You Want to Escalate, We'll Escalate, and You'll Lose...Big!

31 July 05 | HMV

[Hillary'sMoralVoid]

We hear the chilling news about the possibility of suitcase nukes inside our borders, we hear that 10, maybe even 20 of our cities may be at risk.

The risk we face is nothing compared to what the Islamic World faces if terrorists choose to escalate the war on terror.

We currently have Poseiden Nuclear Submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean. No terrorist could ever find them, much less destroy them. A single sub can unleash 50 missiles with pinpoint accuracy, each with a warhead bigger than the sum of even 20 suitcase nukes.

If the terrorists want to ensure that there would be no retaliation, they would have to destroy not only our major cities, but also our bombers, our land-based missile systems, our complete command and control network, and our nuclear submarines.

They cannot do this, and escalation brings with it such huge risks of anihilation of the Islamic world that it would seem incomprehensible that they would try to raise the stakes. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[Vigilanteman]

Islam is more a political entity than a religion, and therefore not subject to constitutional protection, might be a better form of retaliation for non-nuclear attacks.

Remember the white supremicists who posed as a church in northern Idaho a decade or so ago? Haven't heard much from them lately, have we? Do you know why? Pretty close to the reason you cited. The FBI and the law took them on as a subversive anti-government gang and broke them financially, imprisoned their leadership and harassed and investigated the membership to the point they disbanded. They were never the threat Islamofacism is now. What you propose should be exactly what the government does.

Why do we give Islamofacism the pass we wouldn't give our own home-grown racists? Especially after 9-11?

[nathanbedford]

No, a scenario of appeasement is much more likely. Terrorism is called asymetrical warfare precisely because it cannot be combated sucessfully by ordinary tactics. Worse, by definition it cannot be deterred because the enemy is suicidal.

Will will not know whom to strike and anyway we will shrink from armageddon. The appeasers will point out the mindlessness of murdering a billion Muslims for the acts of an unknown few. They will rightly say that even that will not stop the next American city from going up.

The appeasers will win. Think Jimmy Carter.

[Stu Cohen]

Ok, a suitcase nuke has just vaporized lower Manhatten, whom do you propose to retaliate against?

The Taliban ... no, no wait ... Al Queda .... Doh, no .... Iraq? Yeah IRAQ!!!!!

Whew, I knew I'd get it right sooner or later.

[coloradan]

I don't know. I think it's in the Koran, but I don't have the citation in front of me.

[Kozak]

The fact that the victims of retaliation would only be loosely related to the perpetrators makes retaliation very difficult, and morally shaky. It would, however, be satisfying, and I am personally in favor of prompt retaliation for any strike inside the US.

I don't know. For the entire Cold War our stated policy was that we would destroy pretty much every man woman and child in the Soviet Union, and their satellites for a strike on the US or one of our allies. Even though the people responsible, the Communist Parties of those nations never were more then 5 to 10% of their populations.

Seems pretty analogous to the situation we face today with the Muslims and their terrorists. I would suggest we start with retaliation against Mecca and Medina as central to their ideology ( note IDEOLOGY not RELIGION), then add the capitals and largest cities and nuclear weapons of any Islamic state that posseses nukes.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Demi-rat + President = Bye Bye 20 U.S. Cities = Dead of 90% of democratic electorate...

Keep in mind the democrat party gets most of it's votes from major urban areas.

[ladyinred]

Or, our will and ability to retaliate. Don't we have to ask permission of France and CAIR first, and Harry Reid et al.?

You forgot to add Teddy Kennedy, John F'n Kerry, Dan Rather, Katy Couric, Jennings, et al. (and behind the scenes of course, that "warmonger" Hillary Clinton, who really heads the 'war room")

[Uncle Vlad]

Medina could just as easily go away, too.

[TAquinas]

So they win in the end?

That's scary.

[Phsstpok]

The appeasers will win. Think Jimmy Carter.

In the wake of a nuclear explosion in an American city Jimmy Carter will be lynched the next time he opens his mouth. Michael Moore and Dick Durbin will probably be running for their lives.

I'm basically predicting a complete breakdown of logical discourse and the immediate and total destruction of any and all suspected threats.

Teddy Kennedy and Calypso Louie will have minutes, not days, to live after such an event. Their best friends will beat them to death with a golf club on sight after that happens.

And anyone speaking either Arabic or French will be subject to summary execution in those days. (no one will notice the difference between Farsi and Arabic).

Think emotion, not reason.

[Bringbackthedraft]

The Islamist terrorists want a global war. It all about provoking us. They are willing to sacrifice Mecca. They are looking for the support of all the Muslims in the world to join their battle against the decadent westernized nations. Destroy Mecca and that will be the result. Sure, they'll probably attack Rome, but that will occur before any attack against Mecca. These terrorists probably have it in them to destroy Mecca and say the USA did it. (The ends justifies the means.)

[The Red Zone]

The only problem with this line of thinking is that it takes a man at the top with high courage and possibly low moral principles to "pull the trigger" if the US is attacked with a nuclear weapon. GWB has the courage but too stong a sense of morality.

How about Howard Dean. If there has to be a next Rat president at least make him one with a very stormy temper.

[TAquinas]

"Start with France."

Are you crazy?

France is in Europe. And Europe is the land of our big brothers and sisters. Whatsamara with you?

[coloradan]

[[My question is, will its destruction make them stronger or weaker?]] You may as well ask whether their attacking us with nukes is going to make us stronger or weaker. That's the real question.

I am asking an honest question: will destroying Mecca take the wind out of their sails, or embolden them? I don't know the answer - and I don't have any Muslim friends to ask, either.

As for your question, it will make us a tiny bit weaker, from the loss of those in the nuked city, but the rest will be made a thousand times more pissed off. So the net result for them would be very, very bad. I am a libertarian, and things like religious freedom are important to me, but Islam is one inch away from being considered an irrevocable terrorist pact as far as I'm concerned. If that inch manages to get traversed, I'm done with it being a "religion" and will join calls for its followers to be expelled or killed. No one has yet given me satisfactory answers to questions about al-Taqiyya, that is, dissimulation to infidels. If they're just lying to us, I want them gone - at the very least from America.

[cubreporter]

me thinketh those days are OVER!!

[185JHP]

Is Putin nasty enough to build some new ones?

[RightWhale]

Putin is a nasty customer all right, but those little nukes aren't cheap. I doubt he would build any for export since some might come right back through Chechnya.

[philetus]

Marin county?