well let see how about if the JIHAD FIGHTERS change their minds.from just fighting in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN alone try to make a new GROUNDS ZERO
in EUROPE-STATES with e,g NUKLEAR BAGS,CHEMICAL TANKER , BIOHAZARDS DOGS or maybe with any other kind of animal.
spreading all what they have what it try to say here is the situation is far more worse.so who will lose at that time the USA or the EUROPE states alones to suffer all the consequences(i m hoping FRENCH and GERMANY) are not in that situation.so what i m thinking right now the best ways is
stop what so ever operation in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN RIGHT NOW before the time get to late like what our RUSSIAN MR PRESIDENTE PUTIN says
the place where terrorist incubator and generator begin to STARTS
JUST LET THE UN DO THEIR JOB RIGHT NOW!!!

If an American city does get nuked by unknown terrorists, the real alarm will be thousands of Americans calling for similiar ideas to nuke foreign cities. I will name some problems I see with this idea.

1. You will be creating millions of suicide bombers who will seek revenge for the millions dead.

2. Millions of these dead will be totally innocent. Are we to become no better than the terrorists themselves?

3. Radioactive oil doesn't sell very well. Our economy will be in shambles if there is no oil for Europe and rest of the world economy.

4. Until we know (in the event of a major terrorist nuclear attack) who the real culprits and supporters are, attacking everyone in the middle east doesn't make sense. After 9-11, many Arabs supported the US and still do even if not publicly.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by orionthehunter]

Talk about a "cure" that's worse than the disease!

Dude, if you go nuking all those Muslims, the radiation will turn them into Giant, Radioactive, Mutant Super-Muslims who will rampage through the streets of Tokyo. Why Tokyo? Because that's where all monsters go to rampage. Don't ask me why, I think it's some sort of tax thing.

Anyway, once they get through with Tokyo, WE'RE NEXT!

I don't know about you, but the idea of a bunch of Giant, Radioactive, Mutant Super-Muslims rampaging through my neighborhood is something I don't think I could ever get comfortable with.

So anyway, I think you better call up the nuclear missile-launching guys and warn them not to go through with this plan. Tell them: "It would be bad."

I can't believe you didn't see the danger!


Author's Note: Some may find the idea of Giant, Radioactive, Mutant Super-Muslims to be more offensive than frightening. To those who may be offended, I apologize, but dude, you gotta admit, it would be pretty scary!

I thought for sure they would level Mecca on September 12, 2001.
Most Americans were angry enough to do just that. Just remember that war is the future until Armageddon so be sure to sight in your rifles.

The original doctrine was intended as a deterrent and was hardly considered as a realistic intention by anyone.

It was fairly clear to members of both sides of the cold war that the entire concept of a nuclear war would be disastrous, stupid, and unrewarding for both sides anyways. Keep in mind it never did happen, right?

I think you all need to understand the difference between deterrent doctrines and doctrines that were fact.

The other reason this doctrine would be unsuccessful is because the deterrent factor is irrelevant in this case. When dealing with an enemy (Islamic Extremists) who voluntarily blow themselves up for their cause, why do you think explosions will deter them. They want devastation, and they want devastation caused by the United States because it furthers their points.

"Look at the destruction the United States caused with their weapons. We must unite against them and destroy them so this doesn't happen again."

Were the MAD doctrine to become reality against this enemy, we would be signing off on millions of more enemies and millions of more attacks.

Stupid foreign policy. And you can be well assured, it will never be restated. Different war, different terms, different tactics.

Not only that, but by then they will look 100x more realistic.

well as what i know MECCA in history is destroy so many times and REBUILT
back by the ancient people until to this day,what i really worried is that the place where our fore father and mother meet after being descending from heaven in so many years searching each other until they meet in that place
well that according to history and my idea is GOD HAS NOTHING TO LOSE RIGHT JUST DO IT!!!and we will see more fireworks take a plays in all over EUROPE.may be the fireworks brands came from CHINA with name
1.NUKESTAR,RADIATION ANGEL,or the last one is DANCES WITH THE SUN ON THE GROUND.
if CHEMICAL mean may be it came from the former RUSSIAN STATES
2.DIVE IN GREEN SEAS,BURNING SENSATIONS,or the last one FOREVER ZCARS OR SCAR.
if BIOHAZARDS mean maybe it came from AFRICA well there is easy to get the sample you know what i mean!
3.CUTE DOGGY,SLOW DEATH CAT,PIGEON FOR PEACE and so on.......
so how do we like it to happen in EUROPE STATES.
we are the chef to cook all the ingredients so well plan for it and please dont use fire to much later we ll get black face each of us isnt it right

The reason it could work....

Understanding the islamic terrorists, their goal is the spread of Islam. Therefor, the threat of destroying Mecca might actually prevent them from attacking the US with WMDs.

Think about it - the only thing they respect is their religion, therefor in order for MAD to work, the destruction must be their religion. Thus that is what needs to be targeted.

I don't think 100 cities is needed....Just the top 10 holly spots.

erms it might be for a changes for some 20 EUROPE CITES well what the all AMERICAN will care about it anyway at leasts USA still far aways to reachs
by the JIHAD PEOPLES right

But dont forget, with the destruction of mecca they can say for sure that it is a war on their religon. What other reason would you attack a holy place that houses no weapons or terrrorists? It would be a big mistake.

REsulting form that you can expect a nuke going off in Vatican City to finalize the fact that is america does something stupid that its time to dance. This is another fact, who do you think would be hurt more, the muslims or americans? The muslims will use this tool to bring millions and millions of terrorists full fold, As much as Americans say they are willing to die for their country, 80% are just saying it.

Just one adition to this topic. I dont think any one has noted yet that alot of the terror now, and aparently most of it that is directed tword the U.S., has been, or is belived to be state suported. So when they turn un with WMD, it will be state, or states that would recive in kind.

I see your point, but you are assuming that they have a large suply of nukes - which in all likelyhood would not be the case.

At any rate, if a Nuke does go off in the US, you will see the same thing that happened in WWII to the japanese - all muslims will be put in camps. In that case, there will be no more nukes going off in the US.

LOL, you atually think these guys are muslims or respect Islam?
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well that would be one way to make sure the US was NEVER safe again.

Do you really think that nuking millions of innocent people is a justifiable reaction for what a comparitive handful had done? If you say that for every 500hundread thousand innocents there is 1 terrorist, is this really justifiable.

I do not think there is a single human that would, anyone who did agree could not be considered a human, purely a monster.

Well, I’m sure we have something like MAD already laid out to the appropriate governments. I don’t think it will be anything like 100 cities. (we’re not a people bent on genocide after all).

We DO know who the main culprits are likely to be behind a WMD attack. N. Korea, Iran and Syria.

China is already poised to deal with N. Korea. They have started to move a lot of troops onto their border. I really think that mad-dog has almost slipped it’s leash. That’s why we are not doing anything to them, we have positioned forces to make it very clear to China that they must take care of that particular problem or we will.

Syria is run by a weak Baathist regime whose days are numbered. We’d probably allow Israel to invade Lebanon and Syria rather than do anything ourselves.

Iran would be the country to get nuked. We’ve probably communicated that to them through unofficial channels. However, their fanaticism may be such as to think Allah will actually protect them from a counter-strike. In any case, we all know that the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions are about toppling Iran (and always were about that).

Personally, I believe if we don’t see a WMD attack by end of 2005, we’re not going to see one at all. If we see one, then the would map will look a lot different, but you won’t see too many nukes fired off.

The only way a nuclear threat can work, is if the good people in the areas being threatened actively get rid of the terrosists themselves, out of fear.It is to give them a kick in the pants on just how serious we are, so they will clean up the problem themselves.But for the most parts they do NOTHING, or worse, help the terrosists.

I agree with LordBaskett... the terrorist organization is way too widespread and diverse to be able to target them in any meaningful way. However, it seems likely that these groups are functioning in societies that must be at least aware of their existence and activities. Take Saudi Arabia as an example. There is a great deal of evidence that terrorists are being funded from S.A. and the governement seems to have a 'look the other way' mentality. Perhaps if a large enough cost was placed on that kind of posture it would be difficult for the terrorists to operate. If the unthinkable happens and there is a successful WMD attack on the US then perhaps we should give foreign governments 48hrs to turn over all terrorist operatives or we nuke carefully chosen 'high-value' targets.

Although I understand the authors logic here, it does seem a bit aggressive. Lets pretend for a second that this doctrine existed AND the world believed the US would do it, it may cause other nations to react a little differently to terrorists in thier nations. That could be a good thing, but what if an attack still happened? The world ends? Because thats pretty much how it would go down.

I think it may have the same effect if the doctrine reads: You would be severly attacked if...yada yada yada. "Attacked" meaning bombed with massive CONVENTIONAL bombs. And of course it would have to be just the home nation(s) of the attackers. Not everybody.

If I was a civilian in country X, and I happened to know of a group down the street that was planning an attack on the US, and I had knowledge that the US would bomb the heck out of my home if that group down the street did anything, I may be more inclined to squeal on them.

The key to your proposal as "a threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities," punishes the innocent, and does nothing to name the guilty. In fact any time in your proposal the USA wants to do that, it proceeds with a false flag operation. The horror of destroying 100 Muslim cities is beyond the pale, it is something as to human rights that requires highly stringent due process. But even that does not justify genocide.

Right now a "threat," is no longer deterrence after the preemptive doctrine. You do not in deterrence tell the enemy what you are going to do, in fact it is a totally flawed strategic policy. The depleted uranium in Iraq is bad enough, in fact the USG is already vaporizing not only Iraq, but our own troops with radiation that destroys DNA and creates deformities.

If you are really someone who supports our troops, you would do away with such hideous disposal of nuclear waste. It is nothing less than blowback, treating our soldiers like expendible pawns, "stupid men," as Kissinger once said.

It is one thing to be a diehard conservative supporting real American values, it is another blindly following such Strangelove neoconservatism.

I thought that responding to this would only dignify it, so I was ready to delete this, but I changed my mind. You do everyone on this planet a disservice with such madness. This is the 21rst Century, not the 13th century commanding things. You may tend to agree that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint," and passe, but what you propose is a retrogression. I speak with more authority than you will ever have.

i didn't read most of the thread because i wanted to respond to the first post only.

ed, i agree with some of what you post up here. i think we are on the relatively same page most of the time. this, however, is ridiculously over the top. there is no way in hell the rest of the world's militaries and governments would allow that. even england would turn on us. russia, who has more nuclear weapons than even the US, if i remember correctly, would not stand for it. china would not allow it, canada and mexico would align against us and so would just about every other nation that has a few airplanes and a decent amount of soldiers. it is definitely the way to start WWIII. not to mention, it would be the wrong response.

here's my opinion:

beef up border security and expell all foreign nationals except those going through naturalisation processes.

if this is done, it is extremely unlikely we should be attacked again, unless by military forces with access to airplanes, large artillery, missiles, etc.

if this isn't done and we are attacked again, the correct response would be to pull troops fro elsewhere in the world, even if we go it alone, and completely inundate that said region or country with manpower. a soldier on every street corner, tanks patroling every street, everyday, planes flying over constantly, but not a single bomb dropped. the FBI could then go to work there. find who they need to, arrest them, extradite them, try them here in the US and sentence them, to death if necessary.