Krauthammer notes that the nuclear genie is out of the box in North Korea and will soon be in Iran. With preemption probably off the table, the only things left are defense and deterrence. But how do you deter the undeterrable?
With (Iran’s) current millenarian leadership, deterrence is indeed a feeble gamble, as I wrote in 2006 in making the case for considering preemption. But if preemption is off the table, deterrence is all you’ve got. Our task is to make deterrence in this context less feeble.
Two ways: Begin by making the retaliatory threat in response to Iranian nuclear aggression so unmistakable and so overwhelming that the non-millenarians in leadership would stay the hand or even remove those taking their country to the point of extinction.
But there is an adjunct to deterrence: missile defense. Against a huge Soviet arsenal, this was useless. Against small powers with small arsenals, i.e., North Korea and Iran, it becomes extremely effective in conjunction with deterrence…
Of course, one can get around missile defense by using terrorists. But anything short of a hermetically secret, perfectly executed, multiple-site attack would cause terrible, but not existential, destruction. The retaliatory destruction, on the other hand, would be existential.
Well, maybe. It’s one thing to launch a massively retaliatory strike when the other guy’s missiles are inbound. In the case of a terrorist strike, you’d have to first work your way through the nuclear forensics and then decide – in cool, deliberate way – that the other actor’s entire population is forfeit to the actions of an illegitimate regime.
I’m not sure I see it.
Not the entire population. Just the military and government. Don’t even have to use nukes, particularly, although a nice demonstration might be worth it to deter the next guy.
Then if the UN wants to go in afterwards to keep the rest from starving to death, they’re welcome to.
“that the other actor’s entire population is forfeit to the actions of an illegitimate regime.”
And a large number of his down-wind neighbors, also.
I don’t see it either.
I don’t think there’s a chance the Iranian government would hit anyone overtly with a nuclear weapon. They would use proxies, as they always do. Of course, those proxies wouldn’t launch the nuke either, they would sneak it in parts, in which case (unfortuntely) this defense idea wouldn’t work.
Ender’s Game
Xenocide
(of course that implies a Hegemon and a Strategos; but nothing is ever completely off the table)
As Mrs. Thatcher said to Bush41, “Now don’t go wobbly on me George”. I bet you would see it better if there was a big smoking hole where a lot of San Diego used to be.
I’m with Bill C, why all this wossie posturing going here, this is a no brainer. If one is worried about the “neighbors down wind” well then maybe those vary neighbors should get off their a** now and convince the smakedass’ in charge in Iran to back down and live nicely in the grownup world. Otherwise I say, we have a few nukes with their names on them as well!!
Look, the UN and the World et al, took the threat from Saddam a little too lightly and had there been a shoulder-to-shoulder front from all the big guys on the block (i.e. China, Russia) and even from the pretenders (i.e. France) then I think things would be a lot different. But like politics here in the U.S. everyone is has a conflict of interest and the “status quo” is held.
Now I say, strap on some balls and somke’em if you got them, that nuclear winter thing is not forever, just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, sprawling metropolis’ both, and they don’t even need street lights at night, an environmental windfall too boot!!
JimmyT (the T is for Tyrant, at least for today)
Do y’all really believe that a nuclear strike by the United States could be unilateral and unresponded to? With respect, IMO, such an opinion is delusional. EVERY potential use of nuclear weapons by anyone that I have ever read, studied, heard about or discussed leads to international global anhiliation. And those are not just old Cold War studies.
If we launch, then there is Putin, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Kazakhs, the Republic of Georgians (and all of the other places where the old USSR stored WMDs) who could, likely would, launch themselves, at us, Israel, each other and anyone else they thought might follow suit if a pre-emptive strike were not fashioned.
I’m with Lex. Defense, in the sense of a nuclear option, is not an option and deterrance does not seem to have any effect. What’s left is Golda Meier’s lament, “Peace will come when they love their children as much as they hate ours.” Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick foreign policy is simply not an option.
Respects
OAM
Whew, what a subject! You can look at the comments and tell how much they know about this World. The more you know, the spookier it gets. This would limit the nuclear option only to defense. The idea of “putting on a show” or “strapping on some balls”, you really might want to rethink that strategy. You’ll find yourselves in the “Hall of Fame of the Walking Dead”. You think you know what it means to be, “screwed”, then you would know.
Grumpy
OAM,
With all due respect, you are wrong. Deterrance will definitely work if the other side knows exactly what you can do and what you will do if they choose the incorrect path. As for all the others you list just waiting to start throwing nukes around, give me a break.
Bill C
I don’t usually respond to efforts as meaningless as yours. However, I’m not wrong and here’s why:
China and the Russians have a mutual defense treaty. The Kazakhs have a cultural and religious identity with the Iranians. The Paks and the Indians are just waiting for an excuse. If we let that djinni out of its bottle, there is no control for the outcome.
Deterrance does not work if the enemy sees our destruction as more desirable than their survival. Isn’t that fundamental belief at the heart of what passes for jihad now? Isn’t the enemy’s destruction and personal glorification the core motivation for suicide bomb attacks? How is Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons different from the suicide bomber who kills people attending a funeral? What deters the suicide bomber? Death is not deterrance. Destruction is not deterrance. Death does not deter those who act without caring about or for the consequences.
Clausewitz wrote that war is the use of force to compel the enemy to accept one’s political will. Mutually assured destruction, nuclear deterrance or resorting to preemptive nuclear strikes inflames the passions of the enemy. It does nothing to force him to accept your political will. On the contrary it motivates him to resist to the last person. One need only to revisit the stories of the Blitz or Stalingrad from WWII, or the failure of strategic bombing ordered by President Nixon in 1972 in Viet Nam, to recognize that threatening, or especially killing, the family, home or means of existence of the enemy offers no chance of bending the enemy to the political will. On the contrary, those attacks on the enemy’s passions invoke the exact opposite effect (“Remember the Alamo”, “Never has so much been owed by so many to so few”, “A day which shall live in infamy”.)
Besides that, does anyone think any American administration has the gumption to exercise a nuclear option? Would this president? Would McCain? Would Reagan?
Have a great weekend.
OAM
I don’t think this is really a question about an Iranian strike in the US but one in Israel. I also believe the Israelis won’t bother with the forensics because one weapon will affect the whole country, and who else would be the primary suspect?
Immediate retaliation will occur.
We had better start considering how we respond to Israel’s inclinations if the unthinkable becomes the possible.
Why then bother to have them in the first place? They look good all shiny and white!! In their cute little armories’ (at least the AF thinks that’s where they are). Give ME the break.
Just look at what we are talking about; a culture built on “might makes right”, a culture that places a higher value on camels over their Women, a view that “compassion” is a weakness (which is why our stupid ROE on our combatant troops is a joke and only leads to them getting killed), a whole “civilization” still living in the forth century. Right now, this instance what would compel anyone to think that if the entire Iranian civilization (such as it is) was wiped off the face of the earth there would be anything to miss? Is their net contribution to the Global Society worth even one taking a breath? I for one don’t think so. And the same holds for Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia etc. the list goes on.
The World should close quarters around this so that we don’t have to do it ourselves. We have plenty of shinney bombs to go around.
Unfortunately for us all, we will probably find out the answer to this debate within our lifetimes. Then it will all be settled.
Grew up hiding under school desks during drills. Served carrier air wings during the cold war. Cold was frigid. Check-check-check; guard against mate. I tend to agree with Allen. The scenario I’ m concerned about is the one where Israel acts first (in the absence of united action) or over-reacts second (and that doesn’t appear to be in their historical nature). Then we see what the big-sticks and Arab nations do. Hopefully cooler heads would prevail. We need a few more Fox Fallons around the globe. Regards, b.
Welcome to the moral bankruptcy that was/is MAD.
I won’t belabor the point since most folks ’round these parts know where I stand on the issue, but the answer, in part, lies in missile defense. Reagan got it, Gorbachev (after Chernobyl) got it, and Ahma-dinna-jacket or some other tinpot leader who tries a launch against the US or our friends/allies and finds their missile attack shattered and blunted will “get it” – and our leaders won’t be faced with the moral dilemma that a reprehensible policy presented.
-SJS
Actually, why would our response have to be nuclear (or chemical/biological for that matter)? I think unrestricted conventional warefare would be sufficient to reduce the offending country’s infrastructure to near zero were we to be so inclined. There would certainly be strong political pressure to respond in kind, but if we wanted to reduce Tehran to rubble we don’t need nukes, it just takes longer.
OAM,
I was just expressing an opinon and now you have gone and made it personal. I still think you incorrect re the value of deterrance and I also think your ego is writing checks that your knowledge can’t cover. Regarding the core question of the value of some form of threat against the Iranians should they decide to exercise a nuclear option, in whatever form, against this country or Israel. I would advocate a clear presntation to the Iranian leadership of what retaliation would occur. It does not have to include their population. I would make it clear that it may or may not be nuclear. As for the Russian and Chinese defense treaty, what is the link? Do you really think The Russians or the Chinese are going to risk a super power confrontation over Iran? Regarding the Paki’s and India, again why would they get involved. They firmly believe in deterrance, that is why they have weapons in the first place, to keep the other from attacking. You state “How is Iran’s possession of a nuc any different from a suicide bomber at a funeral. Perhaps you should talk with members of the IDF about the difference, I’m sure they will explain it to you. You state MAD, deterrance, and pre-emptive strikes does nothing but inflame the passions of the enemy. It does nothing to force him to accept your political will. Clearly you know nothing of the history or purpose of MAD. It was developed by John Foster Dulles during the second half of the Eisenhower administration. It was designed for only one purpose, to buy time. Dulles, and others believed Communisn would fail, they estimated it would collapse of it’s own internal failures in 60 years. MAD was designed to keep the nuclear peace for that time. They underestimated by 20 years. Nuclear deterrance inflames nothing, because nothing happens, please see the history of the cold war. Pre-emptive nuclear strikes would definitely inflame passions. Lastly you mention the failure of strategic bombing by Nixon to end the war in Vietnam. Operation Linebacker ll, the December B-52 bombing of Hanoi is precisely why the Vietnamese agreed to terms to end the war. Up till that time they had bickered endlessly because they had nothing to lose. If you think no American president has the gumption to exercise the nuclear option, should it be necessary, then don’t vote for that person. They better have the gumption or they should not be president. You have a good weekend also.
It’s interesting that this issue has now become conceivable when all this time it was inevitable. Atomic weapons were dreamed up by men born in the 19th century who then labored to design and build them in the 20th and used them before we got half way through that century.
It’s been more than 60 years since they appeared on earth but it took until the beginning of this century for the barbarous states to start dreaming their own nuclear dreams and since they’re committed to a 12th century lifestyle with the worst education outside of Africa they leaned into the novel idea of buying nukes from people that were smarter, more ruthless and more afraid than them.
I’m sure there are plenty of studies by RAND and others that model this world and the effects of unbridled employment of nuclear weapons by those with absolutely nothing to lose because they love nothing more than they hate their perceived enemies.
Be of good cheer though for the neocons have given this matter a lot of thought and for those that have advocated here the non-nuclear devastation of a possible nuclear adversary state I would ask, what then? For we have surely tried that course and most of us find it not to our liking.
Having tried the soft approach once perhaps we ought to consider the Roman approach: ‘ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant’. It’s not as if the region isn’t already mostly desert.
Back on point, strategic deterrence or MAD only works when the players are at the same table and understand the rules, Nation-states playing poker if you will. That was the cold war. At least the Russians were predictable. What we face today is entirely different.
Krauthammer made the assumption that a nuclear terrorist attack would be met with a massive retaliatory strike on our part. Lex disagrees. Have to side with the Captain – our government/society is not capable of a nuclear response and world politics would never allow it.
Missile defense… sure hope it works.
So we can’t deter, and we can’t defend… and the smoking hole happens, and we do the forensics and determine it was terrorists from Country X. What do you see then, Lex?
Does deterrence work against countries that are willing to completely sacrifice themselves and their citizens to reach the end goal of annihilating the United States and Israel?
These people truly believe that their god will reward them for wiping us off the face of the earth and they are willing to martyr themselves to do so. How do you deter someone like that?
It’s not merely a good idea to respond to a WMD attack on the US with nuclear weapons, it’s an imperative if we’re to maintain international stability.
Ever since the Soviets detonated their first nuclear device the expressed position of all nuclear states is that their arsenals are for deterrent use only, to serve as retaliation for a nuclear strike on them. And for 60 years it kept civilisation from self-immolation.
If the US is subject to the very thing we’ve said our nuclear weapons are built to retaliate for and we don’t use those weapons it will raise questions. Deep thinkers in Moscow and Beijing will begin to wonder why, exactly, we have those weapons. If they’re not for retaliation, they must be for some offensive purpose.
I asked a cousin who was a NucE major in college. If a nuke goes off, the radioactive signature can’t pinpoint who detonated it, but can pinpoint the who made the uranium and/or plutonium in it.
Thus a terrorist strike using an Iranian nuke won’t point to Iran, it’ll point to Nambia or Niger as the source of the uranium (oddly enough, Canada is the largest source of raw yellowcake), and then we’ll have to spend a few weeks tracing their sales to possible customers who might have given that finished nuke to Sheik Yur Bootie and his merry band of terrorists.
Once that’s complete, what do you do? The USA is not about killing civilians if it can help it. It will be about retaliation, you can bet your last dollar on that. And I suspect that those in Europe will be behind that effort — offensive use of a nuke is an act they won’t wish to see, and given conditions in the Scandanavian countries, Germany, and Britain I expect they fear it too.
So it’s a given that use of a nuke, if traced back to a state power, will result in the removal of that state, but probably not with a nuclear retaliation.
Immediate retaliation is for when you see the inbound missiles and can track them back to their launch points, deterrence against a suprise attack. For the terrorist option where tracks can be hidden, once found the extermination of population isn’t an option America can morally justify. Instead, that country’s government must be destroyed and replaced, and the populace left as unharmed as possible.
Since we’ve a couple of weeks to determine who handed this physics package out, with respect to DirtyBlueShirt I don’t think his argument holds water for this scenario. The retaliation must be as certain as the MAD doctrine prescribed, but the choice of weapons we use against the culprits is of our choosing, and we won’t destroy civilian populace if another method is available.
After all, you can still make the rubble bounce with conventional weapons.
– Max
Ask yourself why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons-or why the NORKS are. It is to gain an insurance policy of sorts against invasion by the US. Saddam did not have WMD and he got invaded. Kim Jong Il did have a nuke (of sorts)-and is still in power. That’s the lesso learned for a nation that has the resources to do so. Plus for the Iranians its a national pride issue-or at least the government has manufactured it into one.
Personally I don’t think the Iranians are that stupid. They know if they use a nuke the roof would cave in-and I think it is pretty clear from US public posturing that if someone else crosses the nuclear threshold then the gloves come off.
Besides if the US can just be patient, and bide its time, the Iranian governent will implode from within-just like the NORKS will during the next big famine.
As for the terrorist threat-you could bomb Iran till the cows come home and there would still be a terrorist threat.
All high level talk about potential nuclear capabilities in the realm of strategies to deny..Useful, sure, but what about “policy” for IF it happens. Who do we retaliate against? How do we respond?
When put into that context “pre-emption” seems the smart and less risky way to go. Scary stuff, ain’t it?
Of course y’all have your own opinions, but put it in the context of a hypothetical “attack” and then discuss:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080416/METRO/556828862/1004/metro
WashTimes last Wed, Metro section.
Evaluate and think consequences.
b2
Now you know one reason I was so frustrated in my last job.
It’s not quite as bad as that.
It’s worse.
Who do you nuke in retaliation when a Yemeni born Saudi Arabian, based out of Sudan uses tools he trained up in Afghanistan to execute his evil plan; nukes Washington DC?
Exactly so, Curtis. And if they traced the radioactive signature to Pakistan, what then?
If, through a comedy of errors, the US military could transport nukes across the country by accident…it’s hardly inconceivable for terrorists to potentially covertly obtain one from a third world government via bureaucratic ineptitude rather than malice.
Chap-
Don’t like this either- but it must be confronted. Most of these civvies here missed the Cold War and wern’t/aren’t in da bidness. re scenario- it was 10 kt, not…ahem, mega you know what….
Curtis-
Who said retaliate with nukes?
#1- never ass-ume..
Seeing how YOU’ve gone there..let’s break down your question:
- Nodes mentioned: Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan & Afghanistan…Hmmmm
What variety of terrorist? Can we assume that he is an Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist?
Answer yes? OK..
Hmmm.. what is a tangible, physical and geographic node common to all Islamic terrorists, but unfortunetly not all non-terrorist Muslims, bent on suicide and genocide.
If you can answer that question you have a targeting solution Curtis.
Don’t like the answer? Neither do I, Sir. Tell me one better….Please.
b2
Chap-
Don’t like this either- same angst,but it must be confronted like a risk analysis. Most of these civvies reading here and everywhere missed the Cold War and weren’t/aren’t in da bidness so they need to understand. Maybe they have all their info from “Jericho” (scary thought) re scenario- it was 10 kt, not…ahem, mega you know what….
Curtis-
Who said retaliate with nukes?
#1- never ass-ume..
Seeing how YOU’ve gone there..let’s break down your question:
- Nodes mentioned: Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan & Afghanistan…Hmmmm
What variety of terrorist? Can we assume that he is an Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist?
Answer yes? OK..
Hmmm.. what is a tangible, physical and geographic node common to all Islamic terrorists, but unfortunetly not all non-terrorist Muslims, bent on suicide and genocide.
If you can answer that question you have a targeting solution Curtis.
Don’t like the answer? Neither do I, Sir. Tell me one better….Please.
b2
I have no idea what you are referring to, b2. If they all actually gathered in any one place at one time, and we knew where that was, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Are you referring to the Hajj at Mecca? I doubt that would target them…hell, they’d probably be willing to bomb it themselves to blame it on the west and start a world war. And it would probably work.
It is “relatively easy” to discuss this in the abstract, but let’s just stop and think. The MAD mentality, can we get back there? How many bases have we closed through BRAC? What about the deployed troops, both sides? Read your maps. When I was boy, my Father taught me how to spell the word ass-u-me. By the way in the type of exchange we are discussing, all of the fancy networking, semiconductors, computers and avionics are FRIED. It is quite possible, if their weapons don’t kill us, the radiation of our own weapons could wind up doing the job. We can not reliably predict patterns of radiation from such an event. Yes, I’m old enough to remember, “Duck and Cover”. The other thing was while we were in high school, we had a class in nuclear war and its consequences. The facts we were given, were not in any embellished or exaggerated, in fact, they were confirmed by the Military. The Military built on that foundation, extensively and a long time ago. -Grumpy
Liz,
Nothing heard from Curtis.
re- “Are you referring to the Hajj at Mecca? I doubt that would target them…hell, they’d probably be willing to bomb it themselves to blame it on the west and start a world war. And it would probably work.”
It’s the only “tangible” location. Yes.
An agreed to, pre-response policy, not massive retaliation but standing orders. As a policy for deterence. A Sword of Damocles so to to speak. It might get those countries that “aid and abet” the terrorists to “clean house” if you know what I mean. Fat chance of implementing a policy like that though.
Yes, I agree if Mecca was destroyed and made unusable for a hundred years they would blame it on us regardless…Hell, they fervently believe (80% of Muslims worldwide) that our government was responsible for 9-11, along with 10-15% (may be higher) of “American”citizens….
Choose your poison Liz. Status quo OK? If I had any other ideas I’d share ‘em with the world. How do you think we should respond if, or when, it happens? I’d like to hear it if it ain’t hyperbolic! Don’t mean to be Socratic but Lex put’s these posts up here about the “unthinkable” from time to time but few take on the challenge of how to respond, or better yet, how to deter. I know why Chap and Lex won’t discuss and I don’t blame ‘em.
b2
Skippy-san, you’re neglecting the state of the DMZ, concerns of the powers in the region, and the current binding cease-fire between the NORKOR and the UN. Granted the possiblity of a nuke (I for one, still say it could have been a large am-fo bomb, but I just build the things to drop them) was some consideration.
I doubt even threatening to lob as many as we can would deter any powers as they know we won’t. We’re a country that sadly has become easily squeamish, for better or worse. We’re irrational players, that value all civilians the same as our one (for the whole). Our response, even to the destruction of a major city, would most certainly be anemic, at best. MAD only works when all parties know, or at least think, you’ll be willing to push the button when the time comes. It also helps when one tries to defend, such as SDI.
Heinlein pointed this out back in the late forties, in an essay he wrote. He mentioned nukes the size of a water cooler, and nukes being easily smuggled into seaports. Hey, blow it _before_ you clear customs!
That was a clear-headed guy who understood this, and wrote about it before my birth!
Nobody paid attention to him or prudent thinkers of his ilk.
I would like to do something against such horrors, but see no way, personally.
I need to make an algorithm, or function, which considers my age, the prospect of the US.gov getting really nasty, the probability of the Mohammedans getting nukes, the state of my liver, my duty to my cat, the probable pusillanimity of Congress, and who’s likely to be elected President, and then calculate whether I should drink more, or less.
All things considered, I’m with Skippy. I intend to drink Moar.
At least I’ll be numb, when they come
We in the forces of the West are trained to attack the enemy’s center of gravity. Attacking the Kaba in Mecca and wiping it and Medina from the face of the earth would be the worst thing that the west could ever do in retaliation. OBL’s mob made it pretty clear that their attacks were due to the Custodian of the 2 holy mosques letting us keep our troops stationed in the Kingdom to ward off Saddam and other lowlifes. In short, the simple presence within the Kingdom was enough to justify 9/11 and the embassy bombings in Africa and probably the bombing at SANG HQ. Only fools and madmen would advocate the energetic evolution of rocks into sand in the Kingdom.
My recommendation? Find a sovereign entity that nobody has ever heard of, bargain with them most assiduously and convince them to sanction, on our behalf, some really really dangerous people who are charged with the mission of silently exterminating any and all who declare war on the West. It will be necessary to wipe out complete families in this endeavor but nobody, who encourages nuclear demolition should cavil at such root and branch destruction.
No western country can get away with such actions thanks to our civil government and judicial systems. We would need to offshore it in order to make it work. I’m not sure how we’d go about indemnifying the intell analysts, policy makers, decision makers and shooters but I’m sure something would occur to me while I was burying the corpses of a million US citizens, victims of the first nuclear attack on the West.
So wouldn’t it be better to help them have an ‘accident’ before they work?
I can think of two rebel groups that have a very personal interest in what happens in Iran. The enemy of my enemy can sometimes be a good friend, espically if we don’t forget about them after.
Smuggling nukes is hard but it ain’t rocket surgery. Getting the stuff to make the bomb is likely harder. IMHO, YMMV.
=========
Justthisguy,
Heinlein’s sister said that Heinlein used to stare in the direction of NYC from his apartment in WWII, and wonder when the Germans were going to nuke it. Note, this is from 1942 and the secret that was Manhattan hadn’t gotten a head of steam yet.
==========
B2,
Remember that the guys we’re trying to destroy tried to take over Mecca back in the seventies. They failed. I understand the Jacksonian nature of the response, but have objections:
–Even if bombing something religious is what you want to do, the Hajj ain’t just circling the Ka’aba. There are other things you could target if you wanted to hork off a billion people who weren’t your enemies (say, the guys we’re fighting alongside, and some of my shipmates in the Navy on active duty) and violate our own laws of war.
–Let’s say you did. Did you know that one of those holy sites is in Jerusalem? Isn’t that being targeted by Iran right now? Why is it that many places in Mecca are getting razed and rebuilt, to include the place where Mohammed supposedly got the first word of God spoken to him? (Answer: the guys with the bulldozers–not necessarily our enemy–are trying to stop what they see as idolatry and it’s controversial in the different splits of the faith.) So apparently even others venerate Mecca but aren’t exactly unwilling to let it disappear, especially if the world war can be started faster and more effectively. Is it perhaps that nihilism is a goal of our enemies, and the destruction you seek would be a boon to those enemies?
–Would this be such a boon to them that they might indeed do this themselves, perhaps assigning us blame for it?
Unfortunately even this kind of considered discussion you and I are having here on line is in some quarters considered taboo. It’s perfectly natural to think of blowing up the biggest televised symbol liked by the enemy, and my opinion above is counterintuitive without a lot of thought or conversation about the faith versus what our enemy is. I think it’s such a bad idea that it’s out of bounds. I could be wrong; Jacksonian responses after we lose Houston twice might be enough to cause a response like you suggest, with the right president and popular whim.
However, what I’ve seen happen instead is that as soon as the question is raised someone gets offended–doesn’t even have to be who you’d think–and the Diversity Reeducators fall on the poor schlub who suggested it like a ton of bricks. Completely negative training, that. Much better to go through the problem and hash it out without resorting to reeducation camps from the Equal Opportunity Office.
===========
Curt:
Your scenario is fine–if that’s the reality behind what we think the scenario is. What if someone who wants the chaos leaves clues that look like the scenario? More importantly, who’s thinking about this on our side and what are they doing about it that isn’t power point deep?
Also, there’s a moral danger in wanting others to do things we’d like to consider immoral but aren’t doing ourselves right now. I would further argue that as wars go on uninterrupted, things considered taboo get done, and after the war is over the opponents go back to being moral. Cf. Peloponnesian wars, f’rinstance…
Well, is that all she wrote?
No ideas on a solid Islamic terrorist nuclear “deterrence policy” on how to respond IF, except hire Ninja’s from a foreign “entity”?
Anemic. Nobody wants to touch this one and I don’t blame anybody, but don’t you hope somebody is thinking about this, somewhere, in our government? I sure do.
b2
Chap,
We must have posted at the same time, didn’t see your response first.
Sure, that response was purposefully “Jacksonian” and measured for impact on my part, but I also stated clearly that it would probably never become a policy. I also never said “during the Hajh” or to maximize casualities, did I? You and Curtis thought differently though. I was thinking simply in physical-attackable terms. But what else is available as a L.C.D. retaliation site for the “unthinkable”? Nothing else I can think of. Perhaps we could draw a city name out of a hat after we get hit- who should be in the hat? Cairo, Teheran, Riyad, Islamabad, Damascus….That don’t seem likely either, does it?
Taboo discussion? For you, obviously and for real reasons, but I art a civvie now. Should I fear something about this? If we can’t logically brainstorm in anonymity on the blogosphere can they do it in the government that exists to protect and defend us? Don’t answer that- I’m sure I won’t like the answer I get.
re- “I think it’s such a bad idea that it’s out of bounds. ” & “Diversity Reeducators fall on the poor schlub who suggested it like a ton of brick”.
Does that make me “bad” or a xenophobe, or a racist? BTW, I don’t think that is what you were implying. Hey Chap- It may be a bad idea from a practical standpoint today, 21 Apr 2008..but, out of bounds, why? It has elements of proportionality not followed during our Massive Retaliation policy phase of the 1950′s during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, among several other positive traits.
Somebody out there must have a better or more “appropriate idea”..Again I’ll say- ” I sure hope so.”
You know, our enemies have a plan for creating the “Unthinkable” scenario. We don’t have a plan what to do if it happens.
That bothers me.
I would counsel you and Lex to assiduously avoid putting up posts about “the unthinkable” without expecting some discussion at some level. Jacksonian or otherwise.
b2
rail junctions are military targets.
MEK could probably navigate to vicinity N34deg 38 min 15.3sec E50deg 51min 54.2sec.
just sayin’.
hypothetically.