the MAD plan, revisited

LeeRyder · 12-05-2004, 08:13 PM

I just read this... very umm.. non-politically correct article... thought I would share..

i ask that if you take the 2 minutes to read this...that ya read it completely to give it a fair shot.

to summarize for those that dont want to read it, the author proposes that we destroy 100 of the top muslim cities on the planet (nukes) if one of ours is attacked with nukes.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/58396-the-mad-plan-revisited.html
In his thinking, this will cost the us nothing to say/enforce but will ensure that we get more than lip service from the saudi's. et al. not to mention give pause to the terrorists who do NOT want mecca a smoldering glass pile.

not sure i back this..but it is interesting in that sword fish type of way.

Quote:

A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David C. Atkins
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

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.

Although gruesome sounding, the beauty of MAD is that it worked. Even though both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, none was ever used. In fact, both sides went to great lengths to establish hardened and redundant command, communication and control systems to prevent the accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons, fearing the dire consequences.

The primary reason MAD worked is because it was simple and unambiguous. Both sides let the other side know in no uncertain terms that a nuclear first strike would be followed immediately by an overwhelming nuclear counter-strike destroying the heartland, culture and society of the attacker. This was a price even the most evil 20th century dictators would not even contemplate.

We now have a new enemy, Islamic terrorism, hellbent to either enslave or destroy us. This enemy is in many ways much harder to cope with than an evil empire. It does not have an army, an economy, an infrastructure, a capital or a state to attack. This enemy refuses to show itself on the field of battle so we can destroy it with our superior weapons and tactics.

However, Islamic terrorism could not exist if it did not enjoy comfort, support and succor from the Islamic societies from which its members are recruited. Besides the overt state support from Syria, Iran, pre-invasion Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, etc., this enemy also enjoys popular support in Islamic states. The popular support of the terrorists is much larger than it is politically correct to discuss in most forums in the West. But, does anyone doubt that bin Laden would be elected dictator-for-life in Saudi Arabia if that nation had free elections? Let's not allow political correctness to blind us or kill us. The terrorists are merely an extreme form of widespread corruption, totalitarianism and venality prevalent in Islamic states and societies worldwide.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396

Now, here is the urgent problem. The Islamic terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons to destroy us. If and when they acquire a nuclear weapon with the help of their state sponsors, they will use it in the U.S. homeland without warning. Can you imagine the effect of just one nuclear weapon being detonated in New York or Washington? In addition to the initial horrific destruction and casualties, the U.S. economy and perhaps the world economy would go into a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like Sunday school. Investment would stop for fear of further nuclear attacks. If they have one, maybe they have more? Our wealth would be dramatically reduced, and the economy would be in chaos for at least a generation. The American way of life would be dramatically altered, perhaps permanently. In short, the Islamic terrorists would win.

The stakes are as high as can be, and our current strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East may work too slowly or not work at all. How do we prevent that first nuclear attack and mobilize the world, even the Islamic societies, against the terrorists' nuclear ambitions? We need a new nuclear doctrine that puts everybody's skin in the game. We need a new nuclear doctrine that places the American people, the American society, the American economy and the American way of life far above politeness and political correctness.

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.
Now suddenly everybody from Casablanca, Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, Islamabad, Pyongyang and Jakarta have skin in the game. The last thing they want would be a WMD attack on the U.S. It would mean certain destruction of their societies. They might even be motivated to actually and feverishly work against Islamic terrorism instead of the tepid lip service they currently give. Those "freedom fighters" currently being cheered in the streets would be transformed to deadly threats in the very societies that spawned them.

The beauty of this doctrine is that it encourages the 1.2 billion Muslims to actually prove that they are adherents to a "religion of peace," and it holds all Islamic states and North Korea accountable for their behavior. If you don't want your cities on the target list, you have to earn your way off the list. Give us the head of bin Laden on a stick, and you may get a pass. Shut down your nuclear programs in an open and verifiable way, and you can earn your way off the target list.

Another advantage of this doctrine is that it doesn't cost a nickel. We have the necessary weapons and delivery systems in place. This would only require a fraction of our existing nuclear warheads. I presume the platform of choice would be Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean.

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.

Darkfire001 · 12-05-2004, 08:26 PM

Hmm, I would'nt think it would be "right" to destory those cities for such an action.

But would it work.... Maybe.... But then again most of those terrorists are islamic bastards who have no "true" car for earthly values.

Rob · 12-06-2004, 01:08 AM

If I was President/Prime Minister and got attacked on a large scale, such as Sep. 11 or even bigger, I too would use nuclear weapons.

Although recently I have been unsure as to whether this would work. Terrorists dont mind killing fellow muslims (bombs in Baghdad everyday), so wiping out a city or a country probably wouldnt cause them to shed even a tear...

***armstrong*** · 12-06-2004, 01:48 AM

Politics aside, what will this do to the environment? Will plants be able to survive despite a poisoned atmosphere created by over a hundred nuclear detonations? Will it not affect the ionosphere, and perhaps precipitate another ice age?

What will this do to the earth's rotation and revolution? Imagine the earth as a spinning top, and give it a swift kick somewhere in the middle east. I imagine it could create so much wobble that we spin right into outer space, or maybe drop into the sun.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396

Thankfully, MAD was never tested in the Cold War. However, I've heard it argued that it was never a sound theory anyway, since despite the threatening postures of the two superpowers, the logical reaction to a nuclear strike isn't to strike back. It is to die without lifting a finger, so as to give humanity a chance to survive, even if the world indeed becomes utterly capitalist, communist, or fanatically Muslim.

Terry · 12-07-2004, 11:06 AM

Apollo. Often when people think of a nuclear detonation, they think of the A-bombs that the US dropped on Japan. Todays weapons are thousands (maybe thousands upon thousands) times more powerful. The A-bombs, if I remember correctly, were measured in a couple of kilotons. Todays warheads are measured in 10's or 100's of megatons. 100 detonations would indeed result in nuclear winter. MAD meant the end of all life on earth as we know it, still does. And, I am afraid that terrorists don't care. If we were to strike back, or even threaten to strike back, we would be playing into their hands. What they want, and need, is Jihad. The opposite of Jihad is peace. To defeat the world Jihad movement we need to encourage and support peace loving nations and peoples. Often peace is hard won. But, to threaten innocent peoples and their faith, or to theaten the end of all humanity, is not symbolic of what we are attempting to share with the world - our values.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396

Teddy Roosevelt summed it up quite well: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Everybody already knows we have much, much more "stick" than we will ever need to use.

Caveman · 12-07-2004, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by armstrong

...the logical reaction to a nuclear strike isn't to strike back. It is to die without lifting a finger, so as to give humanity a chance to survive...

It was rumored that both sides had computers that would launch a full scale retaliatory strike in the case that there was no one left to initiate a counter attack. True or propaganda is anybodys guess.

Originally Posted by Terry

Apollo. Often when people think of a nuclear detonation, they think of the A-bombs that the US dropped on Japan. Todays weapons are thousands (maybe thousands upon thousands) times more powerful. The A-bombs, if I remember correctly, were measured in a couple of kilotons. Todays warheads are measured in 10's or 100's of megatons. 100 detonations would indeed result in nuclear winter. MAD meant the end of all life on earth as we know it, still does. And, I am afraid that terrorists don't care. If we were to strike back, or even threaten to strike back, we would be playing into their hands. What they want, and need, is Jihad. The opposite of Jihad is peace. To defeat the world Jihad movement we need to encourage and support peace loving nations and peoples. Often peace is hard won. But, to threaten innocent peoples and their faith, or to theaten the end of all humanity, is not symbolic of what we are attempting to share with the world - our values.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396

Teddy Roosevelt summed it up quite well: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Everybody already knows we have much, much more "stick" than we will ever need to use.

Great post Terry, and I agree with about 99% of it. The last sentence is where I somewhat differ in opinion. True, we do have more stick than we would ever need, the problem, and the rest of the world knows this, is that we more often than not, refuse to use any stick at all. This is the reason UBL called the U.S. a "paper tiger". We, as a country, do not have the resolve or stomach to use the nuclear stick, even in protection of our homeland, and that's a shame.

Qwert · 12-07-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Rob

If I was President/Prime Minister and got attacked on a large scale, such as Sep. 11 or even bigger, I too would use nuclear weapons.

Oh yeah, thats a soution, destroy part of Earth over a few thousand people dead. Do you know how stupid and pointless that would be? I'm hoping you never get elected as president/prime minister. I am glad the last 3 posts in this thread disagree with you.

equity78 · 12-07-2004, 07:04 PM

I think the point is that the threat should show those who harbor you too will pay and guess what no matter how liberal you are in your beliefs They will pay. Armstrong your remarks are some of the most outrageous I have ever heard, "don't lift a finger" that is so out there I cannot even think of words. But we will lift a finger, many fingers

Jammer · 12-08-2004, 07:27 AM

The article is simply extremest nonsense.

Terry · 12-08-2004, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Caveman

Great post Terry, and I agree with about 99% of it. The last sentence is where I somewhat differ in opinion. True, we do have more stick than we would ever need, the problem, and the rest of the world knows this, is that we more often than not, refuse to use any stick at all. This is the reason UBL called the U.S. a "paper tiger". We, as a country, do not have the resolve or stomach to use the nuclear stick, even in protection of our homeland, and that's a shame.

I regret that I agree with you on this point, except for the use of nuclear weapons. Nobody can even guess what will happen if they are ever used again. But, we do know what the worst case senerio is.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396

Originally Posted by equity78

I think the point is that the threat should show those who harbor you too will pay...

Yes, that is the point the author of the article is trying to make. But, do you really believe that we win if we react in the exact manner that the enemy hopes we will? Does our government (and all free peoples) win if they allow themselves to be the pawns of terrorists?

equity78 · 12-08-2004, 02:06 PM

No Terry Nobody wins I think that is hte point that everyone work to make sure htat it never happens because no one will iwn everyone will Pay the price for that. It is a complicated issue that goes above and beyond most peoples intellectual capacity. I my self always pray for peace but you must also let your enemies know you wilL respond if they sdtep over a line. I think this you may have a neighborhood that some drug dealers are helped out by neighbors who don''t necessarily agree with selling drugs but sympathize with their socio economic situation the threat if you help these people you too will be wiped out will have those neighbors stop helping drug dealers and help crack down on them I thinK that is the essence here make sympathizers change their tune the criminals will not but without safe harbor they are easier to defeat. THis is everyones job we all must look to make sure all countries notjust the west are safe. You do this by making sure everyone has something to lose poeple must have someone Jow much of the Middle East is Illiterate I read a sstory saying over 60% of those under 25 are and they are unemployed that must change. It is easy to woo someone to hate when they have no hope or Knowledge this must change this is the task for this century Everyone with something to lose. I believe in Capitalism but I believe in making sure everyone at least live a decent life not everyone will be rich but they have to live better than dogs. We all must denounce terror and find ways to see where all sides can make a better world.

Terry · 12-10-2004, 05:43 PM

If I'm reading you correctly, equity78, I think you will agree that our actions in Afghanistan were appropriate after what happened 9/11. The use of crushing force upon the Taliban for harboring Ben Laden, we would hope, will serve as warning to other nations/organizations that we will not tolerate terrorism. I suppose that Afghanistan was somewhat easy because of the depth of intelligence that we had for that particular problem. We have learned from Iraq. Maybe that is the reason that we have not started anything with some of Iraq's neighbors.

12-05-2004, 08:26 PM	#2 (permalink)
Darkfire001 Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,123	Hmm, I would'nt think it would be "right" to destory those cities for such an action. But would it work.... Maybe.... But then again most of those terrorists are islamic bastards who have no "true" car for earthly values. __________________ Reichelt Solutions

12-06-2004, 01:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
*armstrong* Man from Manila Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Net Posts: 6,022	Politics aside, what will this do to the environment? Will plants be able to survive despite a poisoned atmosphere created by over a hundred nuclear detonations? Will it not affect the ionosphere, and perhaps precipitate another ice age? What will this do to the earth's rotation and revolution? Imagine the earth as a spinning top, and give it a swift kick somewhere in the middle east. I imagine it could create so much wobble that we spin right into outer space, or maybe drop into the sun. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396 Thankfully, MAD was never tested in the Cold War. However, I've heard it argued that it was never a sound theory anyway, since despite the threatening postures of the two superpowers, the logical reaction to a nuclear strike isn't to strike back. It is to die without lifting a finger, so as to give humanity a chance to survive, even if the world indeed becomes utterly capitalist, communist, or fanatically Muslim. __________________ Apollo's excellent 3-letter .BIZ auction; $1 starting bid!

12-07-2004, 11:06 AM	#5 (permalink)
Terry NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Wibaux, Montana USA Posts: 650	Apollo. Often when people think of a nuclear detonation, they think of the A-bombs that the US dropped on Japan. Todays weapons are thousands (maybe thousands upon thousands) times more powerful. The A-bombs, if I remember correctly, were measured in a couple of kilotons. Todays warheads are measured in 10's or 100's of megatons. 100 detonations would indeed result in nuclear winter. MAD meant the end of all life on earth as we know it, still does. And, I am afraid that terrorists don't care. If we were to strike back, or even threaten to strike back, we would be playing into their hands. What they want, and need, is Jihad. The opposite of Jihad is peace. To defeat the world Jihad movement we need to encourage and support peace loving nations and peoples. Often peace is hard won. But, to threaten innocent peoples and their faith, or to theaten the end of all humanity, is not symbolic of what we are attempting to share with the world - our values. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=58396 Teddy Roosevelt summed it up quite well: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Everybody already knows we have much, much more "stick" than we will ever need to use. __________________ T1 Internet Services - Direct U Telecom Directory Last edited by Terry; 12-07-2004 at 11:32 AM.

12-10-2004, 05:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
Terry NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Wibaux, Montana USA Posts: 650	If I'm reading you correctly, equity78, I think you will agree that our actions in Afghanistan were appropriate after what happened 9/11. The use of crushing force upon the Taliban for harboring Ben Laden, we would hope, will serve as warning to other nations/organizations that we will not tolerate terrorism. I suppose that Afghanistan was somewhat easy because of the depth of intelligence that we had for that particular problem. We have learned from Iraq. Maybe that is the reason that we have not started anything with some of Iraq's neighbors. __________________ T1 Internet Services - Direct U Telecom Directory

	NamePros Account Upgrade	Forum Sponsorship
	Take advantage of our upgraded membership levels (2 levels to choose from) so you can have MORE active sales threads, Custom Titles, A Directory Listing, Invisible Mode, Message Tracking, And MORE!

12-06-2004, 01:08 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rob Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: England, UK Posts: 2,335	If I was President/Prime Minister and got attacked on a large scale, such as Sep. 11 or even bigger, I too would use nuclear weapons. Although recently I have been unsure as to whether this would work. Terrorists dont mind killing fellow muslims (bombs in Baghdad everyday), so wiping out a city or a country probably wouldnt cause them to shed even a tear...

12-07-2004, 07:04 PM	#8 (permalink)
equity78 NamePros Expert Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7,639	I think the point is that the threat should show those who harbor you too will pay and guess what no matter how liberal you are in your beliefs They will pay. Armstrong your remarks are some of the most outrageous I have ever heard, "don't lift a finger" that is so out there I cannot even think of words. But we will lift a finger, many fingers

12-08-2004, 07:27 AM	#9 (permalink)
Jammer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,493	The article is simply extremest nonsense.

12-08-2004, 02:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
equity78 NamePros Expert Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7,639	No Terry Nobody wins I think that is hte point that everyone work to make sure htat it never happens because no one will iwn everyone will Pay the price for that. It is a complicated issue that goes above and beyond most peoples intellectual capacity. I my self always pray for peace but you must also let your enemies know you wilL respond if they sdtep over a line. I think this you may have a neighborhood that some drug dealers are helped out by neighbors who don''t necessarily agree with selling drugs but sympathize with their socio economic situation the threat if you help these people you too will be wiped out will have those neighbors stop helping drug dealers and help crack down on them I thinK that is the essence here make sympathizers change their tune the criminals will not but without safe harbor they are easier to defeat. THis is everyones job we all must look to make sure all countries notjust the west are safe. You do this by making sure everyone has something to lose poeple must have someone Jow much of the Middle East is Illiterate I read a sstory saying over 60% of those under 25 are and they are unemployed that must change. It is easy to woo someone to hate when they have no hope or Knowledge this must change this is the task for this century Everyone with something to lose. I believe in Capitalism but I believe in making sure everyone at least live a decent life not everyone will be rich but they have to live better than dogs. We all must denounce terror and find ways to see where all sides can make a better world.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)