Doomsday for Islam?

An interesting article, by Robert Pfriender, that discusses what some of the repercussions could be if radical islamist actually set off a nuke in the United States.

The focus on the ports fiasco obviously would pale in comparison to a terror nuke actually detonating in one of our ports. But what about the flipside of that terrible event? What would happen to Islam as a result of a massive nuclear retaliatory counterstrike against Islamic targets?

Perhaps this week’s most ominous headline was “Islamic websites carry al-Qaida’s Last Warning.” The story in WorldNetDaily detailed how Osama bin Laden’s terror group plans to bring destruction upon the United States and force it into surrender. Apparently this is more of the same threat that has been circulating for some time that al-Qaida plans to detonate seven nuclear warheads it claims to have acquired from Pakistan and the former Soviet Union in the United States. There have also been accompanying threats that al-Qaida planned to follow up the nuclear attacks with crop-dusting planes that would spread smallpox on American cities.

Despite grandiose plans for such an attack on the United States, bin Laden has again failed to understand the nature of the American spirit and the likely vengeance such an attack would unleash from American military strategic nuclear forces. Since the United States entered the era of nuclear weapons technology many decades ago, it has always had detailed contingency plans on how the country would respond in a nuclear crisis.

Perhaps best known among those contingency plans is the one drawn up during the Cold War with the Soviets commonly described as “MAD,” or Mutual Assured Destruction. Simply, MAD is the doctrine whereby the United States sought to dissuade its adversaries from ever even considering a nuclear attack against our country by assuring that such an attempt would be met with such a hyper-violent nuclear response that would undoubtedly result in the annihilation of not just the United States, but also the enemy that initiated the attack.

For some odd reason, bin Laden and his fanatical associates seem to believe that the United States would back down in the face of a nuclear terror attack. It would seem that their psychotic thought processes have blinded their judgment in a profound and ultimately self-destructive way. Their warped perception leads them to believe that such an attack could not be traced back to their hands and hence the United States would be left with no retaliation targets. They obviously fail to see the difference between tactical and strategic planning and this error may ultimately lead Islam to disaster.

Enter what history may someday describe as the Bush doctrine of “Terror-MAD,” the likely response to a terror nuke attack on our country. Although no one in government will confirm such a doctrine even exists, simple common sense and past comments by government officials to the press would indicate that, in fact, it does exist. And herein is Mr. bin Laden’s very fatal flaw.

A terror nuke attack upon the United States would undoubtedly unleash a response by American strategic nuclear forces so violent and so encompassing that the very future of Islamic society around the world would likely be permanently wiped from the face of the planet.

Bear in mind the reality of such an attack against the United States. Not only would the United States not be chastised by the international community for such a massive counterstrike, but no one in the American government would likely care about what others think under such circumstances. While we’re busy throwing all those retaliatory nukes around, who is going to standup and object? Certainly, it won’t be Russia to complain since they have their own serious radical Islam problem to deal with in former republics on its borders.

Let’s be reminded that there is no provision in any of the Pentagon’s war plans or myriad assortment of contingency plans for a national surrender. It would just never happen under any circumstance. Actually, the Pentagon’s logic is that for each escalation of attack against us our response would be a vastly increased level of violence against our adversary. And you can be sure – when push comes to shove – whatever weapon is in the inventory will be used … nothing will be held back.

Such a contingency plan is likely contained in the largely still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the comprehensive war plan for the Pentagon. Unlike bin Laden’s shortsighted tactical plans, the Pentagon has an extremely detailed strategic plan for dealing with essentially any circumstance, threat or contingency that may conceivably face our nation.

The likely target list for retaliation for a nuclear terror attack against the United States includes Iran, Syria, and Libya as the primary targets. We can supplement those targets with countries such as Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (and that are most likely targeted with the “neutron bomb” designed with such a scenario in mind that kills with enhanced radiation levels but essentially leaves facilities and oil infrastructure intact – except for holy sites such as Mecca, Medina, Hebron, Qom and others, which planners might want to completely annihilate). There are likely other “Islamic” countries also on the potential target list and even ones we generally consider as being friendly to the U.S. such as Pakistan, especially if radicals gained control of its nuclear weapons.

You may recall that Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., suggested exactly that awhile back, and while his statement met with denials from the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House were silent on the Tancredo comment. A statement previously released from the Pentagon says, “The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place … This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of weapons of mass destruction,” the Pentagon statement also said.

While the Pentagon was busy “cleaning house” our strategic nuclear force would also likely target North Korea just to be certain we don’t face any additional threats while we are in a recovery mode from the terror attack. Depending on the circumstances at the time of the attack against us, the Pentagon might even include China on the potential target list since China’s own military doctrine (especially “Unrestricted Warfare”) could be interpreted as using any advantage such as an already weakened United States to further its own military goals. Simply, our military planners would likely destroy every conceivable real or imagined threat to our country after we are attacked with a nuke.

Americans as a whole seem to have tremendous patience, much more so than say Islamic countries. The American flag is burned on a daily basis in many countries during what seem like endless protests against our country and it hardly elicits any response at all here. On the other hand, a few cartoons – even ones showing Muhammad in a favorable way – sends masses of violent protestors into the streets in Islamic countries. However, we do have limits to our patience. If we got nuked, there would undoubtedly be a tremendous outcry for massive retaliation. After all, the country quickly united on Sept. 12, 2001, and widely supported President Bush’s initiative to attack Afghanistan.

According to the portions of the Nuclear Posture Review that are public, nuclear weapons can be used “in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons,” or “in the event of surprising military developments.” It also recognizes the need for nuclear retaliation in cases of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies against potential adversaries that have “long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners” including countries that “sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”

Former U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton (now U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) said a while back:

We would do whatever is necessary to defend America’s innocent civilian population … The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody … has just been disproven by Sept. 11.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has said that the Bush administration wants to “send a very strong signal to anyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States.” Further, “The only way to deter such a use is to be clear it would be met with a devastating response,” she said. A State Department spokesman has previously stated “if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of response.”

Considering the huge number of nuclear weapons in the United State’s inventory, there would be no need to pick and choose targets for economy purposes. While bin Laden’s claim that he has a few nukes (which may or may not be still operational) may turn out to be true, there is the utmost certainty that the United States has a huge number (somewhere in the thousands) of extremely well-maintained and very reliable nuclear warheads in all shapes and sizes for every possible purpose.

A nuclear attack on America by al-Qaida would – by many informed accounts – lead to a renewed crusade to destroy Islam throughout the world. Bin Laden’s grandiose plan to destroy modern civilization and restore some absurd form of radical Islamic rule throughout the entire world will undoubtedly have exactly the opposite effect. Already we see a tremendous backlash against most things Islamic, the recent port fiasco is a perfect case in point. Imagine the reaction after a nuke attack.

Absent an international movement by those in the moderate Islamic community – who can and should be able to locate and bring Mr. bin Laden and his despicable cohorts to justice – he just might one day make good on his threat to nuke America.

In his fanatical zeal to convert the entire world to radical Islam, there will be two groups of victims resulting from bin Laden’s insanity – innocent people just wanting to live their normal lives here in our country, and Islam itself with its followers throughout the world. Such a result would hardy be considered a noble pursuit and or end-result by people who claim to be the servants of their God.

2 Responses to “Doomsday for Islam?”

  1. Eleanor says:

    We are under attack by the Islamic World because we support the Israeli occupation of Palestine and because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, said he attacked us because of our biased support of Israel.(See “The 9/11 Commission Report” p. 147) The recent paper by professors Mearsheimer and Walt exquisitely documents the power of the Israeli lobby in its control of the press, our politicians, and US foreign policy. Rather than continuing to incite terrorism, plus threatening all sorts of inhumane nuclear revenge on innocent people (as Israel has historically done, ie collective punishment) we would do better to address the legitimate grievances in the Muslim World and mend our ways. When one studies tapes by Osama bin Laden it is clear he is not motivated by an urge to convert us all to Islam: this is neocon propaganda. See: http://www.dundeesblog.blogspot.com

  2. You said “When one studies tapes by Osama bin Laden it is clear he is not motivated by an urge to convert us all to Islam: this is neocon propaganda.”
    In the letter bin Laden released in November of 2002, he clearly states that the people of the United States “are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind,” and “you are the nation who rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its constitution and laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.” He goes on to list “conditions” that “If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for a fight with the Islamic Nation.”
    These conditions, again, directly from his letter are:

    1. The American people must convert to Islam.
    2. Americans must “reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest.”

    So to recap, in order for bin Laden, and if he speaks for them, the rest of the Islamic world, not to attack us further, all we have to do is give up our Constitution and replace it with one what follows Islamic law. In other words, all the homosexuals would have to be put to death. The bars would be shut down and no restaurants could serve alcohol. Sporting events could no longer serve beer. Casinos, the lottery and slot machines are gone. No couples living together before marriage. Male/Female segregation at schools and public events. No right to vote for females. All females would have to wear headscarves in public and walk ten steps behind men. No credit cards and loans to buy cars and houses. No retirement fund, because it is made primarily from investments. Second century values on life, standard of living and education.
    Hummm…this is a pretty bleak picture. Is this really what you want? If it is, please let me know and I can suggest several countries you can relocate to in order to enjoy this way of life.

    Let’s move on.
    You said “We are under attack by the Islamic World because we support the Israeli occupation of Palestine and because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    Exactly when did Israel occupy Palestine? You’re probably going to say 1948. Well, actually, God gave that area of the world to Israel back in the 15th century BC. Since that time, many different empires and governments have laid claim to that area. Despite the efforts of many of these rulers, Jews (Israelites) have always been a significant presence in this area. Other populations would come and go, but “Israel” was always there.
    The local inhabitants did not call themselves “Palestinians”. The concept of a “Palestinian” to describe the local residents had not even been invented by 1948; neither was there ever in history a “Palestinian Arab” nation. None of today’s Arabs have any ancestral relationship to the original Biblical Philistines who are now extinct. Even Arab historians have admitted Palestine never existed.

    * In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: “There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us.”

    * In 1946, Princeton’s Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: “It’s common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history.”

    * In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: “The ‘Palestinian people’ does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”

    * Mark Twain – Samuel Clemens, the famous author of “Huckleberry Finn” and “Tom Sawyer”, took a tour of the Holy Land in 1867. This is how he described that land: “A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

    * In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: “But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude…. Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter — “the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants.”

    And yet, despite their very own self profession of being an invented people, they sure are fast to call on the world to acknowledge their so called “occupation”. Apparently you’ve bought into this mantra as well.

    You said “…because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.”
    It seems you like to throw around the “occupy” word quite liberally.
    According to the Hague Conventions of 1907, Laws and Customs of War on Land” (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: “Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State, Article 42 states:

    * Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

    * The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

    In Article 43, it states:

    * The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

    Are you familiar with the elections in Afghanistan back in September of 2005 and with the elections in Iraq back in December of 2005, in which the populations of both of these countries democratically elected their leaders?
    According to The Hague Conventions of 1907, the United States armed forces and the forces of the coalition governments are in place at the request of the legitimate government of those countries. They are no different then military bases in Germany, Korea or Japan.

    Eleanor, I’m sure you’re way to young (as am I) to remember World War 1 and World War 2. If you have studied these wars, you will see us assisting our allies (World War 1 and World War 2) in defeating tyrannical governments who were determined to expand their dominance or sphere’s of influence and responding to attacks directly on us (World War 2). In both cases you have sited (Iraq and Afghanistan) you have tried to spin this as though the United States is evil and awful for going to war against the former governments of these countries. I’d like to ask you to explain in what ways, these wars are different than World War 1 and World War 2.
    In Afghanistan, we went to war after being attacked by an enemy force. We went to the country where they were based. We defeated them (a major goal of war) and assisted the government in rebuilding their country.
    In Iraq, we went to war to remove a tyrannical government set on expanding their dominance and sphere of influence and as a bonus, removed a leader who had terrorized his own people, killing thousands of them. Their only crime was dissent, something you are allowed to do daily with no threat of death.

    You went on to site the working paper that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt made about the force of the Israeli lobby in America. I would like to point out, that this “study” was so filled with misinformation that Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where Mearsheimer is a professor, removed it’s logo from the paper and added a disclaimer.

    Eleanor, instead of “mending our ways”, why don’t we ask the rest of the world to be accountable to their people’s wills, via a democratically elected government and take responsibility for those in their midst who preach hate and destruction.

    In regards to the article, Islam better wake up to the fact that they will be held accountable for what people who claim to represent them do. Instead of taking a “root them on from the sideline” attitude, they need to be reclaiming their so-called “hijacked” religion from these radicals. Don’t look for this to happen any time soon. They agree with the radicals, they just have to say otherwise when meeting with civilized people.

    Mark my words:
    If the Islamist terrorist succeed in detonating one or more nuclear devices in the United States, the retaliation against the Islamist who sat on their hands and let it happen, will be swift and more deadly than anything this world has ever seen. It is in their best interest to police themselves now, before this calamity can happen.

Leave a Reply

*