It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Well here it is! Seems this idea is becoming more mainstream as time goes by and the threats continue.

Edit: I think 100 cities is a bit much, but a plainly stated policy of Equal retaliation against those who commit OR harbor the culprits?




A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By David C. Atkins

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.

Of course, the hand wringers, peaceniks and leftist elites would shout and scream bloody murder about how aggressive, unfair and politically incorrect this doctrine appears. However, I believe it would accomplish the same thing as MAD namely, the successful deterrence of nuclear holocaust. All we need is the will to declare it.


Edit:

The Proposal?

I propose that the U.S. immediately adopt and publish the following nuclear doctrine:

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.


Source



[edit on 5-12-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 5-12-2004 by edsinger]




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Do we have to wait until they attack us or can we just go ahead and bomb them now?

You know, it would be a pre-emptive strike. The pyschics currently employed by government have already predicted a strike on American soil, therefore, we attack them first.

Well, past all the sarcasm, it is a great way to start a race war if that's the point. You can be sure this will create some pissed of Muslims in the world. This is not a bright idea at all.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
What a great idea. Let's turn the vague "War on Terror" into an even more vague "War on Islam".




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Mind control through nuclear blackmail, interesting thought, but i don't think the idea is new.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
That is the worst idea I've ever heard.... Gotta show em who the real killers are eh?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
ed a little 'nit' to begin with- it appears you just cut and pasted part of a web page

Where is 'your' take on this?

Secondly and more important- is this 'new MAD' doctrine is bunk. Here the U. S. is years after 9-11 and still doesn't know who did what. I know there is firm speculation but it is just speculation.

Back to your post and the rest of the article- is this meant as some type of balloon to float an idea and see what comes of it? What if Iran really does develop a nuke and drops it on Israel- is the U.S. going to erase Iran?

What happens if Israel drops a nuke?

What happens if Pakistan and India go to the wall and some American divisions nearby in Afghanistan get roasted?

If terrorists do the WMD deal then what country gets hammered?

How about this scenario- thirty terrorists slip in to the U.S. from Canada and set off dirty-nukes in Chicago and Detroit- does Canada then become one big ice rink?

Where is the conspiracy in this ed? Is it that someone that wants Canada to cease to exist will launch an attack from Canada?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
The MAD, doctren worked in the cold war partly because we know who each other was, partly because we both had enuff sence not to use them. I dont think that will work now. The enemy now are death mongers, phychos or what ever term you want to use. Mad wont be a deterent for that. Or most likely not. It all those cities were actually destroyed, the out come could not be predicted, but would like to think, it could not get worse.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem
The MAD, doctren worked in the cold war partly because we know who each other was, partly because we both had enuff sence not to use them. I dont think that will work now. The enemy now are death mongers, phychos or what ever term you want to use.


You are so right. MAD won't work, "they" are conditioned anyway to die for the beautiful untouched ladies in heaven which are promised to them.

Furthermore it's not practical, suppose a country or organization [I won't give names
]hate some of those hundred cities. By faking a WMD attack, the US will only be used as a tool in mass destruction. Also I wonder what will happen if we destroy 100 big cities on the globe: nuclear winter, radio active fallout, changing climates, moving icebergs? Heh, that's like killing an ant in your house with dynamite -that would be insane too.

Blobber



[edit on 5-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
edsinger ur nuts and so is your topic

nuke 100 cities in retaliation for something that the people of those nations that prob didnt have any envolvement in
( now how many millions would perish for doing nothing )


any way you just show who is the real threat to world




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Really really dumb. Why? I believe a nuclear strike on the US, Israel or U.K. is inevitable - like it or not. Although it may cause temporary chaos & economic strife, it wont be the end of the world. The effects of vaporizing 100 cities could very well kill us off too - what sense does that make? Completely idiotic. A decisive counterstrike on a handfull targets will do the job just fine. We don't have to become fanatics to deal with fanatics.



[edit on 5-12-2004 by outsider]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   
the greatest idea america has had in many years if they want to destroy the world...

seriously...

if america was attacked by TERRORISTS (middle eastern people...) why would we attack NORTH KOREA???

makes no scense...





posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I kind of like the idea of publicly declaring MAD but I don't like the idea of actually putting it to practice. I say point a few weapons at Mecca but we never need to fire the weapons. Fear is one of the greatest weapons ever.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I kind of like the idea of publicly declaring MAD but I don't like the idea of actually putting it to practice. I say point a few weapons at Mecca but we never need to fire the weapons. Fear is one of the greatest weapons ever.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   

We don't have to become fanatics to deal with fanatics.



Beautifully put ! The idea of using nukes at all, anywhere, is madness !

If America did get nuked by terrorist, you'd have to cop it sweet and rebuild or become indistinguishable from your enemy in the eyes of the rest of the world. I think despite having nukes ,all who do have enough sense not to use them ever.
terrorist using nukes is a terrifying idea indeed, even terrorist must be aware of the outcome of doing so. Not much point in being fanatical about anything if nothing is left afterwards including the fanatics! Use nukes and there will be no islam to fight for!

p.s I think the concept of mutally assured destruction is well understood, declaring it officially would incite more violence and simply be considered provocation. Bad idea. Fuel on the fire!

[edit on 5-12-2004 by instar]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Ed, is a nationalist, an extremist nationalist that is. He would support anything the administration of Bush proposes. He would be against anyone the administration of Bush does not support. He would be against anyone who criticizes the administration of Bush. Now once you know this, you can explain his inferred support for the destruction of some 100 cities worldwide. Then you do the wise thing; you ignore him, and channel your energies somewhere else.

The sad thing is, what Ed says is partially right. We got a bunch of lunatics, in US, with a finger on a button that can end the world, and here some of us are, worrying about an imagined terrorist attack.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
RIGHT!

LET'S GIVE THE MUSLIM HARD RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS
AND GOOD EXCUSE TO LAUNCH A SERIOUS JIHAD
AGAINST OUR HARD RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS!

Besides, them dern heathen savages don't need all that gal dern oil anyways!
In the mean time we'll make good God fearin Christians out of 'em.

newamericancentury.org



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It is interesting to see just how many people define their importance and greatness (or lack thereof) through destruction of others.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Ed, is a nationalist, an extremist nationalist that is. He would support anything the administration of Bush proposes. He would be against anyone the administration of Bush does not support. He would be against anyone who criticizes the administration of Bush. Now once you know this, you can explain his inferred support for the destruction of some 100 cities worldwide. Then you do the wise thing; you ignore him, and channel your energies somewhere else.


Wow really nailed me huh? You are not even close! I do not agree with this idea, just maybe a few as they do not want to seem to stop Americans dieing. Seems you think America and Bush are evil and yet you miss the obvious.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
... just maybe a few as they do not want to seem to stop Americans dieing...


So, by that logic you would have agreed if , because of past terrorist attacks:
the UK Nuked Belfast,
France nuked Algeria,
Russia nuked Chechnya,
Israel nuked Lebanon, Syria,
India nuked Pakistan?

This is insane, surely you can see that, no?

Blobber


[edit on 5-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Wow really nailed me huh? You are not even close! I do not agree with this idea, just maybe a few as they do not want to seem to stop Americans dieing. Seems you think America and Bush are evil and yet you miss the obvious.


Oh sorry my bad, you do not agree with this idea, you just agree that "a few" should be nuked. Thank god for that, eh




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join