previous post next post  

On Nuking Mecca.

By The Armorer on July 23, 2005 | | Comments (55) | TrackBacks (4)
Hosting provided by FotoTime

Ed Minchau of Robot Guy, posed the question below in a comment to this post:

John, I am curious. What would be your suggested response to the hypothetical posed to Tancredo: the nuclear attack on 6 or 7 American cities. What would you consider appropriate?


Ed's answer, rather, Ed's response to Hugh Hewitt's, Glenn Reynold's, Ed Morrisey's, Betsy Newmark's, (and I would add Don Sensing's) responses to Tancredo, is contained in his post here.

Ed, along with other co-worker's of mine whose informed opinions I respect, are of a like mind. Kill Mecca = Kill Islam. If you'd like a list of bloggers who agree/disagree with that premise, go check Ed's trackbacks.

Put me in the I don't agree camp. Any more than Kill Jerusalem = Kill Judaism, or Kill the Vatican = Kill the Catholic Church. Yes, I *do* understand the importance of the Hajj, as much as any non-Muslim-who-does-not-care-to-be-Muslim can. Part of the logic of that position being: "Allah would not allow such a thing!' So, if it happened, it must mean either Mohammed got it wrong, or Allah has turned his back on the Faithful, fill-in-the-blank, etc.

[Full disclosure, and a question - based on The Chickenhawk Meme, since I've handled Nukes, am a certified Nuke Targeteer, etc, but am no longer serving, nor likely to be called to serve... does that make my opinion valid, or invalid? I can't keep that straight...]

Would it demoralize a good chunk of Islam? Possibly. But the tougher elements among them would simply flex and adapt, just as the Catholic Church flexed and adapted to the Reformation, for example. The Holocaust didn't cause Judaism to disappear - it resulted instead in Israel. I haven't seen Fidel Castro or the government of the PRC collapse because the Soviet Union imploded... they've simply flexed and adapted. So too would the bulk of Muslims. Some would flex and adapt as we might like - become less annoying to us. Others... I think others would become much more annoying. But I find it interesting in reading around the blogs that people who consider themselves unshakable in their personal faith seem to think that destruction of the Kaaba would simply cause Islam to crumble into dust.

I think the "Nuke Mecca" analysis doesn't account for the great savior of irresponsible and incompetent leaders in Muslim nations - the responsibility-relieving aspect of Inshallah, "It was God's Will that this happen - to punish us for a lack of faith."

Most often used in my personal experience by Arab military officers to excuse failure, and essentially transfer responsibility for the failure to God - I suspect a perversion of the original intent of the concept - but used in the listed instance to essentially say, "Bummer, I've been insufficiently pious, I will pray more often/better, think pure thoughts, etc, and take the test again next week. But you can't fire me/fail me because, well, God has already punished me and who are you to trump God?"

And, of course, in response to nuking Mecca, killing infidels wherever you find them would be a Good Thing. I'm pretty sure it would be Very Bad to be a non-Muslim of any nationality in a Muslim nation when word went out that The Crusaders Nuked Mecca. I'm willing to entertain the notion that tens of thousands might die in the ensuing riots. I just don't believe that the Muslim world would just sit there in stunned, reflective silence, unless they were hung-over from celebrating the Nuking of the Infidels...

And, I suspect, the Imams would be all over that. Heck, we might even find more than a few Imams in *front*. I stand by my original response that I don't think nuking Mecca would kill the beast, any more than I think nuking Washington will kill the Infidel Crusader Myrmidon Nation of the Great Satan, or whatever we're being called in the mosques today.

Now, the question was, what response would I think was appropriate? Of course, the problem is I always want more information... 8^D

Let's make some assumptions.

7-8 nukes, pretty much, given the current estimates of what's out there, we're talking suitcase nukes or dirty bombs. Point is - small. And probably their whole bolt, at least for a while.

1. *Most* of what we have deliverable by the Air Force or Navy... isn't small. You might run into some proportionality of response issues under Just War doctrine and International Law. Those aren't trumps, but they *are* legitimate considerations. We do have some smaller warheads, but, if you are going to do it, I would recommend conventional munitions, very specifically targeted, vice nukes. (I still don't think it's a good idea, but if asked for a professional opinion at a meeting of the Targeting Board, that's what I'd recommend).

2. Obviously, having the big nukes is intended as a deterrent to nation-states with as much at physical stake as we have. That doesn't apply to this group of bombers - so you are expanding the scope of the war, just to keep that in mind, without really getting at the Center of Gravity of your enemy in my mind. You really aren't attacking who attacked you. If you think the Saudis are behind it, the proper target is Riyadh. If you *do* nuke Mecca, I'm guessing that the Islamists will shortly control Saudi Arabia anyway, as the House of Saud would have singularly failed in it's principle justification for being in power. Which, I suppose, is an argument *for*... at least it gives us a nation-state target.

3. You can't contain the down-wind and down-stream effects of the blasts... so nuking Mecca is going to have an effect outside Saudi Arabia, at a minimum in the region, and depending on winds aloft... the world. That gets a little hard to justify.

4. You cross a very significant threshold when the US uses nukes. It will cause significant changes in world power alignments, I think - and not necessarily good ones. And it will lower the threshold for use that currently keeps governments in check.

5. I think restraint in initial response will be both tremendously difficult and long-term useful. We will have the moral high ground for not responding in kind, and I think we will be able to build a significant world-wide governmental consensus for dealing with the Islamofascist problem. One that will allow for significant targeted military responses. Because I think governments will be so farking scared we *will* start tossing nukes around, or that someone might use little nukes in *their* nations, that the whole dynamic will change, and in our general favor. The law of unintended consequences hovers mightily over all of this.

So no, I don't think nuking Mecca will work in the way the proponents suggest. And I think that *not* nuking Mecca will give us the moral high ground, and bargaining power to muscle a significant number of bystander nations into the "Let's deal with this, and deal with it now" camp. And that dealing with it will *still* take years. But I think that the amount of intelligence effort across the spectrum would yield surprising results, and we'll have the cooperation to send the right kinds of killers into the right kinds of places to do some serious thinning of the Islamofascist herd.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. But I think that nuking Mecca has more potential to backfire than it does to succeed. And I think the Most Powerful Nation on Earth having a nuclear hissy-fit, striking back in pure blind fury, would actually *not* be helpful to our long-term interests.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it - unless all y'all change my mind. Good luck with that.

UPDATE: Ed isn't happy with my response (see comments). I think we're mostly talking past each other.

Here's an elaboration.

Sorry to be such a wuss, I guess.

I don't think you really understand what I'm after.

I didn't say I wouldn't do anything.

Afghanistan, which took 30 days or so to put toghther, was a "targeted military response".

So too, was Iraq.

I'm prefecttly wiling to put that together, and do it again. And I'll use the positioning from having been bombed to get some other people on the team.

But I'm not just going to lash out. That's irresponsible. Aside from the pin-prick against Tokyo, and naval combat as part of 'preparing the battlespace' we didn't get a big time response to Japan going until mid-42. Germany... 43, via Africa.

But if you think the proper, or needful response is "toss bombs willy-nilly at people and places we don't like" I won't sign up for that. That ends up being empty camps and pharmaceutical factories and other silly stuff - except you are arguing for doing that to cities.

If the Saudis were to take credit, or are obviously behind it - they would pay. But nuking 'em just doesn't get you there usefully.

But if this is your characterization of my response:

"Halt! or we shall say Halt again!"

You have *no* f+cking idea of who you are dealing with, and "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." Obviously my fault.

I deal in the realm of the doable, and usefully doable. I've made an adult life wandering around in this forest, examining the trees and mapping it's expanse.

And, I've made my bones, dude. Literally.


Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

4 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.fcgi/4328

Responses to nuclear terrorism from The Glittering Eye on July 23, 2005 12:56 PM

I've been hard put to put together a “Catching my eye” feature this morning due to a lack of, well, anything catching my eye. The left side of the blogosphere continues to be obsessed by the Plame/Wilson/Rove/Novak matter very nearly... Read More

Things You Shouldn't Miss (Really!)... from Blonde Sagacity on July 24, 2005 11:06 AM

King of the Castle, John, takes our 'nuke Mecca' discussion a lot deeper. Read More

Iraq and the War on Terror Roundup from Searchlight Crusade on July 24, 2005 4:02 PM

National Review Online has a good article on the influence muslims who migrate to the west have on their homelands. It's good to know that some influence goes the other... Read More

Chest Thumpers Need Not Apply from truegrit on July 25, 2005 10:10 AM

Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. has a response on the 'Nuke Mecca' idea. I really think the gung-ho hawks should read this. The problem with high-falutin' rhetoric is sometimes that style trumps the substance. But this... Read More

55 Comments

By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 9:23 AM
OK, John, you've stated why nuking Mecca is a bad idea. However, you have only tangentally stated ("specific targeted military responses", "serious thinning of the Islamofascist herd") what you would do instead. And no, I don't think that any government "will be so farking scared that (the US would) start tossing nukes around" if even a nuclear attack on several american cities is not enough motivation for the US to respond with nuclear weapons of its own.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 9:33 AM
Ed, I *did* say what I would do. Use the momentum to build coalitions while developing the intel to generate targeted military/law enforcement responses, which *include* (stated elsewhere, I admit) invasion. I'd be responding along the whole spectrum of conflict, from law enforcement to financials to invasion - and in a lot of ways that wouldn't be obvious. I just wouldn't use nukes. I don't see the need. And I also *do* strongly think that nations would very concerned about a US that tosses nukes around as a response. I would be using the concern that we *might* do that as a lever in coalition-building, in fact. But your comment seems to be asking me for *specific* responses. I can't do that, absent *specific* information. You gave me generalities for the question - you got generalties for the answer. Perhaps from your perspective I'm too mired in professional detail, I don't know. But I've done that kind of planning for real. Everything is generic until you have the specifics. Sorry if that wasn't enough... 8^)
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 9:38 AM
One other thought... since there are people far more willing to unleash nukes than I am... If my response fails - you always have nukes to fall back on. Just a thought.
 
By Jack on July 23, 2005 9:45 AM
John, a brief comment: Your response neglects the effects that "nuking" Mecca would have on the US maintaining a secure supply of petroleum, the lifeblood of a modern economy AND a modern military. That consideration might loom rather large in any cost-benefit calculation, larger than the "moral high ground" which (in my opinion) we managed to squander after 9/11, and which we might not regain in the wake of that squandering, even in the face of the use of nuclear weapons inside the United States by terrorists.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 9:52 AM
I didn't go there Jack, because from my perspective, I just didn't need to in order to label it a Bad Idea.
 
By Boquisucio on July 23, 2005 9:54 AM
Thank-you for tackling, although be it tangentially on #2, the question of Center of Gravity. From the enemy's point of view, I can understand their desire to bomb, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Huston, Los Angeles, and (Gulp) Washington. By striking these cities, the enemy would strike at the core of our infrastructure; whether Political, Financial, Transportation/Logistics and Industrial. However, they would miss our Center of Gravity, which is our will to fight. Likewise, if we lash out with blind rage, at Mecca, we would be missing out enemy's Center of Gravity, which is their will to follow that satanic cult better known as Islam. For that we need to deal head on, with the sponsors of Wahabbism specifically (Saudi Arabia & Iran). We would have to change both their governments, and more important yet, their dark culture. The latter, is unfortunately a looooong term proposition.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 10:10 AM
Oh - another thing Jack. If the US gets *nuked* by terrorists, I think we'll go to Full Mobilization. Oil, while a strategic consideration, won't be the primary. We're going to be in a world of hurt economically, anyway, and disruptions ala WWII rationing etc are going to happen, I suspect.
 
By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 10:11 AM
Hey John, if you want, you can post my emails to you here (and I will start posting my replies in here rather than in email). And no, I don't think we are talking past each other, I think we're actually making some headway. Really, I want to find some other solution, some way of scaring the pants off Islamofascists so that 6 or 7 American cities *do not* get nuked in the first place. If the threat of bombing Mecca is the only threat we've got available that would do the job, then we have to put that threat out there.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 10:13 AM
Okay - truce while I go do my SWWBO-duty. Or all this will be moot as I will be a glowing pile of dust.
 
By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 10:14 AM
Jack, over half of the world's oil supply is in the tar sands of Alberta, Canada. The only problem is that most of Alberta's oil is in tar sands, which makes it costly to extract (but it is getting less expensive every year as technology improves). Oil is a red herring in this equation.
 
By Jack on July 23, 2005 10:27 AM
John: Both points noted, although I think many of the "nuke Mecca" crowd will be persuaded by ANY argument, and I recall that even with full mobilization, there is only a finite amount of oil that we have truly secure access to, even for solely military purposes. I believe that access to oil would play a part in any strategic considerations, as it has in every major war since the internal combustion engine replaced the horse and the solidier's feet as the main provider of mobility for the armed forces. Ed Minchau: I am aware of the "tar sands", however the last time I read papers on the extraction of usable petroleum products from that material the yeild of *usable* products such as diesel fuel and, critically, aviation fuel, was VERY low. I do not think that oil is the red herring you claim it is. The *quality* of petroleum and relative yields of different petroleum products from the varying quality of the originating oil is often neglected when people talk about issues related to "it's all about the OIL!!"
 
By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 10:35 AM
Well Jack, Alberta also has 65 billion barrels of conventional oil supplies in addition to the 1.3 trillion barrels in the tar sands. But really, oil dependency is an entirely different issue. If 6 or 7 American cities get nuked and America does not issue an appropriate response (ie one that prevents future attacks) then oil is moot, as the nuclear attacks on America would keep on coming. I think that was the whole point of Tancredo's bomb-Mecca threat; if we want to prevent the initial nuclear attack on America, then the consequences of such an attack must be (1) severe (2) ghastly and (3) known beforehand.
 
By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 11:43 AM
[Okay - SWWBO duty done, I'm going to start cutting in Ed's emails and my responses. Which will be out of synch a bit, but, tough noogies.] Well, I was hoping for something a little more specific. I mean, if you are looking to prevent a nuclear attack on 6 or 7 American cities, the threat of "specific targeted military responses" sounds kinda lame. When the threat to America was a Russian nuclear attack, America's threat in response was the annihilation of Russia and all her satellite nations; Russia was economically unable to keep up with America's war footing, so the good guys won the cold war. Well, this is a new war, and it is a hot war. I think "Halt! or we shall say Halt again!" isn't gonna cut it. Ed
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 11:46 AM
Sorry to be such a wuss, I guess. I don't think you really understand what I'm after. I didn't say I wouldn't do anything. Afghanistan, which took 30 days or so to put toghther, was a "targeted military response". So too, was Iraq. I'm prefecttly wiling to put that together, and do it again. And I'll use the positioning from having been bombed to get some other people on the team. But I'm not just going to lash out. That's irresponsible. Aside from the pin-prick against Tokyo, and naval combat as part of 'preparing the battlespace' we didn't get a big time response to Japan going until mid-42. Germany... 43, via Africa. But if you think the proper, or needful response is "toss bombs willy-nilly at people and places we don't like" I won't sign up for that. If the Saudis take credit, or are obviously behind it - they will pay. But nuking 'em just doesn't get you there usefully. But if this is your characterization of my response: "Halt! or we shall say Halt again!" You have *no* f+cking idea of who you are dealing with, and "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." I deal in the realm of the doable, and usefully doable. I've made an adult life wandering around in this forest, examining the trees. I've made my bones, dude. Literally. 8^D
 
By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 11:48 AM
Well, I exaggerated with that characterization. Of course you don't need to establish your bona fides with me; it is the Islamofascists that need to take America seriously, and it is they who would consider a few assassinations and a 30 day wait before a conventional invasion to be "halt or I shall say halt again". And the President will not have 30 days to make a decision if American cities are being nuked. What I have been talking about is some way of scaring the bejeezus out of Islamofascists *before* they "push the red button", so that it hopefully never happens.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 11:50 AM
Now you are changing the proposition, moving from response to deterrence... The danger in vowing a nuke response against non-state actors for a nuke event is rather obvious. The real question is - will the people you are trying to influence take it seriously? If you are trying to influence Pakistan to truly crack-down on Al-Qaeda, I would submit that you are in fact encouraging Al-Qaeda to act - because a nuke response against Pakistan would be a lever for them to depose Musharraf. But now I'm changing the rules. We were talking about Mecca. *Who* is your target for bombing Mecca? As for an immediate response... so we can say we've blown something up and killed some people so we can look all mean and serious for local consumption? We've got target lists that are continually updated, B2's could be aloft in hours, Tomahawk-armed subs steaming to launch points immediately. But given that I don't think Mecca is a useful target, I don't know what I'd be launching on until it happens and I have some evidence to work with.
 
By Jack on July 23, 2005 2:06 PM
Bloody Hell, I need to read more carefully, my previous comment reading, "although I think many of the "nuke Mecca" crowd will be persuaded by ANY argument," should read "although I think many of the "nuke Mecca" crowd will NOT be persuaded by ANY argument..." Argghhh! (to use the correct spelling here...) I do not disagree with any of your points, John, but as Resident Contrarian, it is indeed my DUTY to bring up points not mentioned, is it not? (at least I *hope* it is... otherwise I'm in trouble...). To say these hypotheticals are terrifying is doing the actual potential consequences an injustice, to say the least. A glowing crater in 6 cities in the US would trump most rational analyses of any situation, methinks, and it would be extremely difficult to argue with the immediate, irrational emotional response. Which is why it is imperitive that we come up with a rational response BEFORE this atrocity is perpetrated (as I fear is almost inevitible that it will... I plan to never again live in a major seaport city as I did when I lived near Portland, OR). Such is the tragic calculus of our times. Technology is both a blessing and a curse, as it has been for centuries.
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on July 23, 2005 6:31 PM
The reason for "nuking Mecca" con be derived from (pontificating starts) Clausewitz when he discussed the theory of Absolute War, and the object of destroying the will to resist. Unfortunately for posterity, he concluded that such an absolute was impossible in war, and moved on to discuss the possible. The idea of identifying the 'will to resist' with a physical location or target was a product of Douhet's fevered imagination, augmented by Trenchard's single-tracked imagination (Bomb Berlin, end War). Gen Mitchell took up the cause post-WW1, with deleterious influence on the Army Air Corps in WW2. The latest exponent has been Col Warden whose "Air Campaign" proved to be fancy, not fact, in the Gulf War. Those who wish a 'one target=end war" solution should reflect on history: Christendom did not collapse when the Holy Land was conquered in AD 690, the American Revolution did not collapse with the capture of Philadelphia in 1777(?), Stuart on the outskirts of Washington did not result in abject surrender offers, strategic bombing of Germany did not cause the surrender of May 1945, Hiroshima/Nagasaki were the 'last straw' vice the primary reason for Japan's surrender, "Instant Thunder" was "One Month Grumble", etc. Those who seek a solution in one decisive stroke are in "Cloud-Cuckoo Land". Such conclusive strokes as might be identified have never been singular, always a product of events preceding them. With all due respects to the Contrarian, an attack on Mecca may give emotional satisfaction to many, but its substantive effect would probably be (er) counterproductive. And from a military (probably political as well) point of view, if an action does not contribute to victory (AKA achieving your end-state), it's a dud. To summarise, using Douhet, Trenchard, Mitchell, et al, as inspirations is to replace thought with fantasy. However, should the US deny Mecca is a target? No, as Liddell-Hart would say, it places the opponent "on the horns of a dilemma". Which is a good place for an opponent to be. Cheers JMH
 
By Rich W on July 23, 2005 6:50 PM
From an old fa*t's prespective, the answer is pre-emption of the action, that is act before instead of after. Using England as an extreme example, the Finsbury Park crowd should have been behind barbed wire, two weeks after they first opened their mouth. The president should have a finding that there is a significant threat of WMD attack in the US, pass it by the appropriate commitees and start rounding up ever jaybird that even looks funny. We need the Sedition Acts brought back. We should have targeted the imans, and the Golden Chain with deadly force attacks within weeks of 9/11. I read several blogs that don't like the Patriot Act, because it interferes with their liberties in one way or another. We are at war and while the FEBA is in the Middle East, the US is the Ardennes on the first of December. That does not mean that we should not ask "who goes there". You either accept increased security and the problems that go with it or don't bi**h about the results later. Nukes: totally inappropiate in this situation. Killing flys with sledge hammer don't work.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 7:19 PM
Nice response John. I shoulda done dat!
 
By MMDeuce on July 23, 2005 8:16 PM
As I read this debate it seems to me that both sides are getting hung up on the implementation and neglecting the policy. What kept the US safe during the Cold War wasn't our nuclear arsenal, but the policy of MAD. The USSR didn't do anything major to us because any serious threat or attack would have resulted in the end of the Soviet Union (and contrariwise any serious threat or attack by the US would have resulted in our destruction). In my opinion where Rep. Tancredo went wrong in his statement is in not going far enough. We shouldn't just bomb Mecca. If a nuclear device is detonated in US territory we should destroy Muslim civilization. Everything from ports to roads to cities to irrigation. Salt the earth and leave no two stones standing atop one another. It won't matter how angry they get at us, they'll be too busy trying to survive in a hostile enviroment to pose a threat to us. Technology has achieved such lethality that the humanity cannot tolerate such a society and survive. Either the muslim world kills its cockraoches or we will do it by burning down the house. It could involve killing millions of innocent people, but it's no different than us holding millions of innocent Soviet citizens hostage for 2 generations.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2005 8:22 PM
Well, I don't agree. I *did* go into this - the issue of state versus non-state actors. Just saying we will annhilate a billion people *isn't* a credible policy. And the ones we're trying to influence - would probably welcome the attack. I understand that perhaps we're trying to influence Muslim governments to address the terrorists amongst them - but what are we going to do if they originate from Britain? No, MMDeuce - while I understand your position - I can't subscribe to it.
 
By Ed Minchau on July 23, 2005 9:09 PM
Thanks, John. I think having our flurry of emails posted here helped move the discussion along a bit.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on July 23, 2005 9:12 PM
- but what are we going to do if they originate from Britain? Or from Chicago?
 
By Rick on July 23, 2005 10:13 PM
Hey, good discussion guys. However, I think you are giving short shrift to the domestic implications of a nuke attack on American soil. We have all seen the spastic gyrations the networks go into over the dissapearance of one blond girl or another. Or one isolated shark attack. Can you imagine what these people will do with the miles of videotape showing burned and blasted cities? Burned American children? What if this happens 3 weeks before the 2008 elections? Given their current conduct, would you put it past the dems to use this event to club the republicans? Would you put it past Hillary? Kennedy? Michael Moore? Kos? And to further complicate matters, what if the Chicoms decided to go after Taiwan in the aftermath, and let it be known that they were willing to go nuclear if we intervened? What I'm saying is that the President will be under crushing pressure from all sides, and that there may not be time to collect ourselves. We may have to fire the equivalent of a pistol shot into the ceiling during an out of control bar brawl. I will agree on one thing. Mecca is not the place to retaliate, although I don't believe that Tancredo ever said "nuke Mecca". By now, we presumably have a pretty firm idea where the support for these maniacs is coming from. The targets should be leadership of nations and institutions which provide money, arms, and shelter to them. And I would be surprised if the government has not quietly informed these parties that they are on the list, and that we are deadly serious. I remember hearing that the SIOP was leaked to the Soviets so that they would know the terrible consequences of crossing the line.
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on July 24, 2005 1:06 AM
Rick. I Think I know what you are trying to say, but you're missing two points: the WTC attack, and a nuke is "just" a bigger bang. As for the SIOP being leaked, probably not as a leak. The Russian had other sources of information. Besides, think "horn of a dilemma" and Sec Rumsfield's statement on knowing and not knowing. Cheers JMH
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 24, 2005 8:03 AM
Besides (while I have visitors from muslim nations, I bet most of them are expat/embassy types, etc) this whole discussion serves up just the "horns of a dilemma" sort of thing JMH refers to. Many people in those nations find it hard to concieve that *all* of this discussion isn't government controlled/directed/monitored.
 
By MMDeuce on July 24, 2005 8:44 AM
I certainly respect your dislike for my plan, I don't like it much myself, I just don't see any other option. The 7/7 bombings show how little control a state actor can have over the terrorists in their midst. Even if the attack were to be committed by a state-sponsored organization it would almost certainly be "off the reservation". The ayatollahs know what would happen to them if an Iranian nuke went off in the US. The suicide bombers cannot, by definition, be deterred. But they live and work within an environment of people who provide support and aid and don't want to die. Those people can be deterred, either by direct threats to their own lives or to the lives of their families in the old country.
 
By Boquisucio on July 24, 2005 9:38 AM
Excellent back and fourth JMH, Rick, MaDeuce, Et Alii. I think that this discussion is turning back to the Clausewitzian Center of Gravity, to which I wish I had the plumb, eloquence, and time of JMH to detail. As far as the Retired Chief's open question... I would add that if the foot soldiers are born and bred in Chicago or Detroit, we can take them down just like Hoover did in its day. That would be a tactical response, but not a strategic one. To go to the heart of the matter, we need to go to take out our enemy's Center of Gravity which is: their will to follow that satanic cult better known as Islam.
 
By Buck Smith on July 24, 2005 12:10 PM
I think a better response than nukes would be something like Sherman's campaign from Atlanta to Fort Sumter. Use conventional military and destroy a wide swath of Arabia and other areas (tribal region of Pakistan) that constitute the base of Islamofascism.
 
By ry on July 24, 2005 1:06 PM
Ack! See why I said in a previous comment thread that people look at nuking Mecha as near genocidal warfare? No, we don't kill Islam or Islamic culture. Just like we didn't kill all Germans or Germanic culture. We entice them, somehow, to move away from the worst elements within it. That's it. How would nuking anything in the ME get us our political goal(the schwerpunkt, the Center of Gravity)? It wouldn't. Those advocating this are using logic similar to this: A)they kicked us in the nads, B)we destroy their homes, C) they see how easily we can hurt them in vast numbers, will realize/learn the peril they are in, and stop. Wrong. Has that ever worked? It usually leads to tit-for--tat reprisals(gang culture: sure doesn't work there). Even the Sherman plan is dicey because it doesn't AIM AT WHO WE NEED TO GET. They're trans-national. You're killing lots of civillians, wholly unconected and powerless to effect the transnationalist terrs, to try and influence our targets? Why not just say we'll kill 9/10ths of the population to achieve our goals? The goal is to get mainstream Islam to turn the terrs in because they recognize them as evil and detrimental to Islam. That's the Center of Gravity(or schwerpunkt): the people. YOu don't achieve that by blowing them up with nuclear weapons. Invade. Teach(while avoiding it degenerating into another Algeria). Leave them in peace when we've achieved the goal. Talk of using nukes and destroying Islamic culture is talking of genocide--and that isn't kosher.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 24, 2005 1:07 PM
Kinda where I was going, Buck. Great minds.
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 5:35 PM
Because I think governments will be so farking scared we *will* start tossing nukes around, or that someone might use little nukes in *their* nations, that the whole dynamic will change, and in our general favor.
Listen, John, I love you like a brother, but how on Earth do you reach the conclusion that not responding in kind to a nuclear attack on 7 or 8 US cities will result in more nations worrying that we will? Oh, and as to the whole "backfire" thing. The Islamofascists and their "Religion of Peace" have already demonstrated that they're four square in the camp of the terrorists. We can't make them love us, no matter how much we try. Our only hope is to make them fear us. No, not making al-Qaeda and their ilk fear us, they're a lost cause, but the other billion currently quiet muslims. Oh, and if the fucks murder a million of my fellow citizens, I don't give a good shit about "being sensible" about it. They're going to pay, and they're going to pay with interest. One thing I learned at the academy was that the only way to defeat a brutal enemy was to prove to him that you could and would be infinitely more brutal than him if you chose to. And the only way to prove that point is to make a demonstration of the fact. If you constantly shirk from responding in kind to ever-increasing levels of barbarism, you'll only encourage him to ramp it up because he'll think (with good reason, I might add) that you're a weakling. You know as well as I do that you have to keep the enemy guessing, so I'm actually a bit surprised to find you advocating for a policy of utter predictability. And I don't give a flip about the moral high ground. I care about winning, because I'd like for my boys to grow up without having to worry about being shredded by camel-humping sheetheads. I'll deal with the morals later, when I die and have to defend myself to G-d. Right now, the only objective I have is to win, and if it takes turning the entire Middle East into glowing glass, then I'll regret it because I really don't want to, but I'll push the damn button anyway.
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on July 24, 2005 6:57 PM
Misha: I don't know which academy you may have attended, but I suspect you didn't pay enough attention in class. Your "infinitely more brutal than him if you chose to" indicates to me that you have little awareness of Hackett's "unlimited liability" as it pertains to soldier (and especially leaders) in war, on the battlefield. "Me Hulk, me get angry" is not a useful guide in combat, much less a principle of war. Cheers JMH
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 7:16 PM
It's a matter of making him fear you more than he fears losing. Demoralize him. Keep him wondering just how far you're willing to go. Keep him guessing. Never, ever give him a playbook defining to him in no uncertain terms what you're not willing to do to defeat him. Particularly when you're fighting an enemy with no respect for "rules of engagement". But hey, we EUnuchs only wrote the book on conflict, having more familiarity with the concept than we're happy to admit to. Not that we have a monopoly on understanding the true nature of war. GEN Patton, for instance, grasped it better than most but, like he said: "You magnificent bastard! I read your book!" Indeed he did, and he was a quick study too.
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 7:18 PM
Oh, and I should add: I'm immensely grateful that he was that good a student. If he hadn't been, I'd be speaking German today.
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 7:22 PM
(Addition to the addition, I'm sorry): Or, more likely, Russian. (Coincidentally, I do, but that's a matter of choice) Thank Heavens that the Allies of WWII weren't busying themselves with taking options off the table. History doesn't give a good shit about "morals", because history is written by the victors.
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 7:27 PM
Oh, and as to the academy I attended: It was the same kind of academy that von Clausewitz attended. As a matter of fact, he was a core part of the curriculum but, then again, what did he know about war?
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 7:37 PM
Oh, and finally, I have no idea how this has anything to do with Hackett's unlimited liability clause, something with which I'm very familiar.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 24, 2005 9:59 PM
Hee. I can almost hear you sputtering, Sire! Beware any comment that starts out with... "John, I love you like a brother..." Because the knife is already slipping between your ribs... Lessee. It wasn't the bombing that put paid to Germany and Japan. It was the occupation. Predictability? I'm more after inevitability. Like the march across northern Europe and up the island arcs. And I think we'll have support, much more support than we do now. I didn't say I wouldn't bomb. I didn't say I wouldn't invade. In fact, I said I'd do both. What I did say, is that I wouldn't counsel nuking Mecca in response to an al-Qaeda/it's ilk attack on the US. Or, bombing the Kaaba. But that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be plenty of lamentations in the tents of my foes. Or those who choose to stand in the way between me and my foes. But I actually think, hopeless optimist that I am, we can do more with troops than with nukes. As for your comparison of schools with JMH, I'll leave you two academy grads to duke that out. I'm just an ROTC Distinguished Military Graduate otherwise unfit to shine your respective boots! 8^D
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on July 24, 2005 11:31 PM
I'm certain a discussion on the merits of selected academies could be fruitful, were I not minded that: a. Currie failed to recognise his lack of such qualification, being a Militia (choke) Gunner (Gaawk); while b. Brutinel was beyond the Pale, being a French! Reservist (Shudder). Cheers JMH
 
By Misha I on July 24, 2005 11:52 PM
ROFL, JMH! :) Never was too much in favor of pissing contests myself.
 
By Misha I on July 25, 2005 12:01 AM
Oh, and John, the only thing I really objected to was the logical disconnect in saying that unilaterally guaranteeing that we wouldn't respond in kind to the nuking of 7 or 8 of our cities would have a deterrent effect. Deterrence is only effective if your enemy thinks that you just might do it. It won't work if you've promised him that you never will, no matter what.
 
By ry on July 25, 2005 12:38 AM
"Deterrence is only effective if your enemy thinks that you just might do it. It won't work if you've promised him that you never will, no matter what." That works in game theory, but what if the other joker just doesn't bloody care? What if you've got some goob who thinks most of those in his category don't really belong because they aren't like him and thinks you're doing him a favor(multiple ways--killing the unfaithful and pushing others to see the West as being full of Infidels)? You aren't putting the fear of anything into these guys. You aren't hitting them between the ears at all! It's easier to forget a single whack than it is a mauling. That's why I'm saying we don't use nukes. We invade. We take over it all and stay there until there's a few generations that are used to us being there(they're familiar with us. They see we aren't something to be feared. They'd piss and moan about colonialism and demand reperations, but they wouldn't fear us and the hate mongers would be about as dangerous as Soupy Sales). We take away the places that find ways to pass them cash or other aid and comfort. Invading is putting a millstone on their necks. Nuking or nice, neat arrows into the heart is a single smack with a baseball bat. An enemy is defeated when he believes he is(Clauswitz I believe refered to this as when one side reached a point where it was no longer willing to pay the cost). You do that by ending the possibility of a rebirth of the caliphate. YOu do that by putting the ME under new managment. It doesn't work to drain only part of the swamp if you're looking to get rid of mosquitoes that spread malaria.
 
By Justthisguy on July 25, 2005 9:00 AM
A modest proposal, here. Nuking Mecca is prolly a bad idea, but how about a taste of Mr. Atta's own medicine for those guys. Remember the crop-duster scare? Why don't we fit out a bunch of old KC-135s with spray bars, and (yes, you know me) fill up their tanks with BZ? Only downside may be, we might not notice any change in those guys' behavior... [Ducks, runs for cover while bobbing and weaving...]
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 25, 2005 9:03 AM
Heh. You and your BZ fixation. Yer such a hippy, dude!
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on July 25, 2005 9:14 AM
1. Horn of a Dilemma, I keep repeating myself ... 2. Mind games are a good thing, especially with today's enemy. Now, if someone suggest spraying Mecca with a slightly oily liquid smelling somewhat of Pacific Coast cedar, and then denied it was harmful (at least as far as we know), ... Cheers JMH
 
By Justthisguy on July 25, 2005 9:19 AM
JoA: Heh, what can I say; the Jimson Weed patch is doing very poorly this year... JMH: Yes, Lysol or Pinesol might be just the thing.
 
By ry on July 25, 2005 11:56 PM
(Look of complete confusion sweeps over face) BZ? Huh? Me cornfused(Indian. Corn.)
 
By Justthisguy on July 26, 2005 2:03 AM
Umm, ry, BZ is one of those theoretically perfect war poisons invented by the Chemical Corps which were going to solve all problems and make bombs and bullets unnecessary. Think of "The Gas of Peace" in H.G. Wells' "The Shape of Things to Come." It really does, from what I've read, act very like Jimson Weed. That is, sometimes it makes you fall over, sometimes it makes you act silly (there were reports from Bosnia of tough nasty folks actually hugging trees and sobbing under the influence, and therefore easily shot of course.) From what I've read, it seems that BZ's inventor was such an enthusiastic Chemical Corps nerd that he tried it on himself, and had to have an assistant follow him around with a mattress for a couple of days, in case he fell over. (Which he did, at random intervals) I think the mattress may also have been helpful to hide behind when the guy got irrationally, but thankfully also incompetently, violent. Dang, JoA, what *is* the name of that movie, the one I mentioned on another thread? You know, the one with Eddie Albert as the crazily-enthusiastic Chem Corps Colonel and Elliot Gould as the test subject Corporal? Somewhere on this blog, in a post long ago and far away, The Armorer posted some actual technical information about BZ, possibly in an attempt to make me shut up, and quit annoying him about it. HA! The search engine he's thoughtfully provided may help you find that.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 26, 2005 5:53 AM
Oh, here Ry. Try this. Then there's this story, where a South African asserts we used BZ against the Iraqis in GW1. (I would note people who are concussed behave this way, too). I don't believe we did. The thread where I provided info is here, if you want to wade through the comments... And lastly, JTG's movie fave is, I think, "Whiffs".
 
By ry on July 27, 2005 5:19 PM
YOu know what the scary part of this is? I think I could make this. The retro-synthetic analysis off the top of my head doesn't look that bad, particularly if I don't have to start with stuff of five carbons or less like you have to in exams. And I'm not all that good. The hardest one is the aniline, with meta positioning indicated by diagram, to ester. The simplest way to do it in my mind is to use a meta-chloroaniline, but that's hard to come by or make. (although it is hard to tell if it's aniline or not by the diagram as the far right moeity. Can't tell if it's an aromatic heterocyclic or not. Excuse me while I get my geek on.). This is scary everybody. This is worse than the Aum Shin Rykyo jerks with sarin. It looks much easier to produce, at first glance anyway. Even relatively impure samples could be used with disasterous effects(not going to speculate. Why give away something or inspire some idiot to try it?). Shudder. Maybe we ought to be using BZ when we sweep haus by haus. Beats having to shoot the poor bastards, and I've been told by some really old farts(instead of the kinda-sorta old fart that runs this place) that it's easier to make a CW grenade than it is a CW missile. They get loopy, fall down, piss themselves, and we cart them off for detention, hearing, and then hanging if the Tribunal so finds. Beats shooting the poor bastards outright since that gets the Int'l Communities panties in a bunch. Oh, and that bit in quotations from yesterday should read (Indiana. Corn.). Might clear up some confusion.
 
By Justthisguy on July 27, 2005 9:14 PM
Careful, ry! Remember what happened to Dr. Butler! (Not to mention Martha Stewart!) It seems that expressing greater-than-doodah knowledge, or curiosity, about some things may get you a visit from the Feds these days. It's understandable, in a way, in that bio and chem weapons are so nasty that lots of folks are a bit twitchy about them. Still wrong, I think. Scientists don't like cops telling them what they may and may not know, or do. I'm with the scientists, here. Maximum transparency and widely diffused knowledge is always better than having the important info controlled by the elite, IMHO.
 
By Justthisguy on July 27, 2005 9:27 PM
Oh, for what it's worth, I betcha Basil Liddell-Hart would have been cool with BZ. He was gassed, and he was shot, and I think he wrote that getting gassed was not as bad as getting shot, even with the grossly nasty chemical stuff they had then. I think he further wrote that the nastiness was a consequence of the crudeness of first attempts (chlorine, phosgene etc.) and that later generations would produce stuff that incapacitated temporarily but did no pemanent harm. Of course you don't want to drive yer enemy loony when The Button is handy, as was mentioned in the Wednesday Report article. (and S.M. Stirling's "Stone Dogs" novel.)
 
By ry on July 28, 2005 1:51 AM
True JTG. Getting the apt raided by the FBI wouldn't be a lot of fun. I'm just saying though that the knowledge is out there, and there are some really skilled people who could make this stuff in their garage. That bothers me. On the 'thou shalt not' front. I'm prolly one of the few that you'll run acrossed who aren't miffed about being told not to publish something. My ego ain't that big and I do see a bigger picture(like what someone could do if they knew how to synthesize something like sarin). knowledge is power, and with power comes responsibility. Knowing what to reserve from general public consumption by putting it into a database that labs have to be approved to get access to is part of that responsibility. But that's me, and I'm typically looked on as a heretic.