← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kevin_O'Keeffe
Thread ID: 16109 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2004-12-29
2004-12-29 13:48 | User Profile
Eventually, people like Osama bin-Laden (by which I mean to say people who, unlike the previous secular government of Iraq, can not be contained through rational strategy) will acquire one or more nuclear devices, and they will deploy them against Western civilian population centers. This will have a devastating impact on us, in addition to the direct human cost in death and destruction wrought by the initial blast(s) and radioactive fall-out. I predict, for example, that it would only take the destruction of two U.S. cities by nuclear devices, exploded say 72 hours apart, in order to cause similarly destructive, panic-derived rioting in the rest of our cities. What are we to do?
A) We can continue more or less as we are, and simply wait for the inevitable failure of intelligence that will lead to Islamist radicals acquiring nukes from Iran, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea or whomever, and then respond with a massive, retaliatory attack that will be the equivalent of shutting the barn door after the Muslim has sodomized all the goats. Avoiding that contingency is what this post is all about.
B) We can go genocidally pre-emptive on them, by nuking them largely out of existence, without warning, seizing their oil fields and lands generally for our own use. We can eradicate the survivors (such as by defoliating their crops), or we can implement a version of strategy C on them. On the plus side, we could eliminate Israel at the same time. On the minus side, it wouldn't be wise to go this route without getting some consensus on it from the other powers, i.e. Europe, Russia, India, China and Japan (although we could skip Japan, I suppose). Such a consensus would be difficult to arrive at.
C) We could essentially enter into the great Christian Crusade of the Third World War (you know Walter is going to have at least some sympathy for this option :biggrin:, if for the name alone). This would entail conquering all the Muslim nations, executing all their political & religious leaders (yes, down to the very last village Mullah) and forcibly converting the population to Christianity under pain of death. As a simple people, I think this might work on them far better than it would on us, as they would respect us (and by extension, our God) by virtue of our strength. We could further demonstrate said strength by simultaneously subjecting our mutual enemies, the Israelis, to nuclear annihilation (thus also showing our hearts were in the right place). Basically, we'd be doing to the Muslims what Cortez did to the Aztecs. Downsides are that it'd be tremendously expensive, the Chinese and Hindus wouldn't help (or would they?), and it might well fail so miserably we'd be regretting it for a 1000 years. On the plus side, the Russians would probably jump on board this idea with both feet.
D) Well, I'm pretty much out of ideas, and that's what worries me. These are **ALL[/B] lousy options, in my view. But I think we have to be realistic and pick one of the three, or some modified version thereof. The first option, doing nothing, strikes me as the worst of the three. Beyond that, I have no idea what we should do. Do you?
2004-12-29 17:45 | User Profile
"Don't play with fire and you wont get burn",,,,,,, Ponce
2004-12-29 18:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]"Don't play with fire and you wont get burn",,,,,,, Ponce[/QUOTE]
I want peace with the Muslims; I really do. I just fear we've crossed the Rubicon, so to speak, and have committed so many unjust and intolerable outrages against them since 1945, that we can never make peace with them; they hate us too much, and with very good reason. If we can't have peace, then we must have victory.
2004-12-29 20:40 | User Profile
Only 12 millions of the so called Jews or 1.5 billions real Muslims.
Get rid of the 12 and peace ye shall have with the 1.5.
Is never to late to have justice.