04:06 PM
Clinton dismantled MAD in the summer of 1996 with an Executive Order. Guess when Al Qaeda began preparing for 9/11? :mad:

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.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41771

Also from article:
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.

This is interesting. However so as to appease our liberal friends and not act "unilaterally" heh, I think it should be taken a step further and we should join forces with our allies like the UK, Australia, Italy, Japan, etc and any other countries that would want to be a part of it and issue a joint press conference directed at the Muslim world and let them know point blank that a WMD attack on the US or it's allies will represent the IMMEDIATE and near complete destruction of Islam in this world.

I personally think just simply 9/11 was sufficient enough cause to obliterate Mecca and Medina, but maybe that's just me, I don't know.

It really is critical that the Muslim world be put on official notice that a WMD attack on us will result in their near extinction.

ALLAN
12-05-2004, 05:57 PM
Scorched earth policy.
I bet they would love us even more after that.

mikeb
12-05-2004, 09:12 PM
I like it but I believe that the terrorists would go ahead and do something to call the "bluff". These guys have been allowed to run wild for so long now I don't believe that there is much any arab government or person in authority can do to control/stop them even if they wanted to (and they don't).

We would have to be really willing to push that button.

I do believe that if there is another 9/11 type of incident on U.S. soil that the consequences for the arab world would be dire. 9/11 was bad enough but another one would, I think, make the U.S. take the gloves off and go for blood.

ceyko
12-05-2004, 09:24 PM
It is not the "Muslim world" it is the terrorist world. Even though 99% of the terrorist are Muslim, that certainly does not mean that 99% of Muslims are terrorists. This sort of policy simply won't accomplish much, other then having every Muslim based country hate us.

How would you feel if everytime and American committed a crime, they came and killed some of your family and burned everything you owned?

I understand innocent Americans are being killed, but we would be in one hell of a perdicament if we start nuking holy sites and major cities.

I feel it is important for real Muslims to try and persuade the terrorist type Muslims or simply start getting people to hate American. By this, I specifically mean I don't think kids growing up and being taught to hate America is helping us one single bit. Easy recruiting for terrorists. Nuking ANYTHING will make it easily justified for a lot of people to despise us.

talisman
12-05-2004, 09:33 PM
You guys honestly think we're going to just drop 100 nuclear weapons ANYWHERE on this planet? You guys DO realize what the global ramifications of that, including our own country and global climate problems would include don't you? Sounds like a complete line of bullshit to me.

ceyko
12-05-2004, 09:37 PM
You guys honestly think we're going to just drop 100 nuclear weapons ANYWHERE on this planet? You guys DO realize what the global ramifications of that, including our own country and global climate problems would include don't you? Sounds like a complete line of bullshit to me.

Yeah, I actually forgot about the environmental stuff when I wrote my stuff. The other doctorine is more intended for complete and total warfare. Meaning, none of us would live through and if we did...no more Mustangs, and Internet as we know it.
:(

mikeb
12-05-2004, 09:45 PM
Like I said, we'd have to be willing to push the button. Even though from a 9/11 perspective I like the idea of wiping out some bad guys but nuking 100 cities really IMO isn't a workable/viable solution.

jyro
12-05-2004, 10:22 PM
going back to a dual points dist and a cable drive tach. but if the EMS pulse from the nukes killed my rev limiter, I'd REALLY be pissed!

Mach1Marauder
12-05-2004, 10:29 PM
going back to a dual points dist and a cable drive tach. but if the EMS pulse from the nukes killed my rev limiter, I'd REALLY be pissed!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! :D
You wouldn't have worry about any EMS............too far away and we wouldn't need to have an upper atmosphere detonation.

Fobra
12-05-2004, 10:34 PM
You guys honestly think we're going to just drop 100 nuclear weapons ANYWHERE on this planet?

Did you read the whole article? It states that the largest Islamic cities would be targeted as well as parts of North Korea.

Answer this question: Is there any other technique other than force or the threat of force that has solved more conflicts throughout history?

ceyko
12-05-2004, 10:42 PM
Okay we are pissed about 10-15000 innocent Americans being killed in 9/11 plus other misc stuff over the last 5 years or so. How pissed do you think the world will be when we kill millions of innocents? This is guerilla (can't spell that one) type warfare. We are being attacked but don't have a reasonable target.

Yes, if the country of North Korea launches a nuke at us we launch back.

The place where it gets shady in my mind is what if North Korea supplied a nuke to terrorists who detonated in the US? In essence, N. Korea would've done a proxy nuclear attack on the United States.

Either way, the US can not fight the whole world if we manage to p/o the whole thing at one time. Even if we could, we would not want to do that at all. I concur that force is needed, but we need to tighten up our own borders first and a lot of other things. That would be step one IMO. Right now, we are doing a lot of good in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are also helping to recuit terrorists by pissing people off.

I frankly don't think their is a perfect solution. We need to take targets of opportunity with conventional methods, tighten our own security and work up intel.

Take care

AL P
12-06-2004, 06:40 AM
Okay we are pissed about 10-15000 innocent Americans being killed in 9/11...

HUH?

The MAD policy was an end of the world scenario and wouldn't work in this situation. To think otherwise is lunacy.

With that being said, I DO think that we should have nuked a city in Afghanistan as part of our demands that they give up Bin Laden. It sounds totally fucking crazy to say it but I think it may have accomplished something by showing these crazy mother fuckers that we can be just as fucking kooky as they are. Plus, the Taliban may have very well given him up.

Danny
12-06-2004, 11:08 AM
Low yield nuclear devices don't have the same radiation pollution as early atomic weapons. You could go into a nuked city within weeks and radiation would be at tolerable levels.

This ain't the '40s no more...

talisman
12-06-2004, 12:45 PM
Did you read the whole article? It states that the largest Islamic cities would be targeted as well as parts of North Korea.

Answer this question: Is there any other technique other than force or the threat of force that has solved more conflicts throughout history?


Answer this question: The idea is so laughably implausible, seeing as we wouldn't be able to live on our own planet anymore, do you really think that it strikes fear in anyones hearts other than the people who have been stocking up on saran wrap and duct tape for the last 2 years?

Mach1Marauder
12-06-2004, 02:52 PM
Low yield nuclear devices don't have the same radiation pollution as early atomic weapons. You could go into a nuked city within weeks and radiation would be at tolerable levels.

This ain't the '40s no more...


Ionizing radiation is not what you'd be worried about Danny. It's the fine particulate radioactive matter...........i.e. Plutonium-239, 240 and Plutonium-238., Cesium-137, Strontium-90 …..ect

TexasDevilDog
12-06-2004, 02:56 PM
.... do you really think that it strikes fear in anyones hearts other than the people who have been stocking up on saran wrap and duct tape for the last 2 years?

CRAP! I have been stocking up on plastic and duct tape. AHHHH!

<- Runs out to get saran wrap

Fobra
12-06-2004, 03:55 PM
Answer this question: The idea is so laughably implausible, seeing as we wouldn't be able to live on our own planet anymore, do you really think that it strikes fear in anyones hearts other than the people who have been stocking up on saran wrap and duct tape for the last 2 years?

Nice try, answer mine first ;)

WhtEdge
12-06-2004, 03:57 PM
Low yield nuclear devices don't have the same radiation pollution as early atomic weapons. You could go into a nuked city within weeks and radiation would be at tolerable levels.

This ain't the '40s no more...

LOL! Yeah...

Danny
12-06-2004, 05:20 PM
Ionizing radiation is not what you'd be worried about Danny. It's the fine particulate radioactive matter...........i.e. Plutonium-239, 240 and Plutonium-238., Cesium-137, Strontium-90 …..ectAgreed. They try to have these weapons detonate underground. The dirt and dust kicked up is radioactive, but radiation to the area is much lower than weapons detonated above ground.

The low-yield weapons being considered now would be designed to penetrate reinforced bunkers housing chemical or biological weapons and detonate underground, concentrating their explosive power and heat on the chemical or biological agents and reducing or eliminating radioactive fallout in the atmosphere, scientists say.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32530-2003Feb19


It may all be junk science, as there are a lot of environmental groups that feel differently about it than the government. Who knows, they're probably right. Here's an example : http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Seriously guys, you should read both these links and anything else you can find.

Mach1Marauder
12-07-2004, 06:44 AM
Agreed. They try to have these weapons detonate underground. The dirt and dust kicked up is radioactive, but radiation to the area is much lower than weapons detonated above ground.

Quote:
The low-yield weapons being considered now would be designed to penetrate reinforced bunkers housing chemical or biological weapons and detonate underground, concentrating their explosive power and heat on the chemical or biological agents and reducing or eliminating radioactive fallout in the atmosphere, scientists say.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...32530-2003Feb19


It may all be junk science, as there are a lot of environmental groups that feel differently about it than the government. Who knows, they're probably right. Here's an example : http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Seriously guys, you should read both these links and anything else you can find.


Nukes for taking out reinforced bunkers housing chemical or biological weapons would be tactical weapons of MUCH smaller size. They WOULD be very useful in that role though. With the high temps, all the chemicals and biologicals would be destroyed..............if it was a direct hit.........bad if it wasn't!