Then can someone tell me why actually nuking them would not work?
Posted on 01/08/2007 7:49:15 PM PST by neverdem
DO WE need a nuclear deterrent to terrorism?
Nelson DeMille makes the suggestion in his new book, "Wild Fire," whose sales are spreading like, well, its title. It debuted at No. 2 on the Times bestseller list, No. 1 at the Wall Street Journal and No. 1 at Publishers Weekly.
It's another work of fiction by the man who already has more than 30 million books in print. But this one has people talking about a very real subject: How to stop Islamic extremists from attacking American cities.
"It sounds radical, but what
we're trying to do is keep Washington, D.C., and midtown Manhattan from being nuked. We're not trying to obliterate another part of world because we don't like them. But we have between 10-20,000 nuclear weapons, we're the most powerful nation on the planet, and, in the history of mankind, and we're being bogged down by guys with AK-47s and plastic explosives. We've got to rattle nuclear sabers. Not because we're bad guys, but because we're good guys," DeMille told me.
Remember MAD? Mutually assured destruction was the cold war policy that if either the United States or the Soviets launched a nuclear strike, the other would respond in kind. That secured the peace.
Wild Fire, the plan that the book is named for, is a version of MAD for the new millennium.
Like MAD, Wild Fire eliminates a president's need for moral choices. If there were to be a nuclear strike against an American city, it would prompt an automatic response. The weapons once trained on the USSR would thunder down on the Arab world.
"Wild Fire is a pro-active response. It is a gun to the heads of Islamic countries - a gun that will go off if they fail to keep their terrorist friends from going nuclear," DeMille writes.
"This is a great deterrent because nobody wants to end the world as we know it," he told me.
"In 'Wild Fire,' I pose that we have something very similar to MAD. Meaning, that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the presumption of guilt against Islamic terrorists would be very strong; we wouldn't need the proof, we'd never have the proof.
"We would automatically launch against the nation of Islam, specifically against the cities of Mecca and Medina, and other places like Damascus where we don't care for the government, and this would be a deterrent against a nuclear bomb going off in America."
Under what circumstances?
"It would almost have to be nuclear. Chemical and biological attacks are scary and will kill a lot of people but don't rise to the level of nuclear. It's the 800,000-pound gorilla that would obliterate midtown Manhattan or Washington, D.C., even a small suitcase nuke.
"In the book, I mention that there are 67 Soviet suitcase nukes missing from Soviet arsenals... What happened to them, we don't know. Maybe it was just bad record-keeping by the Soviets."
In the book, DeMille explores the possibility that suitcase nukes end up in hands of Islamic terrorists, and if they do, why wouldn't they use them? Well, maybe because Wild Fire threatens to blow up their holy shrines.
"Even the most radical Islamic terrorist would not want to see the revered holy city of Medina go up. It would be like losing the Vatican in Rome," he told me.
As he says in his author's note, "As for the secret government plan called Wild Fire, this is based on some information I've come across, mostly online, and can be taken as rumor, fact, pure fiction, or some blend thereof. I personally believe that some variation of Wild Fire (by another code name) actually exists, and if it doesn't, it should."
I told him that sounds like the stuff of his alter ego, former NYPD detective John Corey.
"I was there on 9/11. Every New Yorker was there in a sense. My suburban town lost 11 people, and I was in Manhattan the first time, in February of 1993, when the towers were attacked.
"As a citizen of this country and the world, we are trying to keep it from happening, and the only way is to say, 'If it happens, we will retaliate in a nuclear way.' What else can we do, say we will launch an investigation and find out who blew up midtown Manhattan?
"That is a game we have played for too long. We never played that with the Russians, why play the same silly game with Islamic terrorists? Some say they don't have a country, but that is not true, they know where their homeland is and so do we."
Michael Smerconish can be heard weekdays 5:30-9 a.m. on the Big Talker, 1210/AM. Contact him via the Web at www.mastalk.com.
Our response in Europe during the Cold War was to answer in kind with what we had available.
Same should apply here....you send a bug to do your terror, or a chem, we nuke you right to bedrock.
I believe (and of course I could be mistaken!) that the author's point is not to try to intimidate the (insane) terrorists, but to highly motivate the (presumably somewhat sane) remaining muslims world-wide to deal with these yahoos themselves, and quickly.
I personally think it's a great idea.
But why stop with the Holy Cities?
How about adding Tehran, Damascus, and Riyahd to the "Endangered Cities List?"
And also how about meaning what we say for once?
I like Sean Hannity, his "islam has been hijacked" crap makes me sick. It seems his chat forum has been hijacked. Have an opinion against islam, ya get banned. If he doesn't realize what has happened too his chat forum, he better learn. I no longer listen too Sean Hannity, but I don't hate him.
Don't mistake Sean Hannity for a thinker - he's an entertainer, for pete's sake!
Sure, we agree with a lot of what he says, but that's his secret: he simply figures out what people will agree with, then he spouts it!
After he listens to what Rush has to say, of course...
You know what: we've used nukes on civilian targets before, and you know what it got us?
Respect.
The immediate end to a war.
I've been to Hiroshima, and it's a fine modern city.
How about refitting several air tankers and have them ready to rain liquid hog manure over Mecca and Medina.
Like I said on a (much) earlier post. There are 300 million of us, they are outnumbered.
Yes I know there are 1.2 billion muslims, just think about it.
I don't find him to be soft on terrorists, but he's careful as to what he says about Islam as a whole
Now THAT would work.
Hannity = Light weight. Listen to Rush, Levin and Hewitt. Hannity = Waste of time. Hannity = Conservative embarassment. Sorry if I am not being clear.
Has anyone read this book? As I recall it is a slap againt neo cons written by a Clinton democrat.
The real war is not with the terrorists, but with the liberal cabal that is holding us back. This war could ended years ago if the Treason party was first told to go F- itself.
Read Ann Coulters new column, she talks all about this......
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
I believe this is exactly what the terrorists and their Wahabi friends want - to end the world as we know it. Holding the Arab world responsible for terrorist activities is fine by me. A show of force nuclear strike on the nuclear sites in Iran wouldn't bother me one bit.
The War Against Global Jihadism The original title was "The Nature Of Our Enemy," IIRC.
Think Kim Jong Il's bad? -- just you wait
Population shift likely to boost GOP
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
HARK! I hear my bed calling, and I MUST answer it's Sirens song.
It's humane to give warning - but we have to be prepared for China or Russia to counter threat -- If we're going to do MAD - we need our ducks in a row... friends and foes.
Thanks for the ping!
We could start by not letting the Islamic bastards live right under our noses. But no, Muslims are being sworn into the congress using the koran. The writing is on the wall and our failure to read it will spell the west's demise.
The true enemy is Islam. always has been.
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.