Author

Posted by Tuner38 9 years, 8 months ago to Politics
12 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The Real Nuclear Option and Why it is Necessary and Moral.

This essay is not about some silly Senate label on a vote that diminishes minority input. It is about the necessity to demolish and instill terror into the minds of those who think terror is a viable means of dealing with their fellow mankind. Harry Truman decided the loss of American and ally life would be too high a price to pay when the option of invading the Japanese was proposed and contemplated. He was correct in his use of atomic power as witnessed by the fact that the Japanese for all their bravado and kamikaze tactics capitulated only a few days after seeing what was in store fro them if they continued their madness.

We are faced with a new bunch of butchers who intend to intimidate us into accepting their barbaric notions and the only rational response to a terrorist is to give him an idea of what real terror will consist of for him and those who associate with him. We do not need to send soldiers into the Middle East to be captured, killed and hit with road bombs. We have done that and the results have been shattered American families, maimed returning soldiers, losses of parents lives and children growing up facing the threat anew.

We have the means and the weapons to obliterate this barbarism but we don’t have the will to inflict the kind of mayhem that will get the attention of the terrorists and leave them in a state of constant fear. They seek to instill fear, let them know what kind of fear they can experience as they are wiped out and confronted with the realization that only by their complete surrender can they be allowed to coexist. We are not going to embrace their 13th century philosophy of slavery to their beliefs that the world has long outgrown and overcome. We are not going to revert to barbarism but we are going to inform those who want barbarism that we have far greater weapons and means to put a stop to any movement that aims at reversing our gains that established individual rights . We have no intention of simply surrendering those gains for some barbaric notion of a faith that honors martyrdom over productive behavior. We have no intention of cowing down to killers who behead our fellow citizens.

With the stockpile of nuclear weapons we possess why did we stockpile them and retain them if not to deter any threat that was presented? We cannot use diplomacy on these primitives. They are infiltrated with blind faith and that idiocy rejects reason. Reason and diplomacy cannot be divorced. That leaves only force and overwhelming force must be the answer to their threats. We will lose thousands of American troops in another prolonged “conflict” that could be avoided with a little courage from those who sought power through elections and then refuse to protect those who voted from threats. Power without courage is a means to ultimate demise.

The lack of courage of our politicians is the result of them absorbing uncritically what the nature of government is and why its primary function is to protect the citizens that they supposedly represent. The politicians have diverted and obfuscated thinking their only purpose is to get elected and then worry about the next election to stay in power. That is NOT the role politicians should accept nor aspire to. The moniker “public servant” which they bandy about, if taken literally would fit their job description more closely than the current notion that they are an elite wiser than thou overlord.

There can never be peace if these continuous police actions answer conflict with troops stationed at all corners of the globe waiting to be kidnapped, beheaded, shot or imprisoned while the thugs rant and rave they want their unreasoned rules to prevail. Thoughtful persons have shouted to the American people to “wake up” and demand their government protect them ( with the unspoken addendum , “ by any means necessary”).

The final issue to address is the loss of innocents. Not by the terrorists evidently as this isn’t their dominant theme. We can warn before we strike but we cannot avoid the loss of innocent lives of our enemies just as we cannot avoid losing soldiers if we place them in harm’s way to avoid a more devastating attack via nuclear weapons. It has been a tradition in the Middle East to join the winning side and switch as the tides of battle turn. This seems to be unnoticed by our politicians and they consequently don’t know who to side with for a coalition. This phenomena would come to a screeching halt if they knew the United Staes would not tolerate and would retaliate against any threat to American interests.

I know that most who bother to read this will call it too radical and too out of step with the people who fill out polls. I can only say, “ so what?” We have seen what the conventional pundits and politicians have come up with as an answer and it simply hasn’t and won’t work. For the sake of the coming generation speak up and don’t rely on them to discover what we now know , have learned the hard way and have elected leaders who don’t know what their job is.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 8 months ago
    Hello Tuner38,
    We have mega-bombs that aren't nuclear. Wouldn't it be just as effective to warn the populace 48 hrs in advance that since their government is aiding, abetting and harboring terrorists we are going to carpet bomb their cities one at a time until they clean their house? Once bombed into the stone age the terrorists would find few sympathetic places from which to strike and acquire supplies. The lesson to the Germans (WWII) was accomplished this way. Although the populace was not necessarily warned in every case, they knew the cities were being turned to rubble. At least this method would not create nuclear fallout for the innocent downwind to deal with. I know, one can argue the case of the innocents, but that argument applied to the Germans as well. Some were ignorant, though many simply turned a blind eye and were complicit in their inaction. Still, there is something to be said for being more humane than one's enemies, if you wish to win the moral battle as well as the military one... in WWII our prison camps for instance left history with clear choices. Perhaps when the populace of those nations feared reprisal more than the terrorists among them... I just don't know... nuclear escalation could have unforeseen consequences too terrible. I do believe we should set example and that many times we are too humane with the terrorists themselves, but how do we avoid the slaughter of innocence or live with the alternative.
    I feel that war should be hell, not entered into lightly, but once unavoidable, fought to win decisively with overwhelming force. These police actions and limited engagements are futile, but most people do not think like Patton, right or wrong. You may win the war your way, but potentially lose the world. I am torn. When I see and hear the reports of the barbarity I often feel exactly as you do... there are moments when I wonder if I would push the button.

    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      The central issue here is the method being used to try to intimidate us. Very well we will answer their threat with a far greater one. Only when they realize they will lose no matter what will they cease and desist their irrationality. We have a nuclear stockpile. For what? Waiting for a nuclear attack to retaliate against? If the terrorists gained nuclear capability and attacked us then would it be okay to bomb them out of existence? In the mean time many Americans would perish from their attacks. To prevent a problem it is always best to anticipate the consequences and act accordingly. In this case we have relied on conventional weapons and gained nothing but a prolonged drain on our blood and treasure. Strike fear into the countries that threaten us just as was done in WW!! and you will see an attitude change that won't happen by any other means.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 8 months ago
        Hello Tuner38,

        I understand. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the possible outcomes of your plan and see Dr. Strangelove scenarios playing out. It is true that we enjoyed a period of peace after we dropped the last bombs on Japan. Fear probably had much to do with it, but times have changed and now there are other countries that are nuclear also; ones that are near the area you propose to bomb that may suffer the consequences and unleash a domino effect that could have devastating results and repercussions for us. The nuclear powers in the region will not appreciate nuclear fallout. We should not have gone there in the first place. We should have let them kill each other off instead of being the world police. But, that is water under the bridge. Whatever is done it should be done Constitutionally and that means a declaration of war by congress. I like the other constitutional option "letters of marque." Stay out of the wars over there altogether, but send in undercover agents that are licensed to kill the head men responsible for the terrorist acts perpetrated on Americans and will take a poison pill before revealing who they work for if caught. Then terror can be created in the minds of the leading tyrants and we can maintain plausible deniability.

        I also believe we should create laser weapons in space that can cut down the terrorist leaders and their followers. If required, spies could infiltrate and tag the targets.They would have no defense and probably not know from where it came. This would strike fear in the hearts of those who would threaten us also.
        For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNawFOBuY... Time frame 27:10---28:10 If we do not create such a device first, one day we may be at the mercy of others who have. Couldn't a similar system be just as effective without the indiscriminate killing?

        Is mass destruction the only choice? What if the end game is mutual assured destruction and an apocalypse is unleashed?

        I understand your position and sympathize with your frustration, but I wonder if many military strategists would find the probable outcome as positive as you foresee. I also have doubts that those in power would approve of your plan.

        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JC70 9 years, 8 months ago
        What is the difference between a human that straps on an explosive vest and enters a target population intent on killing innocents in an violent act of terrorism and a human that is infected with a highly contagious killer disease that knowingly enters a target population with the intent of committing a silent act of terrorism by spreading that deadly disease to as many victims as they can? This is the question of the day. As I see it, the only difference is that one makes a very loud noise when it kills its victims and the other makes no noise at all. And, in the end, the one that makes no noise at all may end up killing more people.
        Take Patient Zero.All the attentionis paid to the Ebola, but nothing has been said of his background. I had an argument with wife yesterday because he was "poor affected victim" who came here to visit relatives, and I said he was an Illegal immigrant who came here after this woman who was pregnant got Ebola and he got exposed to the disease and then wanted to come here for whatever reason (a cure). And, why didn't he come through the normal air routings from Liberia, instead of routings through Belgium, then Chicago to Dallas. Also who paid for this spur of the moment passage?
        Who were the "relatives he said he was visiting? Muslim? ISSA sympathizer? All good points to ponder. Now multiply patient zero by say 100+ men/women exposing LA, New York, DC, Chicago, Miami, in large crowds, you get the picture now? Sleeping better? Whose your daddy now? Want your Military back protecting you or some govern bureaucrat who is continuing to lie to you?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 9 years, 8 months ago
    Our government does not have the balls to do something like this. They lack the courage to call a terrorist a terrorist, of course unless it's an Oath Keeper or military Vet. I also do not think the current politicians of any stripe want the threat to stop. The red lines this administration draws is the track of our troops sent to die to make the administration look good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
    "the necessity to demolish and instill terror into the minds of those who think terror is a viable means of dealing with their fellow mankind"
    In this scenario, who believes instilling terror is a viable and necessary means of dealing with humankind? Who is the terrified one?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      You answer terror with force and since they don't respond to reason, you inform them the terror they seek to instill will be placed in their laps.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
        My question is who thinks terror is a viable means of dealing with humankind and who is feeling terrified. It sounds like you're saying "everyone" to bother questions. But certainly some people don't think terror is a necessary or viable way of dealing with people and some brave people don't scare easily either.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
    You assume that our government wants to stop the terror. I'm not sure where that idea comes from.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      The government isn't the boss. The citizenry is paying for the government to protect their rights. This is the nature of government and instilling or being complacent about terror isn't the job of the government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo