From World Net Daily:
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.
Check out the rest of the article. Does might make right? Not always. But first and formost comes protection and security of the United States of America, at least to me.
As horrifying as it is to think of something like this happening, I have to agree with you.
Bullies tend to pick on those who are weaker and unable(or unwilling) to defend themselves.
I read and re-read the article about 4 times, and then really thought about it, vs one of the knee jerk type posts. It would be horrifying, not to mention the worldwide environmental damage. But, the States that sponsor and/or tolerate terrorists need to be put on the spot.
That might be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard in my life, even for WorldNutDaily.
You really think we’d vaporize the 99% innocent people in those countries for being Muslim? And North Korea for being, well, some country who’s leadership doesn’t like us? All because some already suicidal cranks decided to call our bluff?
Lord have mercy, people. “As horrifying as it is . . . I have to agree with you”?? “States that sponsor and/or tolerate terrorists need to be put on the spot”??
Do you not see the bigotry here? The exceptionalism? The historical parallels to what happens when differences between “us” and “them” become become so internalized and extreme that “we” would just as soon obliterate an entire group as deal with them as if they were fellow human beings?
“Muslims” did not attack us on 9/11, any more than “Christians” attacked the Murrah building in OKC. Radicalized extremists did those things.
Try not to become one yourself, huh?
To be completely non-PC on this, we wouldn’t have to vaporize them all. All we’d need are two.
The first one would be the most offending city. (Probably one of the Afghanistani cities.)
The second would be the first country to complain about it. (Wherever Al Jazeera comes out of.)
Yeah, I know: WWIII
It was just a thought.
PW, it wouldn’t be so much about actually doing that, but the threat to do it. MAD. But it would be aimed at the countries that support terrorism. The official US policy of retaliating with nukes has never been rescinded, but, if we are attacked with WMD, who do we hit? 100 might be overkill. But putting the leadership of ME countries on notice that they are under the gun and responsible for their sponsorship of terrorism might spur them to action.
Anyhow, my personal opinion is that if the terrorists, even Al Queda, get nukes, they will go off in Israel first.
Indeed — MAD’s idea is to pressure those people into responding. Hooray if this were real — I somehow doubt that it is.
MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction — is a two-way road and only works if it is “mutually assured”. This would apply, to an extent, if AQ had nukes I guess. Would definitely apply to NK. But since AQ are non-state actors the “plan” is still hinky even if they had a Bomb.
You’d have to “prove” that they were being “harbored”, I think — the government would have to not only know about AQ operations within their borders, but tacitly approve of them. If it’s OK to just nuke a country because we’re attacked and AQ happen to live and work in that country, we’d be nuking London, Manilla, Moscow, Islamabad, and Washington D.C. as well as many others.
But we’d start with Karzai’s newly democratic Afghanistan, you say?
I stand by what I said before. It is a stupid idea.
. . . and you know, we’ve gotten well past the original WorldNutDumbassery.
They said “the U.S will immediately and without discussion use its immense nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy the 100 largest Islamic cities on earth”. Not, “those that harbor terrorists”, but “Islamic cities”
According to WorldNut, ISLAM is what causes terrorism, and THAT is what needs to be wiped out. Nevermind abortion clinic bombings, the Irish Republican Army, the Sandinistas, Tim McVeigh, white supremacists, etc.
Let’s just wipe out ALL the radical, self-rightous bigots and wash our hands of them. This would include the jerks at WorldNut who came up with this scheme.