Posted on 05/22/2007 8:26:43 PM PDT by neverdem
What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities? I put this question to Professor Victor Hanson, senior research fellow at Stanford University's prestigious Hoover Institution, who spoke on the Iraq war at the Wynnewood Institute lecture series.
His answer to my question bore a slight resemblance to a classroom practice of mine. At the beginning of each semester, I tell my students that I'm getting old and a cell phone ringing during my lecture could be devastating to my train of thought. Therefore, the penalty for a student's cell phone going off in class is a five percent reduction in his total points for the semester and a five percent reduction in the total points of the students sitting on either side of him. Of course, the students are shocked. The penalty might not be fair, penalizing a person for the actions of another, but I've not had trouble with cell phones going off in class.
Professor Hanson's answer referenced his July 6, 2004, National Review article titled "Another 9/11? The Awful Response That We Dare Not Speak About." He argues that without the direct aid of countries like Iran, Syria and rogue elements within the Saudi Arabian, Jordanian and Pakistani governments, and millions of ordinary Arabs, who know who terrorists are and where they sleep and won't turn them in, a massive terrorist attack on the United States would be nearly impossible. That means terrorists have some kind of local support. If there is an attack on our country, with weapons of mass destruction, the first thing we can expect is for country officials to deny any responsibility. Hanson says that we should beforehand tell the leaders of Middle East countries that if there's an attack on the United States, we will hold them responsible if they're proven to have aided or sheltered the terrorists.
Holding the country responsible would mean that in response to an attack we'd totally destroy their military bases, power plants, communication facilities and, if necessary, totally destroy their major cities. You say, "Williams, that's unthinkable!" Yes, while unpleasant, it is thinkable. That's precisely how 50 years of peace were maintained between the Western powers and the former Soviet Union. The leaders of the USSR knew that any attack on the United States would provoke an immediate massive nuclear retaliation. As frightening as the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction was, in the absence of a better strategy, neither Americans nor Russians were incinerated.
Laying down such a gauntlet is nothing new; it simply requires courageous leadership. In the wake of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy credibly warned the leaders of the Soviet Union that: "It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." There's little question that President Kennedy's "full retaliatory response" would have included nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, today, there's neither the American leadership nor the American character to protect ourselves from people whose declared aim is to destroy us. It's not just Americans, but the West in general, who have lost the will to protect themselves from the barbarism of the Middle East. Keep in mind that the mighty Roman Empire fell to barbarians who ushered in the Dark Ages.
Dr. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, and author of More Liberty Means Less Government
Not if, when!
“Creating Effective Incentives (What should our response be if terrorists set off WMD in our cities?)”
Tehran and Damascus become smoking, glowing, tragic memories.
Whine, gaze at our navels, ask why they hate us, and blame Bush, even though it's our own fault.
(sarcasm barely off)
The problem is, some of the terrorists don’t care if
hundreds of millions die, as long as someone of their
ilk is left standing.
The opening of the genie bottle of nearly unlimited
power has created a situation that is almost unthinkable to
the modern mind. The hippies/peacniks/moonbats will not
be happy when their “peace” is shattered by a terrorist
blast. They still will blame it on the west anyway.
you win
That would enrage almost everyone however. The unthinkable
might happen after that.
Eradication of the religious group that set it off. On the spot summary executions of all within that religious group.
Nuke ‘em till the glow and use their a**es for runway lights.
Never truer words spoken. The Girlie people are now deeply entrenched in this country.
Holding the country responsible would mean that in response to an attack we'd totally destroy their military bases, power plants, communication facilities and, if necessary, totally destroy their major cities.
Good idea - and they need to be told upfront - that we won't wait for the Chinese or Russians to threaten us... They nuke one city of ours, and we take them out. No waiting, no talking, no debates. Make it in their self interest to stop a WMD attack on the US.
While true, you miss the point, the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians, &c are the terrorists enablers. They correspond to the two students sitting next to the guilty party (cellphone guy) who will share in the punishment.
While the terrorists may seek a glorious death their enablers have a considerable interest in staying alive (and non-radioactive!) Hopefully they can be convinced to keep their dogs chained.
Regards,
GtG
Our response should be to destroy Mecca and Medinah. The muslims would be aghast for a day, and then because they do not believe in free will, they would be resigned to believing that it was not only God’s will but his punishment of them.
Its real simple, Nuc option on mecca.Obliterate it and stamp out the leadership in saudi arabia and take over the damn oil fields.Tell the muzzies that are left that if they dont want to become slop fill for the pig farms that we will put up all over the middle east there better not be so much as a fart in our direction again.
bump for later
Why, make sure our First Responders are up to the task so we don’t have another Katrina debacle on our hands. Duh!!
The terrorist states in the world is a rather short list.
1. Cuba
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. Certain elements of Pakistan.
6. Certain elements of Saudia Arabia
The response should be very simple. Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Iran cease to exist if we are hit by any terrorist from any nation.
Pakistans nuclear arsenal should be hit if we are hit. If we have confirmation of their help in a terrorist strike. They also cease to exist.
And then there is Saudia Arabia. They have the oil and are the center of the Whabbie sect of the Sunnis. That sect has been the center of the Al Quaeda movenment. If Saudi did not crack down on them prior to an attack on us they have then become an partner in the crime, thus are added to the destroy list.
Until the collapse of the Soviet Union the doctrine of MAD worked. This is even better than MAD. They hurt us and they will UAD which is UNILATERAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION. That means a few of us die, all of them die.
For this doctrine to work our enemies must know this is what will happen.
“(What should our response be if terrorists set off WMD in our cities?)”
I know, let’s ask Ron Paul.
according to Fat-slop-of-a-man, there is NO threat.
What the present Party-in-Power doesn’t realize: FDR absolutely “needed” the Bureau of Census for oh, so many reasons.
FDR’s wish was FDR’s command.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.