, but that was before I went below the fold on Rusty's post. He addressed the same things I was going to there.
So, instead, and just for the sake of argument, I'll answer Rusty's challenge to come up with a logical reason not to retaliate against Mecca in the event of a nuclear attack on the U.S. Mind you, I have no problem with it.
Al-Qaeda, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, lights off a smuggled nuke or two in a major American city.
We nuke Mecca.
Pakistan nukes Israel. Out of existence. Would India care if the missiles were headed the opposite way?
Oh, I forgot, Pakistan is our ally. How much of an ally would they be if Mecca were a smoldering crater?
Pretty much the same as above, except replace Pakistan with Iran. Let's face something here. We think we know how far along Iran is with their nuke program, but we sure as hell don't really know for sure. What we do know for sure is that they don't have missiles capable of reaching the U.S. yet, but they can damn sure put a hurting on our military, and wipe out Israel, with the ones they have. And I doubt they'd care, with Mecca gone, about their fellow Muslims in Baghdad and Kabul getting vaporized along with America's finest. Hell, they're sending them in now to kill their fellow Muslims.
If the U.S. is the recipient of a nuclear terrorist attack, it would be fairly pointless to nuke Mecca. The heart of Mecca is a rock. One that a couple of 2,000 lb. conventional bunker busters would vaporize with no problem.
But I would advocate unleashing nuclear Hell on the Tehran and Damascus.
Everyone is approaching this as a tit for tat. They nuke this, we nuke that.
No, that's not what MAD is. Mutual Assured Destruction is just that. While Islamofascist scum may get off a nuke in one, two, or even ten American cities, they don't have anything even remotely resembling the nuclear power of the Soviet Union.
So the word "mutual" doesn't even apply here. The term should be IHOP. Islam's Holiest Obliterated Permanently.
I personally think that we should threaten to lay waste to it all. If even one American city suffers a nuclear attack, we waste Mecca, Medina, Qom, we hit Najaf (only because we worked so hard there) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque (nuking that would hurt Israel) with conventional weapons. And the aforementioned capitals.
Oh, and we nuke France too.
Yes I thought of that. First we pretend to cut and run, pulling our troops out of every single Islamic nation beforehand.
Wait...we need a place for the pulled out troops to go. So we don't nuke France, we invade France, and liberate it for the third time!
1
Mad Dog. I dont always agree with everything that is posted on this blog. Some of it provides food for thought, some of it is jingoistic poppy cock and some of it is just ill thought out rantings of a very sad individual. Yours are just offensive and do little to shed any light on the real issues.
I shant be coming back as would prefer to have an exchange of views with someone who atleast has a basic idea of what they are talking about. You, clearly do not
Posted by: Jd at July 22, 2005 03:45 AM (4PPsx)
2
BREAKING:
London Police shoot man dead in the subway.
They suspected he was a 'suicide bomber', yet there has been no mention of a bomb. Evidently, the 'frame a patsie squad' needs more time to plant the incriminating evidence.
The poor man was probably only 'guilty' of having dark skin.
Can you say,'police profiling, plus itchy trigger fingers, equals dead A-rab'. I knew you could!
Posted by: greg at July 22, 2005 05:08 AM (3D/yw)
3
One less to worry about tomorrow. A good safe place for a muslim is in a muslim country. Safe for all. Deport the bastards. England should be populated by Englishmen and people who have screwed up their own countries. The excuse makers in England including their stupid mayor have given the enemy (muslims) an easy target. They have allowed the threats to turn into reality.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 22, 2005 05:41 AM (CBNGy)
4
Using nuclear weapons is not an option. The aftermath affects everyone & everything on the planet. e.g. radioactive dust cloud kicked up and circling the planet.
Posted by: puzzled at July 22, 2005 06:38 AM (moq9v)
5
Am I the only one that thinks Vinnie's post might have been a little satirical or tongue-in-cheek?
Posted by: Hoodlumman at July 22, 2005 08:21 AM (1iJzK)
6
Ridiculous, why would Pakistan nuke Jerusalem?
Musharaff is already busy fighting Islamists and you think he'd risk wasting nukes on Jerusalem risking getting nuked by the US and letting India get the upper hand.
Dream on
Posted by: Ren at July 22, 2005 09:00 AM (a9tRx)
7
>>>"Using nuclear weapons is not an option."
Why not? We used them in Hiroshima, and we targetted the commies with those nukes for 50 years. What's this Liberal obsession with treating muslims with kid gloves?
Posted by: Carlos at July 22, 2005 09:12 AM (8e/V4)
8
Maybe Jd didn't put any weight on the part that said
"...a logical reason not to retaliate against Mecca...".
Personally, I think nuking Mecca is a bad idea. It won't work. I think that finding out who facilitated any future attack (ie. where the bombs came from, who financed them, etc.) and conventionally blast
them. Just picking random sites accomplishes little. As Lileks said "But do we really want to incinerate Tehran? YouÂ’ll probably find more people in Tehran who dearly love America than youÂ’ll find in Berkeley." Why alienate a possible future ally?
Whether or not Vinnie has a problem with such an idea of nuking Mecca, he had valid points on why not to. Unless of course Jd "wants" to bomb Mecca. I'm confused at this point at what he's upset about - bombing or not bombing or the tongue-in-cheek he missed. Perhaps he'll come back and clarify.
I don't agree with a lot of people here on many things they say. Some are totally ridiculous, others mildly so. But I'll keep coming back simply because I know how to pull my wadded panties out of my crack long enough to think and say a word or two of my own. But, this
"I'm never coming back here again" snit is silly. Just don't come back; it's simple. Saying so with ill explained indignation isn't going to cause anyone here to lose any sleep. I know I said recently that I was considering going elsewhere. But again, I tugged on my panties, sucked it up and figure that sometimes even I, being a nobody, am worth listening to.
Posted by: Oyster at July 22, 2005 09:12 AM (fl6E1)
9
May I propose another scenario: The Kiss the US Economy Goodbye Scenario.
Nuking (or even conventional bombing of) Mecca would instantly result in US isolation from the world. Not only would it be too dangerous to be an American abroad, but all the business conducted by those Americans would be undone.
The US is the center of the global economy, but it is not the absolute keystone to that economy. The world would suffer a recession, a depression, but it would not fold. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs, however, would fold.
There is well over $1 trillion of investments by Muslims in the US. Imagine those withdrawn overnight. ("We're going to freeze them," you say? Under what current law? How quickly do you think that law could be written and passed? Not as quickly as the stock market will move the money. People insulted by the act won't stick around waiting for "the right time" to sell out.)
And it won't just be the Muslim world that would react to a stupid use of force. You can bet that the US would be put under international boycotts and blocades.
We do, in fact, live in an interdependent world. That's one of the features--and costs--of globalization. Without imports, without exports, the US economy goes tits-up. So, unless you've got a government job, you'd better get that pair of shoes that will serve you well as you stand in the unemployment lines.
The idea is so stupid that it deserves its own corollary to Godwin's Law. "Anyone suggesting attacking Mecca to "get" the Muslims has lost the argument." And his mind.
Posted by: John Burgess at July 22, 2005 10:07 AM (wiywb)
10
John,
if the U.S. economy collapses the world economy collapses. Remeber, we buy most of what China makes.
Posted by: Carlos at July 22, 2005 10:10 AM (8e/V4)
11
jd: I can't tell you how I puffed with pride to know that I managed to offend you. Don't let the door hit you...etc etc
Hoodlumman: Half of it was.
Puzzled: What Carlos said
Ren: I believe that when nukes start flying, all bets are off. But, I don't necessarily disagree with you.
John: All theories are welcome.
I guess I could have saved space by saying "If we nuke Mecca, they'll nuke Israel." But what the hell fun is that? I'm here to have fun, baby.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 22, 2005 10:35 AM (Kr6/f)
12
What a completely moronic post.
Rusty should have never let other people start posting articles on his blog.
Quantity of posts over quality of posts- dilution theory.
Vinnie- I was going to just say that you suck, but let me change that to your posts have been really, really poor. You need to step up to the plate with some posts worthy of being on Rusty's blog.
Posted by: Col. North at July 22, 2005 12:21 PM (PX+vn)
13
Fake name, fake email, fake URL. Yup, those are the people I take advice from.
As for "stepping up to the plate" and "being worthy," I'll let Rusty make that decision.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 22, 2005 01:04 PM (Kr6/f)
Posted by: Howie at July 22, 2005 01:33 PM (D3+20)
15
Yes, someone who gets it. If a nuke hits the US then unleash something biblical on the Islamics. Not just Mecca but on every major city in every state that supports or succors these scum.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at July 22, 2005 06:07 PM (hTthA)
16
Nukin's been looked into and found impractical.
That said, there's a bright future to be made in Specialty Chemicals.
Posted by: Nose at July 22, 2005 11:56 PM (M2CXw)
17
I have a better idea...drop Mecca Donald's cheeseburgers on them so they die of heart disease the American way. Maybe exploding bibles that scatter fire and brimstone shrapnel? Get Sinclair to take over the broadcasting there and pump FOX "news" at 'em. There are all sorts of solutions...nukes are too messy.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 24, 2005 05:38 PM (perrS)
18
Nuke France? You twat if it wasn't for the Frogs your neurotic country wouldnt exist. Hey you're right - nuke 'em.
Posted by: ENNISON at July 31, 2005 10:17 AM (pMLHq)
19
If there is a US city is nuked, do the following:
call an emergency session in the UN. The security council will agree to cordon off the Islamic world. First waste that black rock in mecca by a convention strike. Destroy all islamic tanks/planes/heavy armour. Secure oil assets of
all Islamic nations. Declare martial law, seal of the whole Islamic world. Spend oil money for the "well being" of the Islamic world. Occupy the Islamic world together with Europe, Russia, China, and India, untill the place is civillised enough to govern itself. This could take decades.
Believe me an American city nuked will get the rest of scared, Moscow, Delhi, Bangkok, London and even Copenhagen will be worried, hence the world will support measure to "deal" with places that breed terrorists. Let hope this scenario never comes to fruition.
Posted by: V Ramakrishna at September 11, 2005 11:29 PM (gJkE2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
