Skip to comments.Assessing the need for assymetric 'deterrence' (Destroying Mecca, Medina & Qom if U.S. attacked)
Posted on 07/26/2007 4:32:42 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It's clearly necessary to begin thinking about what form deterrence will take against future terrorist attacks on the U.S. At least 5 such attacks have been prevented at the operational stage by Bush administration policies over the last six years. What is needed is more serious consideration of the value of policies that deter such attacks.
This is likely to become a more pressing concern, as America's ability to interrupt such attacks, if a Democrat becomes President, will be severely eroded. The Democrats are profoundly indifferent to national security, and have even managed to convince themselves that terrorism is some vast right-wing conspiracy. If the Islamists have learned anything from their defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that they must do whatever it takes to re-establish their beachhead in the U.S. They must bring their war back to their declared target. There can be little doubt the Democrats will give them this opportunity.
Conventional wisdom contends that if a terrorist group conducts a nuclear hit on a major American city, there would effectively be no return address against which to retaliate, making such an attack non-deterrable. Bret Stephens, in his article, "Who Needs Nukes?" (The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2007), pointedly asks: "Would it hinder Islamist terrorists if the U.S.'s declared policy in the event of a nuclear 9/11 was the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Iranian religious center of Qom?"
Very likely it would not directly matter a jot to the terrorists. But it would surely make Arab states, their governments, and their people, begin to question the wisdom of whatever levels of overt and/or tacit support is being provided to terror groups. And that would surely hit the terrorists, bigtime.
Stephens continues: "Would our deterrent be more or less effective if we deployed a range of weapons, such as the maligned 'bunker buster', the use of which a potential adversary might think us capable?"
At present the terrorists rely a great deal on Western decency, and the pressure exerted by America's covert enemies in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, restraining the legitimate exercise of American power. Wouldn't the presence of bunker busters in the American arsenal and the stated willingness to use them against terrorist hideouts perhaps have some deterrence value?
Stephens takes his eyes off the ball, however, when he asks: "How would the deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile shield alter the composition of a credible deterrent?" The ABM shield is intended to deter rogue states seeking to exploit the crisis of a major terrorist attack, by following it up with an attack of their own. Such a surprise attack by China, Iran, North Korea, or a post-Musharraf Pakistan is very plausible.
One of the ignored threats of terrorism is precisely the opportunity it presents for a nuclear or non-nuclear attack by a conventional state actor. A robust capacity to deter such conventional attacks must remain a central plank in America's defense network.
Isn't it possible that its effectiveness against terror attacks has been underestimated? As Max Singer, a colleague of Cold War theorist Herman Kahn, referenced in Stephens' article, once said: "Even nihilists have something they hold dear that can be threatened with deterrence. You need to know what it is, communicate it and be serious about it."
Hell, man! That’s what nukes is for!
American traitors: "Deterrence? Sorry, we are busy groveling and offering the necks of the American people
so that WE might be taken .... last."
We must decide which of the Republican candidates will be most hawkish when it comes to retaliation or, more importantly, to aggressiveness. We need to destroy them and their ridiculous 'holy cities' before they touch the USA.
So far I've seen only one candidate that meets that criteria and he doesn't stand a chance because he's not connected to the CFR: Tom Tancredo.
Sorry Stephen, you cannot be more badly mistaken.
If targeting Qom, Medina and Mecca was our deterrence policy, then the UN would condemn us, leaders from all over the world would label us crusaders.
What everyone seems not to understand is this is not merely a holy war. It is a war about statist totalitarianism which uses religion as its terrorist.
The war is the State vs Religion with human liberty as the hindrance. The US is a stepping stone in the war and the elitists in the US senate use this theory to steal from the American people while using politics to cover their tracks.
There is a solution. A very simple solution. Term Limits. Self serving politicians with their own political and financial agendas cannot be trusted with running our country. Period.
People think Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Boxer are leftists. Bullcrap! They are common criminals who use the political process to steal from Americans and cover their tracks with investigations against the opposition. They foment a mob mentality in the ideologues while their attorneys sweep in the cash from frivolous lawsuits designed to paralyze the government.
They could care less about the nation. Because when the fur starts to fly, they will all be in St. Croix or in their European dachas while we are left to defend ourselves.
Until the world finds the b@lls to acknowledge it... AND CONFRONT IT... we will continue to flail in the dark.
>>If targeting Qom, Medina and Mecca was our deterrence policy, then the UN would condemn us, leaders from all over the world would label us crusaders.
The UN and the so-called ‘world leaders’ are irrelevant. I’ve lost patience with our groveling for acceptance from them. Nuke the muzzies and if anyone complains, nuke them too for good measure.
Our goobermint is so damned PC that it will eventually kill us!
Ramadan dinners at the White House where afterwards, to delight the attendees, a film was shown that depicted the beheadings of innocent men by the blood thirsty, Koran reading Islamists.
Our porous borders.
Terrorist films made by Hollyweird producers that feature anglo terrorists rather than the raggedy-headed camel jockeys.
“he doesn’t stand a chance because he’s not connected to the CFR”
You could stick Duncan Hunter’s name in there also.
You are absolutely right about CFR. Those socialist/globalist/ NWO Elitists need to be dealt with. They’ve controlled world economic/political policy making for over 70 yrs........and that’s 70 yrs too long.
This sounds an awful lot like the plot line of Nelson DeMille’s new book, “Wildfire”. Seems the article’s author may have been influenced by some of the same ideas. If you’ve not read it yet, it is interesting.
The nuke solution isn’t workable, IMHO. Too many issues with radiation, drift of fallout, etc. Conventional weapons could be just as effective as a counterstrike.
In addition to threatening Mecca, etc., I would like to see our military add pork products to our weapons arsenal. Bullets should be dipped in pork fat. Every soldier should carry pork rinds to stuff in the mouths of dead terrorists.
Also, I understand a muslim may not enter Paradise without his genitals, so we need to relieve them of these items when they are captured or killed.
This should convince the muslim terrorists that a trip to Paradise is not a sure thing, & remove the incentive for martyrdom.
Surely. And the answer to that question would be to double their support for said terror groups, to appease the mobs in the streets and stave off their own overthrow.
Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are befriending local children and showing them a different face of America are the only ones who seem to get it. Nothing can be done to scare today's generation of terrorists - they are just going to have to be identified and killed. The key is to deny the imams the next generation of recruits by countering the massive anti-Western Arab propaganda industry. Bombing the holy cities would be a big step in the opposite direction - it would just confirm the lies of the imams.
And consider what Christianity "holds dear". Did anyone in the Vatican care when the Palestinians desecrated Joseph's Tomb? Southern Baptist leaders would probably do a tap dance if Muslims assassinated the Pope. Mormons aren't too interested in the results of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Similarly, Sunni Muslims aren't going to shed a tear if Qom gets bombed in the the course of a retaliatory strike on Iran, and Al Qaeda isn't going to worry too much about the fate of Mecca and Medina as long as they can successfully detonate a nuclear bomb in New York City.
"Islam" is too broad a concept to be seriously wounded by such symbolic strikes - great as the idea's appeal is to the egos of many observers.
Also, I understand a muslim may not enter Paradise without his genitals, so we need to relieve them of these items when they are captured or killed.
I have always wondered how blowing ones self to bits does not violate that whole “may not enter Paradise without his genitals” thing.
Who says they are not already “targeted” as you say???
So that becomes a moot point...
I could really care less what the U.N. “thinks” about us...They are a hairs breath away from losing their little foot hold on 44th street anyway...Send them packing...
If it all comes down to 150 million of us who have a fairly strong conservative Judeo-Christian beliefs, against the billions left in this world...
I like our chances...
For instance, if we targeted Muslim cities, this would play into the hands of the jihadis and would be perceived as infidel aggression and justification for more deadly attacks.
Even in their own end-time prophecies, it is written that there will be "an end to the Hajj", which suggests to me that Mecca will someday be uninhabitable.
Even so, we do need some kind of clear, stated policy as to what we will do if we are attacked with WMD. And after we state it, we must be committed to do it.
Because the imam says so. Whatever the imam says the koran says is what the koran says. (Consistancy and expediency seldom meet.)
Whoa, Mister Da.
That's pretty harsh treatment for these Koran-reading and believing perverts. How will they service those 72 virgins promised by the prophet Muhammed? Or perhaps he meant 72 Virgin(ians).
What a lousy excuse for a religion.
I would like to hear your (non-spoilers) reviews.
I think we should make it very clear to islamist states like Saudi Arabia that in the event of a major wmd attack on the U.S their country will be taken over if not completely destroyed. Give them a little incentive to deter their Jiahi idiots.
That’s jihadi idiots, not jiahi idiots.
Yup, but add Islamabad to the target set.
Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem are Islam.
If the three holy sites are eliminated, Islam is eliminated.
The problem is that what they hold dear is “expediency”. And you can’t target that with WMD.
They will whine and complain about a Koran being flushed, demand that shoes be removed before entering a sacred mosque, but when push comes to being shot at, they will all run into the nearest mosque with their shoes on and start shooting from behind a stack of korans.
I was disappointed. I didn’t think it was anywhere near as good as Nightfall or the Lion’s Game.
But I finished it.
These suggestions continue even though it is well enough known that the islamists expect the destruction of mecha and medina as part of their apocalypse.
“If targeting Qom, Medina and Mecca was our deterrence policy, then the UN would condemn us, leaders from all over the world would label us crusaders.”
There comes a time when the opinions of “world leaders” is of no importance. Yes, we would like to have their trust, their support, even their love but if we must die to gain them we need to rethink our standards. If we can’t have their love then we need to be satisfied with their respect. If that is to be denied then our very survival may depend on whether or not they fear us.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be respected than feared. If push comes to shove though, I’ll take fear. as long as I’m alive I can work on gaining respect.
How hard is it top understand that NO Mecca means NO islam?
All muslims MUST visit mecca once in their life or they are not muslims. What happens to the 100s of million believers who haven’t been to Mecca after it’s nuked? Its one of the 7 tenants of the faith that must be followed.
And frankly your statmement about Southern Bapists is peyond the pale.
I am about halfway through it and would say it is probably DeMille’s best so far. It poses some really interesting moral dilemmas in the form of a thriller. Demille’s comments in the preface are REALLY something, if you listen closely. If you like the characters of John Corry and Kate Mayfield from some of his other novels, you’ll like this one. They are operating pretty much alone, because, as usual, John doesn’t trust his superiors.
Good story so far, the resolution will determine my final grade.
I loved the “Lion’s Game”.
Can’t wait to get started on this one.
When you finish, let me know what you think.
Very interesting, (I’m hoping the overall premise does not include an overemphasis on a “corrupt” American government), instead of getting the bad guys.
Those stories are always fun, but tiresome now, imho.
Maybe its my mood, (lol, bloodthirsty for revenge), for all the decades of suicide bombings of the Islamic cults. But moral dilemmas in this fight are very real, especially for a great nation like the USA, who also has such enormous military power that must be used wisely.
I think you’ll be pleased. Without giving too much away, there seems to be three, maybe four groups: John/Kate, the real bad guys, those in the gov’t who are out of the info loop, and those shadowy figures who, are in the loop, but not acting (for or against).
I found it so easy to get that same bloodthirsty feeling when you hear the history of terrorism described in the book, and it can almost make you think that it’s OK to avenge ourselves to the fullest extent, that we have a right. Only upon close examination, of the book and one’s heart, do you see that the dark (evil) path is so attractive because it’s oh-so reasonable and appeals to our human desire for revenge.
I can’t tell you how many philosophical conversations this has sparked among me and several friends who have read it.
For some reason this brought to mind an old Greek folk story titled 'The Marmaromeno Basilia'(The Marble King) about the legendary Emperor Konstantinos Paleologos Dragatsis. As the story goes on May 29, 1453 the last great emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire vowed he would fight bravely to his death Muslim attacks upon the empire. Seeing the end is near, he threw off his purple royal cloak and lead fearlessly the few remaining men who could still fight in a last desperate attempt to push back the invaders, but the story says, he was taken away by Agios Georgos and the Archangel Gabriel right before he was killed. They brought him to the Golden Gate where they turned his body into marble with the promise that the day will arrive when Paleologos will come back to life and lead a victory against all their enemies and liberate Christian lands lost. In the song from above there is a verse that says "And about the Marble King, not even a word could be heard, but he is sung about as a fairy tale, told by the elders to the young." This is referring to the fact that after his death, Christian subjects under Muslim rule were forbidden to speak about the heroic Emperor Paleologo, if they did they were executed or put in prison because talking about him was seen as a form of rebellion. So Christians talked about their legendary king in code, making him into the character known as The Marble King and his legendary last stand into a folklore. It was in this form that his story was passed down from generation to generation his memory not forgotten but given hope to Christians from the Eastern Empire that they would be free once again .
But after reading this article it just makes me shake my head that after everything known about extremists, by their actions and history, there are still morons out there who won't think twice about appeasing them. On the one hand we have people who share the ideology of the legendary Emperor Paleologos about liberating lands lost and on the other have current world leaders want to give everything away. Amazing simply amazing.
I don’t argue with the philosophy. I argue with the practicality.
Both you and I know that tomorrow morning this could all be over. We send one jet into Iran, one into Venezuela and one into Syria. Three bombs and it is done.
As much as we like to believe it and as much as we say, “we don’t give a rats behind about the UN” they are still there and will be there as long as we have elitists in congress.
There’s a lot of truth to what you say but humans have always needed some sort of hope to guide their lives. While I know much of what I hope for is impractical and even possibly counter-productive, I still hope for a quick, simple solution to all this terrorism/counter-terrorism we’re involved in.
I suppose while I’m indulging myself in pointless hope I might as well hope the UN building would slide off into the river - while in general session. Again, that’s not likely to happen, but I can hope can’t I?
They wrap them in tinfoil to protect them.
Hell, why wait?
Well, overall I would have to give it a thumbs-down.
It seemed to be written quickly, and with a BDS attitude, it was too much the eye-roller for me.
Of course I enjoyed the characters, and the moral issues of fighting an enemy without a state, anyway, unfortunately the real bad guys were quite silly and unlikely.
But still looking forward to his next book!
Sounds a lot like my opinion. It was my least favorite next to Spencerville. The only reason I bothered to finish was that I liked the characters.