December 04, 2004

How do you get the bad guys to stop? By upping the ante

A new piece by David C. Atkins on WorldNetDaily takes the Untouchables tactic to get the Islamic terrorists to back off.

The name of the tactic is taken from a memorable line in the 1980s movie version of The Untouchables with Kevin Costner and Sean Connery: "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone!"

Atkins' take uses that notion along with the Cold War concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction."

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.
This harkens to the notion of training a mule: First thing you do is smack it upside the head with a two-by-four to get it's attention.

Meet our two-by-four: a promise, not a threat, but a promise.

Guess what. We all of a sudden would have their undivided attention, whine-fest from the United Nations notwithstanding.

Notice how we are predicated to "follow the rules" while the bad guys don't. This follows the rules, but take 'em up a notch.

And if they don't think we're serious, they can always try us. And while I'm using movie metaphors, let me quote the esteemed Inspector Callahan:

"'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya?"

My question to the Islamists and the Islamic world is simple. "Do you feel lucky?"

Well do ya? Do ya?

Posted by mhking at December 4, 2004 11:00 AM

The problem with this assessment is that in MAD, you have to assume that the opponent valued his own survival. Having US destroy the 100 muslim cities in the world WILL result in Jihad by the rest of the world, including China against US. This is precisely what the terrorists want.

Posted by: BigFire at December 4, 2004 11:32 AM

I think China has more to gain by being our ally in any situation like the one described. Certainly they would rather attempt a grab of Taiwan than joining the Islamic Turd Patrols as they impotently thrash about. In the same fashion, I'd also think that the Arabs in their European countries would try to wrest power from their respective governments thatn attempt retribution against the US. That's why sucha large-scale 'first strike" would be a bad idea. I'd propose a far smaller-scale respsonse...for instance, just take out Mecca. I'd do it with either tactical nukes or Tomahawks. A couple of MOABs would do quite a bit of damage.

Posted by: skh at December 4, 2004 12:51 PM

Two problems with this approach. First, a WMD attack on America doesn't justify the deaths of innocents in the 100 targets we nuke. Second, there are a lot in the mid-east who would deliberately bring an attack to provoke just such a response from us. After all, once we've nuked the Arab world, they become unbelievably united against us, and people like Osama get the WWIII they've been hoping for.

Posted by: Beck at December 4, 2004 08:05 PM

I'm pretty sure the top 100 Muslim cities in the world would include some in countries which possess nuclear capabilities, such as Pakistan. Do we really want to get into a situation where they feel the need to strike back?

Posted by: Denise at December 5, 2004 06:19 AM

I'm pretty sure the top 100 Muslim cities in the world would include some in countries which possess nuclear capabilities, such as Pakistan. Do we really want to get into a situation where they feel the need to strike back with their nukes?

Posted by: Denise at December 5, 2004 06:20 AM

Hmmm, collective guilt, collective punishment . . . Kinda reminds me of the Nazis. If a resistance member (or, in Nazi terms, a terrorist) killed one Nazi soldier, the Nazis killed 100 random civilians in the same neighborhood.

Surely conservatives are in favor of individual responsibility?

Posted by: Sparky at December 6, 2004 10:46 PM

Is the author of that suggestion an idiot or just fubar?

Islamic terrorists are the MINORITY in the Islamic world. Note the march in Germany I think a couple of weeks ago by thousands of muslims protesting islamic terrorism. noticed that did not get mentioned on here or alarmingnews although i never thought for a minute it would be.

nuking 100 cities regardless of their responsibility in a purely hypothetical WMD attack by a third party would be completely unjustified. whinefest from the UN would include almost all US allies inlcuding the ones such as Britain and France who have nukes of our own.

i know america is aggressive but that suggestion contemptible. even for the bush admin

Posted by: young-white-and-liberal at December 7, 2004 08:17 AM

islamic terrorist are a minority in the muslim world ? not YET UNFORTUNATELY thes people are willing to kill themselves and maybe theyre cousins {accidently} while comitting sucide bombings all for what ? to kill americans WHY? theyre parents and osama tell them they will be martyred TALK ABOUT A DYSFUNTIONAL SOCEITY , and we worry about our children smoking POT WHOA !!!!!! I wish we could pull all our brave youth home I pray to God nightly I pray for the muslim people too who hunger for freedom but mostly I ask god to stop the monsters like ben laden and sadam from preying on the innocents of theyre youth how dispicable is this these peopl are cowards just like SADAM in his rat hole "dont shoot me please" when hed tortured and murdered 1000s and hid while his own dilussional two boys and grandson met theyre deserved demise how many liberals cried like I did when sadam gassed the kurdissh to the north and theyre littl children were put into dumpsters NO weapons of mass destruction look it up what does it take before a liberal Kerry voter decides its time to act a lewensky in the news like clinton? This administration is GODS administration you liberals in power need to cooperate or disappear this is an important crucial time and if your not part of the solution Kennedy retire pray for our heroic troops every night GOD BLESS YOU

Posted by: kyle skinner at December 8, 2004 05:36 AM

you've been on the pot!!!!

Gods administration? do shut up. majority of americans will? yes. will of a deity of doubtful existence? put the weed down and go into the real world. bloody christian fundamentalists.

Posted by: nick saunders at December 8, 2004 06:09 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?