by Charles
Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) stepped in it last Friday and the best thing he should do is retract his statements and apologize. No excuses and no non-apologetic apologies. None of this "if anyone is offended by what I said, I’m sorry" business. The content itself was offensive and it merits redress. It doesn’t matter if the person hearing it was offended or not. So far, he is digging the hole deeper by refusing to apologize. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Just to be clear. If the United States is hit with an atomic bomb by Islamic terrorists, the answer is not to respond by bombing the birthplace of Islam. Such an act would constitute an act of war not just against militant radical Isamists but against Islam itself. This is the worst kind of "suggestion" or "trial balloon" that a representative of the US government could toss out for "discussion", on a radio show or in any other public venue. What was this guy thinking?
This conservative is not alone in harshly criticizing Tancredo’s words. Add Hugh Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, McQ, Donald Sensing, Clayton Cramer, Patterico, Michelle Malkin and a host of others.
Moron.
“It’s a tough issue to deal with,” Tancredo told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. “Tough things are said. And we should not shy away from saying things that need to be said.”
* * *
“When we bombed Hiroshima, when we bombed Dresden, we punished a lot of people who were not necessarily (guilty),” Tancredo said. “Not every German was a member of the Nazi Party. You do things in war that are ugly.”
This issue actually rose in WWII when the targeting decision was being made for the first A-bomb. Groves wanted to bomb Kyoto (Shinto equivalent of Mecca) for the same reasons. Secretary of War Stimson overruled him, thank god.
Just another winger nutbar who likes to play tough with other peoples’ lives.
Final Solutions, anyone?
You know, there’s nothing like mass media and this fool’s rantings to convince any Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan who might be wavering/coming closer to our side that we really *are* at war against their faith. These remarks, which *will* get tons of airplay in the Islamic world, are going to set back our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to an absurd degree.
I eagerly await the outrage over these statements from the same people who were outraged over how Durbin’s statements hurt the U.S. war effort. I suspect that I might be waiting a while.
Strange. I am always surprised when I find that I am more hardline than Charles.
It has been the policy of the United States for more than 50 years to respond to any attack with nuclear weapons via massive retaliation on the population of the enemy. Of course we are going to hit Mecca, along with every other city in the arab world with 10,000 people or more.
Sure its a horrifying doctrine, but it has prevented nuclear weapons from being used in war for a long time now. I don’t really see any alternative on the horizon.
Charles- What kind of namby-pamby response are you imagining we will make to terrorists begining to use nukes on our cities?
I’m confused by the transcript: is he advocating this response (or a deterrent based on the threat of this response)? Or is he simply putting it on the table for discussion?
I can see some value in discussing ideas that I reflexively find repugnant, for the very purpose of more clearly defining just what our moral boundaries are. It is unfortunate when we have to have dialogues about such things as torture, assassination, genocide, etc. only in the context of condemning or justifying acts already committed. The conflict in which we find ourselves is asymmetrical in many ways, not least of which is the fact that our opponents see justification in the deliberate targeting of civilians and we, presumably, do not. It is up to us to determine just what we are willing to sacrifice to regain an even footing, and I’d rather have that conversation before we’ve gone and done something terrible.
Maybe I’m giving this guy too much benefit of the doubt, but when folks I know and respect are already talking about shutting down our borders to Muslim immigrants, when some people are comforted by the notion that as bad as our actions might be, they aren’t as bad as this or that monstrous historical regime’s crimes, I think it is foolish to think that refusing to even discuss a question means that nobody will ever decide to answer it without our input.
Good post, Charles.
However, Tancredo will not apologize. He’s a tough guy, from a long line of tough guys festering up at the Independence Institute near Denver. My representative in Congress, whose motto could be “representation without taxation”.
These guys have a big swinging d—fest every year nearby where they drink some good Scotch, smoke big cigars, and show each other their semi-automatics.
Their latest gig is to oppose any amelioration of the draconian Tabor tax limitation amendment in Colorado, which has pretty much screwed the State government. For them, “draconian’ is a good thing.
I almost hope they succeed in imploding the government here. What little tax they hope to collect to fill the potholes in front of their homes will then come up against me and my liberal Scotch-drinking, cigar-smoking friends. We could learn to love guns, too, if only to make Tancredo crap in his pants.
They hate government, except for its nuke-lobbing functions.
Charles- What kind of namby-pamby response are you imagining we will make to terrorists begining to use nukes on our cities?
When it’s not a nation but a transnational organization that does the nuking, where do you target for a response? Responding indiscriminately doesn’t solve the problem, nor does taking out hundreds of thousands of innocents just to get at hundreds of al Qaeda, unless you really believe this is a War Against Islam. I believe we’re in a war against Islamic terrorists, not Islam.
I eagerly await the outrage over these statements from the same people who were outraged over how Durbin’s statements hurt the U.S. war effort.
Don’t I count?
Good post, Charles.
However, Tancredo will not apologize. He’s a tough guy, from a long line of tough guys festering up at the Independence Institute near Denver. My representative in Congress, whose motto could be “representation without taxation”.
These guys have a big swinging d—fest every year nearby where they drink some good Scotch, smoke big cigars, and show each other their semi-automatics.
Their latest gig is to oppose any amelioration of the draconian Tabor tax limitation amendment in Colorado, which has pretty much screwed the State government. For them, “draconian’ is a good thing.
I almost hope they succeed in imploding the government here. What little tax they hope to collect to fill the potholes in front of their homes will then come up against me and my liberal Scotch-drinking, cigar-smoking friends. We could learn to love guns, too, if only to make Tancredo crap in his pants.
They hate government, except for its nuke-lobbing functions.
Good post, Charles.
However, Tancredo will not apologize. He’s a tough guy, from a long line of tough guys festering up at the Independence Institute near Denver. My representative in Congress, whose motto could be “representation without taxation”.
These guys have a big swinging d—fest every year nearby where they drink some good Scotch, smoke big cigars, and show each other their semi-automatics.
Their latest gig is to oppose any amelioration of the draconian Tabor tax limitation amendment in Colorado, which has pretty much screwed the State government. For them, “draconian’ is a good thing.
I almost hope they succeed in imploding the government here. What little tax they hope to collect to fill the potholes in front of their homes will then come up against me and my liberal Scotch-drinking, cigar-smoking friends. We could learn to love guns, too, if only to make Tancredo crap in his pants.
They hate government, except for its nuke-lobbing functions.
And, in case I didn’t make myself clear, I do find the notion itself deeply repellant. I just think it is worthwhile to have a conversation about why that is the case, and how that should inform our foreign policy.
It obviously needed to be said three times.
Frank-
You’re correct of course, about the fact that our nuclear policy has worked for more than 50 years. With this foe however, we aren’t dealing state-to-state.
One of AQ’s stated goals is to trigger a war between all of Islam and the west. Given that, comments like Tancredo’s become more akin to an incentive than a deterrent.
“but it has prevented nuclear weapons from being used in war for a long time now.”
After deterrence has failed, massive retaliation is unlikely to have much point or purpose. And your prescription would make India uninhabitable. If that is the plan, we should probably warn India.
No nukes. No nukes. No nukes.
Enslave them. If nuked, send fifty million men over, take over the schools, reducate and enlighten the Arab/Muslim world. Het that has been my plan since 9/11! Course, I do really think we will take a nuke. I also think we have to show real toughness, take a nuke and not go nutzoid, but just keep fighting in a civilized manner.
In fact I have my moments when I think about invading Pakistan, just to show that nukes will not deter us. We will have to take one before the enemy abandons them.
i hear the same sentiment from wingnuts all the time : “We should nuke Mecca, Medina and Riyad! That’ll teach them a lesson!”
what he said was ridiculous but entirely representative of a large enough population of everyday wingnuttery that it’s not at all shocking.
to me, the only shocking thing is that he isn’t getting more support from the right.
Charles,
Malkin did not harshly condemn Tancredo’s remarks – she said she understood where he was coming from. Look at her post again…
“I believe we’re in a war against Islamic terrorists, not Islam”
I look at the guys who did the London Bombing and I do believe we at war with a “What” rather than a “Who.” Nor is the “thing” we are war with a particular tactic. No it is not the entirety of Islam, or all interpretations of Islam. Nor is it Osama and Zarqwahi and ten other guys.
I am not so far from Trevino.
When it’s not a nation but a transnational organization that does the nuking, where do you target for a response?
Iraq, apparently
Charles: Great post. But how am I supposed to continue to see all conservatives as monolithic propogandists if you’re going to get all sensible on me, hmm?
Bob: There’s a fatal flaw in your plan: We don’t have 50 million men to send anywhere. The male population of the US in 2000 was 135 million. Half of that population was over 35, about 30 million under 18. That leaves only about 35 million total draft age men in the US.
Charles- The transnational nature of terrorist groups is definately an issue as is the desire to avoid being perceived as being at war with Islam.
It wouldn’t be hundreds of thousands of innocents it would be millions. If we had ended up having a full scale nuclear exchange will the Soviet Union in the 80s it would have been hundreds of millions of innocent. Obviously even in this less problematic case most of the victims on both sides were not threatening anyone on the other side and had no ill intent, nevertheless, neither side tried to only target the responsible persons on the opposite team.
You still never answered my question.
Frank
Mecca is in Saudia Arabia, a nation that has no nuclear weapons. Yet in the event a stateless terrorist organization manages to detonate a nuclear device on US soil you would demand and expect the US government to destroy Mecca along with every other city in the arab world with 10,000 people or more with nuclear weapons.
That would be beyond despicable. Deserving of everything we might reap by way or retribution.
It’s disheartening to learn people of the same mentality as OBL might share living space with us here in the US. Now I know how the people of the UK must be feeling after the latest outrage.
postit- Demand is a little strong, but I have no problem with “beyond despicable.”
I would prefer if there were a measured response that didn’t leave us open to having city after city destroyed. I just don’t really see it. I’ve long thought Bob’s idea has some merit, but it looks to me like there is no way we could get our act together that much.
“That leaves only about 35 million total draft age men in the US.”
Lot of sexism here. And I am not sure you need to run an obstacle course to be qualified to teach a Saudi youngster how to use the internet and some basic political science. My fifty million might be in uniform, for various reasons, but would be doctors, lawyers, engineers…
Too many people around think Granada and Panama were “wars”. A nation goes to war, everyone, everyone gives everything up, or puts it at risk.
You don’t think it is necessary? Ok fine, I always figured it would take a nuke before Republicans would give up their tax cuts and Democrats accepted a draft. It will happen.
I’m with Aziz on this. What Malkin wrote hardly qualifies as strong criticism. All she could choke out was that Tancredo’s comments were “unwise” before quickly moving on to highlighting what I’m sure are some truly evil remarks by America-hatin libruls. That’s a pretty weasely way to respond to Tancredo’s comments. As a result, I find her comments to be almost totally disingenous.
Frank
Am I incorrect to assume you would endorse the nuking of Mecca, when you merely stated you would expect it?
Please clarify.
I’m not sure there is any response, measured or otherwise, that would work to deter a foe determined to widen the conflict.
There’s a thought-provoking comment on this subject over at The Cunning Realist. Specifically…what if we did nothing at all after such an attack? What if we “took one” to take the utility of nukes to the terrorists off the table? It’s like “what if we hadn’t withdrawn from Beirut?” writ large.
BTW…I said “thought-provoking”, not realistic 🙂
OK Frank, to answer your question off the cuff. First, we double the manpower of our military and have a sufficient budget to incent them accordingly. It would be no problem recruiting able-bodied soldiers in the wake of an atomic bomb exploded in one our cities. Second, we re-emphasize our goal to destroy al Qaeda and its offshoots, in all countries the organization inhabits, especially Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan. Third, we demand full access to the lawless regions of Pakistan. Or else. Fourth, we demand that Iran cease all activities relating to nuclear bomb production, or else a bafrage of precision strikes could happen. A terrorist nuclear blast will change world political dynamics, so it may not take much to change their minds. Fifth, we launch the mother of all information wars and beat their propaganda and ideology to a pulp. Sixth, we stay on course in the push for freedom and democracy to the unfree world. Seventh, a nuclear response to a nuclear attack is most likely unnecessary, especially when you have the most powerful military and economy in human history. Since we’re not dealing with large groups of terrorists in one place, a nuclear response would be like hitting a few spiders with a sledgehammer.
Malkin did not harshly condemn Tancredo’s remarks – she said she understood where he was coming from. Look at her post again…
I did, aziz. With the updates, it’s not as harsh as it originally was. She did say this: “Rep. Tancredo’s remarks were most certainly unwise, and he should do the right thing and retract them quickly, but I do not agree that his words were ‘the most irresponsible’ opinions expressed by any American official.”
“but I do not agree that his words were ‘the most irresponsible’ opinions expressed by any American official.”
CB, is this an out meant to promote the Durbin episode over Tancredo?
Postit- Demand was too strong, I don’t know about endorse. I don’t think it would make sense to nuke Mecca if we weren’t also nuking all the other major population centers in the Muslim world. As far as what I want, I wish violence were only employed (if at all) against those who deal in it. I don’t know what I would do if I were President in that situation, but I’m pretty sure I would have had our missle forces targeted at sites in the middle east a while back, Mecca would certainly be one of them.
I don’t think that Muslims in general want war with the west, and I don’t think even most Republicans want war with Islam, but America often hasn’t done a good job making that clear. Sometimes as here the problem is unavoidable.
Charles- Thanks for your reply. I don’t see doubling the armed forces doing much since I don’t think we are making any progress on the problem now, rather we are going backwards.
Bob- In Iraq today we are spending huge amounts of money, but there is less electricity and clean water than when Saddam fell. Given the amazing extent of our corruption at this point, how likely do you think it is that we could: 1 Mobilize 50 million troops 2. Acheive anything significant in reforming the middle-east?
Surely Tancredo’s remarks are infinitely more useful than Durbin’s ever could have been for anti-US propaganda in the Muslim world. How could anyone argue otherwise?
Where’s hilzoy when we need her?
I think what is interesting here is how many right wing nut bloggers are condemning him for making a stupid a comment and calling on him to apologize.
From Charles, to Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed.
I hope these bloggers can serve as an example for all those who consider themselves moderates.
Why is everyone so upsey with Trancredo? Surely Newsweek’s treasonous reporting of an actual event concerning urine and the Koran and some ‘bad apples’ trumps whatever some republican has to say about bombing the entire Muslim world’s most holy place.
If not then…well, then…remember Clinton got a blow job and then lied about it.
“Other fighters, who are coming to Iraq from across the Middle East and North Africa, are older, in their late 20s or 30s, and have families, according to the two investigations. ”The vast majority of them had nothing to do with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda today,” said Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study. ”I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world.”
Case studies of foreign fighters indicated they considered the Iraq war an attack on the Muslim religion and Arab culture, Paz said.”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/
Excellent post, Charles.
“Lot of sexism here. And I am not sure you need to run an obstacle course to be qualified to teach a Saudi youngster how to use the internet and some basic political science.”
You’re the one who said we should send 50 million men over, though I acknowledge that I ignored the obvious way to double the number of draft age people. If there must be a draft, it should be a draft of both men and women. I seriously doubt that I could teach the average Saudi teenager anything about the internet, however. Political science, possibly, though I doubt my version of polisci would meet with the Bush administration’s approval.
“Given the amazing extent of our corruption at this point, how likely do you think it is that we could: 1 Mobilize 50 million troops 2. Acheive anything significant in reforming the middle-east?”
1) If there were 5 million Americans in Iraq, I would go in a heartbeat, spend 3 6 months. Quantity becomes quality. The garrison strategy of “troops” we are using now is the worst possible. I wonder how many are trying to pick up a little Arabic. I certainly would. With 5 million, the terrorists would see little point in killing a hundred, or a thousand. The housewives would sell me a ten-cent lunch for five dollars. The Iraqis would understand I wouldn’t stay. The guy trying to grab a million off an electric contract would have five more guys to split it with, and two of them he really couldn’t trust. He couldn’t trust me.
There is a reason the Saudis keep foreigners to a minimum, and quarantined in little compounds.
I doubt it will happen. Charles has a lot of obvious good ideas at 1:21, and it is honestly a total mystery why the administration has not come closer to implementing some of them. I understand there are truckloads of generator parts at the Jordanian border that can’t be delivered because of security, and can’t be installed because they are German. “Incompetence” is nowhere near an adequate explanation. Corruption doesn’t even hack it.
“Second, we re-emphasize our goal to destroy al Qaeda and its offshoots, in all countries the organization inhabits, especially Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan.”
What about Britain? The British bombers were British born. Destroying one country after another isn’t going to do it, we need a way to convince people that the whole bombing civilians approach is a bad idea. It isn’t impossible: the British somehow made the IRA disappear without either giving in to their demand that Northern Ireland be separated from Britain or turning N Ireland into a vast field of radioactive glass. How did they do it? Perhaps there might be some clues on how to deal with the current group of terrorists.
Ok, allow mme to post an addendum to my previous reply: While what Charles wrote was excellent, the links he offered weren’t the unanimous condemnation he described.
As has already been pointed out, Malkin’s piece was nothing more than one big “Yeah, but” attack on the left disguised as an apologia. But Hewitt and Morissey were also all too happy to leaven reasoned criticism of Tancredo with “Libruls BAD!!!eleven” knee-jerking as well.
You guys seem to be going down the line of entertaining Trancredo’s idea.
WTF?
You should be demanding his statements be denounced from the highest source ie. the White House-just as they denounced Newsweek’s reporting on the Koran at Gitmo.
You are treating his extraordinarily inappropriate comments as though they are not.
Disgusting. Save it for the fantasy games.
carsick- You guys seems too general I think I am the only one here who has said anything one could call an endorsement of Trancredo’s idea.
I don’t know if Trancredo had any business saying what he’s saying. I am pleased at the humanity on display here, I just don’t think you guys are being entirely realistic.
Frank
You’re right when you say it was too general. I only got so far down the thread ’til my stomach turned at the insanity and went straight to posting.
Sorry to any who mistakenly thought they were lumped into ‘you guys’.
Carsick, I’m not “entertaining” the idea so much as facing the reality that others will entertain the idea and those people aren’t just going to disappear. From my point of view, we can debate it now, we can debate it after a nuclear device goes off in one of our cities, or we can debate it after our leaders, elected for their folksy swagger and enthusiasm for cutting taxes, have already retaliated on our behalf. I’d prefer we discuss it now, when opinions like yours and mine have a chance of being heard.
Nuking Mecca would be literally the last place in the Islamic world I would choose, even if I concluded that use of nuclear weapons was a necessary step (presumably after terrorists had detonated a nuke or made a massive chem/bio attack within the US or on the territory of a US ally). Nuking a number of military targets within any or all nations associated with the terrorists in question–followed by a demand for the immediate surrender of all terrorists (and their known allies) within the territories of those nations with the alternative being continued bombardment–would on the other hand be a plausible–if rather horrifying and regrettably necessary–step.
Nuking any state that doesn’t officially support the terrorists will be counterproductive. Nuking a state can only work as a deterrent because the ultimately the state is responsible for the sanctioned actions of its people/miltary. That’s why bombing Dresden or Hiroshima worked. Other nations didn’t fear they’d be next, because they were not sanctioning the Japanese or Germans’ actions.
There are holy sites all over the Muslim world. Choosing one as a symbol without regard to the official stand of the host government on such issues is immoral and destined to cause more problems than it solves. Yes, you might buy some relative peace while the rest of the world shakes in its boots, but you’ll be planting the seeds of hatred and revenge that will outlive any of us.
Should a state be found to be behind such an attack, however, then …bombs away. But the threshold here needs to be more than merely “associated with” and should include substantial support and/or planning of the attack.
Edward- I dislike this kind of hypothetical, but while I generaly agree with you here, I’m going to offer one. Suppose that Al Qaida has aquired the ability to make nuclear weapons via a decentralized network spread throughout the Muslim world. None of the governments in the area support Al Qaida either directly or indirectly though individuals in various locations are sympathetic. A substantial minority, but a minority of the populations of these countries support Al Qaida making the assembly of bombs possible.
I don’t see how in this scenario attacking the mostly innocent populations of the muslim world, is any different morally, than attacking the mostly innocent populations in the Soviet Union.
Such an existential threat from terrorists is probably unlikely, but that is what I was thinking about when I read about terrorists using nuclear weapons on “several US cities.”
Terrorist never surrender. They want to die , they live to die..
Question the source if a nuke goes off in the states. This would surely fulfill a christian dominionist’s end of days fanatic wish to end the world sooner rather than later.
And really, aren’t you surprised more nukes have not been set off? Why hasn’t a terrorist used a nuke anywhere?
Addendum: I am further assuming that the governments in question are unable to either “hand over” their local Al Quaida members and that they will be unable/unwilling to allow US forces in to do it for them. (Think Pakistan today.) If we go in their government falls and the population turns against us.
Judson- Nukes are fairly difficult to build. Libya couldn’t do it and they had all the parts and plans needed. Most would be terrorists can’t build a conventional bomb that will go boom.
I heard about a state going after a religious symbol once. Of course it was just a cult at the time but lo and behold today, 2000 years later, people still haven’t forgotten.
You attack people’s core beliefs instead of their political ones and they will pass down the story from generation to generation.
If you’re saying that Christians still have it in for the pantheists for…fulfilling prophecy, I guess…then I don’t know what to say. If not, then the analogy sort of crumbles.
Frank,
I’m not sure, but I think we agree with each other down the line.
Where do you see a difference between us?
Edward- I dunno. I asume you aren’t talking about personal matters. (i.e. I’m not gay and don’t have a significant other.) I am saying that I would at least feel that I should contemplate using nuclear weapons in the scenario I contemplated above. If I felt I had to I would blow up Mecca. Even though I’m sure I would feel like a sh!t afterward, and even though I know history would likely be unkind.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth here but are you implying you agree?
Nukes are fairly difficult to build. Libya couldn’t do it and they had all the parts and plans needed.
This is wrong. A-bombs are fairly easy to build — the trick is getting enough fissible material. Once you have enough, making the bomb, while trickier than your standard bomb, is not that hard. U-235 is the hardest to get, but it is child’s play to make a bomb with it. Plutonioum is trickier and requires a knowledge of shaped charges to make a functional bomb, but still not that hard.
That is why the key is controlling the source of fissible material, because if enough of it falls into terrorists’ hands, they can make either a functioning bomb, or else a crappy one that nonethelesss functions very effectively as a dirty bomb.
Slarti
You’re choosing to be snarky or dense.
The point was obviously that religious symbols just like the religious beliefs they represent have extraordinary power and if you want to recruit people to a way of thinking then a good way is to have an oppressor attack those symbols and beliefs.
The South may have lost in the Civil War and many Southerners are still pissed but with each passing generation the anger has diminished for most. Of course the North didn’t try to take out their religion. Hell just trying to get Southerners to give up the symbol of the confederate flag gets people fired up. Try taking out a religion’s most Holy place – a religion that has followers that equal one fifth of the world’s population – in retaliation for a minority sect’s actions. Ludicrous or insane.
Taken from the article I cited earlier:
“One indication that a heightened degree of Arab solidarity is a leading factor is that they are almost entirely Arabs and not Muslims from other countries, such as those who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.”
The worlds Sunni’s and Shia aren’t in solidairty now so we should blow up Mecca? To accomplish what exactly?
No wonder some folks think Iraq is the same thing as al queda. They’re insane.
dmbeaster- I think that is misleading. IIRC Libya had uranium ore, but was unable to process it to the needed isotopic purity. And relative to a conventional explosive my point still stands terrorists have some trouble making conventional bombs. I’m not saying they could never do it, but I think it took the palestinians years to get professional bombmakers trained. Hopefully they never will master nukes. If they do, we’ve got real troubles.
Frank
I think your theory could be interpreted as this:
“Let’s unite all the world’s Muslims so we can then kill them with impugnity. If they are all lumped together then there will be no innocents and therefore no innocent people will be killed.”
Scary stuff Frank.
carsick- I think you are mischaracterizing what I am saying. I neither ‘lumped them all together’ nor claimed there would be no innocents. Nor for that matter did I make any claims about impunity. Quite the contrary on all counts.
What do you think bombing Mecca will do? It will unify all Muslims against America and if I can think of anything that could become the worst scenario…that would be it.
That’s my point.
Carsick- I thought I had made myself clear, Mecca would be literally the last high population spot in the muslim world that I would drop a nuke on. I described in what I thought was specific detail the dire situation in which I would consider using nuclear weapons. I am not claiming to be “right” here, I just don’t see any realistic alternatives.
Oh please. Talk about a day late and dollar short.
The entirety of the world has watched this administration whip americans into a jingoistic panic about Muslim terrorists, turn Iraq into a wasteland, and remain in power. What, you think Muslims don’t already view BushCo as indiscriminate about who they bomb and how hard?
It’s too late for this sort of “let’s tone down the rhetoric” crap, because the only people buying it anymore are other Republicans who are starting to notice the sensation of freefall. If you think this is wrong then you need to condemn it with your actions, not just your words.
I think the problem is that you didn’t read the thread from the beginning.
radish- the general population of muslims has been a lot more forbearing than you give them credit for. I don’t know why, I don’t think we would behave as well if we were in their shoes, but there you have it. Lots of muslims think WWIII can be averted, I hope they are right.
Frank,
You did say this right?
“I don’t think it would make sense to nuke Mecca if we weren’t also nuking all the other major population centers in the Muslim world.”
I’d say that pretty much lumps all Muslims together as well as listing Mecca right along with and not after the initial bombing target list.
Your scenario seems to imply that terrorists will be able to have a nuclear war with America as opposed to the bad scenario projections we usually see of terrorists maybe putting together one low tech nuclear device.
Under your scenario I think there would really be no point to life on Earth if we bomb every single Muslim population of over 10,000 people. The nuclear fallout from bombing cities all over the world would last for years and the resulting ecological destabilization would wipe out vast amounts of the worlds population. Far beyond any terrorist group and their proven or possible supporters.
Insane.
Plenty of people have called mutual assured destruction insane. I think the acronym says it all really.
To put this in context Tancredo was asked:
Campbell: Worst case scenario, if they do have these nukes inside the borders and they were to use something like that — what would our response be?
I still think the US standing policy of massive retaliation is pretty much the only option for situations like this. I’d like to see a real alternative, but no one has seriously tried to propose one with the possible exeption of Bob Mcmanus.
If I felt I had to I would blow up Mecca. Even though I’m sure I would feel like a sh!t afterward, and even though I know history would likely be unkind.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth here but are you implying you agree?
Nope…I misread you.
I cannot see any circumstances under which blowing up Mecca makes sense to me. History be damned (if folks thought about how history would judge them, we wouldn’t be in Iraq, if you as me), it’s a practical matter. Blowing up a symbol as a means of combatting an enemy who uses symbolism to recruit is actually abetting that enemy.
Edward- I didn’t really think we could agree on this.
As Carsick points out terrorist recruitment would be the least of our problems at that point. I’d be more worried about fallout.
Frank
You seem to fall into the category of General Sherman or was it Kurtz from ‘Apocolypse Now’ when they said “Kill them. Kill them all.’
Scary that you seem to support Tancredo and say that the only reason why your idea won’t work is because the nuclear fallout would eventually affect Americans as well.
You are a scary individual.
Initially I thought you just hadn’t thought through your scenario.
I was wrong.
carsick- Some could take the comparison to General Sherman as a complement, but not Kurtz I think. You should read the posting rules here and not comment if you have nothing to add to the discussion.
Incidently I didn’t say “my” idea wouldn’t “work” because of the fallout.
“Should a state be found to be behind such an attack, however, then …bombs away.”
Even Edward. I, ahem, do not approve of the deliberate targetting of civilians under any circumstances. I do not entirely understand the psychology of brinksmanship and deterrence if said strategies are even rational enough to be understood. But the idea of the “firm message” sent by intentionally burning 5-yr-olds in a fireball, this symbolic act, has never been acceptable.
There is a question of cost/benefit of Nagasaki vs invasion, which would have the higher casualties, but the Church is fairly clear on the difference between intentionally targetting civilians and accidentally or incidentally killing them, and I think the Church is right.
…
But the more important point is to stay on topic, what would we actually do were we to lose a million Americans in a terrorist attack? I don’t know, but I can guess, and that is why I would pay any price to prevent it happening. In case anybody wonders why I am a hawk.
Bob,
Though I was against the invasion of Iraq it wasn’t because I am a dove.
What would we do if millions died in a terrorist attack? I would hope we focused militarily, investigatively (finding the money sources etc) and covertly all of our resources on the perpetrators and those nation states that supported them. I do not agree that we should focus on the religion that the terrorists claim to follow and all of the followers who fall under that religion’s umbrella.
Frank
Feel free to petition to have me reprimanded. Or kicked off. I will live by what ever decision OW makes.
Blowing up a symbol as a means of combatting an enemy who uses symbolism to recruit is actually abetting that enemy.
Which is why if Mecca did go up in a mushroom cloud, I would expect that OBL or an AQ splinter group would be behind it.
To think that, you have to think their piety is completely false; that they would be willing to destroy Islam’s holiest of holy places for the sake of triggering Armageddon – which, IIRC, isn’t even part of Islamic theology.
Now, I’m not keen, to put it mildly, on any organized religion. It’s the worst, cruelest joke humanity ever played on itself. And I loathe theocracies, no matter whose they are. But I don’t think OBL is faking his faith, and he’d have to be an utter poseur to even contemplate blowing up Mecca.
Bob- I am not personaly accusing you of hypocracy, but it is awfully convenient the way American standards of morality change.
We entered WWI because the Germans sank the Lusitania, a neutral American vessel (tho we were violating our neutrality by carrying arms to the British.)
In WWII we declared that there were no neutrals and sunk any ships which traded with our adversaries.
Also in WWII we bombed civilian populations on a massive scale, killing innocent men, women, and children.
Throughout the Cold War we targetted literaly thousands of civilian population centers for annihilation.
Now we pretend that what distinguishes us from the terrorists is that we don’t try to kill innocents, we only do it as colateral damage.
Don’t you ever get tired of the pretense? Does pretending we are “good guys” really serve any purpose at this point. I’m just sick of it.
“Don’t you ever get tired of the pretense? Does pretending we are “good guys” really serve any purpose at this point.”
I make no such pretense. However, a pretense that “I” am a good guy and choose my positions accordingly is at least a little homage that hypocrisy can pay to virtue.
I think I just mangled and maimed an aphorism.
The day 250,000 people are vaporized in Manhattan, the unthinkable will become very thinkable.
Those who gripe about the Patriot Act should remember, a little tough provention is worth many kilotons of cure.
Tom-e-lee, I think that most of those who “gripe” about the Patriot Act don’t accept your premise that the Patriot Act (or at least all of its provisions) make that vaporization less likely.
We’ve seen the introduction of many measures (such as confiscation of nail clippers before airline flights and checking of photo IDs for entry to government buildings) that give the appearance of doing something without actually increasing safety. Some such measures are more than mere annoyances but carry with the the very real threat of abuse by government or by government employees with their own private agendas.
As technological advances bring mass destruction within the capability of smaller and smaller groups of crazies, it’s going to be hard to navigate between the routes that lead to a police state and those that lead to mass death and chaos (actually there’s a fair possibility of getting mass death and a police state too). But always erring on the side of the police state isn’t the answer. More Republicans would remember that if a Democrat were in the White House (after all, whatever new powers they give the government would be available to a future President Hillary Clinton), but nowadays they seem to be confident that we’ll have one-party rule for the rest of time.
Better to die as a human than live as a monster.
Nuke Mecca, and watch the Saudis turn off the tap, along with every other country in the Persian Gulf. Watch oil go to $500/barrel, and Americans freeze to death for Christmas. Watch all our imports from Indonesia, Pakistan, and India get tossed into harbors by laughing mobs. Watch our assets frozen by former allies. Watch as nobody buys our products, not even our client states.
Is Tancredo insane? One would have thought that the past four years would have been an adequate example of comparative benefits of the policing/intelligence response to stateless terror versus the military response. There are times where an invasion may be what’s needed. In Iraq, though, we may be demonstrating that the cure is worse than the disease. This does assume that what we want is fewer people sitting around figuring out how to kill us, of course.
Tancredo seems to feel that our current efforts have only changed that number from thousands to tens of thousands. He wants millions.
Are you people out of your minds? OF COURSE the response of the USA to a terrorist nuclear weapon would be anihilation of several (if not all) major cities in the arab world.
Imagine the impact – not a single community in the USA untouched by bereavement and grief. The majority of the American people would surely DEMAND such a response along with incarceration/deportation of all US arabs/muslims.
Secondly, it’s not entirely unclear that such a response is irrational. What’s the alternative? To sit back, do nothing, and wait for another one to go off?
“Tit for tat” is a time-honored rational strategy. Not retaliating is a sign of weakness, and would make further attacks more, not less likely.
It goes without saying that such a response would be totally despicable, barbaric, evil and all the rest of it, but welcome to planet earth. Humans are made like this. It’s in our nature.
I’m not convinced that having Muslim holy cities converted to radioactive glass would be a deterrent to this particular species of insanity. But I also think that talking about hypotheticals of this sort is so entirely unlike what would happen if, say, the scenario in which AQ detonates nukes in several major American cities comes to pass. Most rationally considered courses of action will go by the wayside, IMO, and the world of Islam will be put to the sword.
This is not what I want, this is what I am afraid will happen.
This is not what I want, this is what I am afraid will happen.
Regardless of what administration rules the WH roost or an explicit recognition of the current incumbents likely reaction?
Are you people out of your minds? OF COURSE the response of the USA to a terrorist nuclear weapon would be anihilation of several (if not all) major cities in the arab world.
The French are wrong about so many things, and your above comment is squarely in the “wrong” category, RM.
“Tit for tat” is a time-honored rational strategy. Not retaliating is a sign of weakness, and would make further attacks more, not less likely.
Who’s saying we wouldn’t retaliate? But it would be foolish and counterproductive to respond by nuking Arab cities. What better way to perpetuate a cycle of violence than by killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who had nothing to do with nuking the US just to get at a few al Qaeda.
Humans are made like this. It’s in our nature.
That’s why we have a free and democratic society, to put the brakes on the baser parts of our nature.
Discussion of alternate universes might be interesting.
But it would be foolish and counterproductive to respond by nuking Arab cities. What better way to perpetuate a cycle of violence than by killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who had nothing to do with nuking the US just to get at a few al Qaeda.
Ach, mein Gott im Himmel.
You know, that’s a VERY GOOD EFFING QUESTION. That might be asked of some other situations in the world. If one were so inclined. Which I’m sure one isn’t.
Excuse me? We’d ‘have’ to retaliate by nuking X number of Muslim cities because otherwise we’d ‘look weak’?
What number of casualties, exactly, would be necessary in order to ‘not look weak’?
Did you include Pakistan on the list of Muslim countries to nuke? – because whatever alliance we have with them will be finito, and they have nukes.
And maybe we should take out all the other nuclear powers, including the Western ones, because they will conclude, quite logically, that we’ve gone insane and need to be stopped by whatever means suggest themselves.
Do you think this stuff through at all?
Slarti: Discussion of alternate universes might be interesting.
I defer to your superior knowledge of your own animal and it is cold comfort to know my dog would never do that.
I think that is misleading. IIRC Libya had uranium ore, but was unable to process it to the needed isotopic purity. And relative to a conventional explosive my point still stands terrorists have some trouble making conventional bombs
Your first point is also my point — the hard part is getting the fissible material. U-235 is monumentally hard to separate from uranium, which is 99% U-238 which cannot be made into a bomb. But if you have bomb quantity of U-235 (only a small amount is necessary) making a bomb is very easy. The Hiroshima bomb was just a small tube firing a plug of U-235 into rings of U-235 to assemble critical mass. Very easy — they did not have to test it to make sure it worked.
Plutonium has to be manufactured in a nuclear reactor and chemically separated from highly radiocative irradiated uranium. Not something you do in the home lab, and again the problem is getting the material. Plutonium A bombs are trickier and require shaped charges, but that is the only serious trick. (an efficient bomb is even trickier) — but there are technically bright terrorists. You are underestimating the terrorists — I am sure there are a few very bright technical people amongst them.
That is why non-proliferation of fissible materials is so critical, and also why the Khan network was a disaster on this issue.
Charles, I wasn’t describing what I WANT to happen. I am a humanist, presumably like the majority posting here, and I too would rather die a human being than live as a monster. I was merely describing what I thought most likely to happen.
The American people would surely demand to see many mushroom clouds somewhere in response. It wouldn’t matter where. It’s perhaps not rational, but who says that a response must be? Do you disagree? (Incidently, over 50% still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Is that rational?)
Of course, millions of innocents would be killed, but there is little distinction in the American mind between “terrorists” and “muslims”. In red states they are considered one and the same. The Bush administration, and the events of 9/11 have managed to sufficiently dehumanize arabs/muslims in the American mind.
On further reflection, I think that Trancredo’s comments may well have been orchestrated – a friendly hint from team Bush as it were.
They are consistent with Kissingers “madman” theory i.e. that it’s wise to talk/act irrationally and dangerously because people will then be very afraid of you.
What better way to try and disuade terrorists from planting a nuclear weapon on US soil, in the remote possibility that they have the means to do so? Such terrorists have to know that there are real, horrific consequences to their actions in advance. They have to calculate that in such a situation, the USA would not just “sit back and take one”.
I admire your faith in the American people, but honestly Charles, which scenario seems to you the more probable, given the history of US projection of power for the last 60 years?
a) Sit back and “take one”?
or
b) Massive retaliation in kind?
Now, I’m not keen, to put it mildly, on any organized religion. It’s the worst, cruelest joke humanity ever played on itself. And I loathe theocracies, no matter whose they are. But I don’t think OBL is faking his faith, and he’d have to be an utter poseur to even contemplate blowing up Mecca.
Perhaps, but when I posted this scenario at RedState, Aziz Poonawalla–hardly an anti-Islamic zealot–had a rather different reaction.
Perhaps, but when I posted this scenario at RedState, Aziz Poonawalla–hardly an anti-Islamic zealot–had a rather different reaction.
It is certainly possible that OBL could think that it was necessary to destroy Mecca to purify it, (Mishima’s _Kinkakuji_ is based on a true story of a monk who destroyed one of Japan’s greatest cultural treasures with just such thinking in mind) I think the problem with such a scenario is that OBL would have to assemble a rather large team of people to be able to do this and all of them would have to share the idea that AQ has to destroy Mecca to save it. As such, it sounds more like a simply accusation of hypocrisy against OBL rather than something to take as a possibility.
The American people would surely demand to see many mushroom clouds somewhere in response.
How can you be so sure about that, RM? If you’re not American, what credible sources do you have for such conjecture? As for your options, I’ll pick “c”, which is a massive and disproportionate response, but not “in kind”. We’re not as dumb as you apparently think we are.
Mishima’s _Kinkakuji_ is based on a true story of a monk who destroyed one of Japan’s greatest cultural treasures with just such thinking in mind
I need to revise this, I think Mishima created a convincing portrait, but I don’t know if his portrait was what the monk actually believed. I’ll have to pull it out again, I think upset at the idea that Kinkakuji (and Japan) had fallen under foreign occupation was at the heart of Mishima’s vision of the monk’s thinking.
I think the problem with such a scenario is that OBL would have to assemble a rather large team of people to be able to do this and all of them would have to share the idea that AQ has to destroy Mecca to save it.
Not really: the people involved in creating the bomb–or even most of those involved in smuggling the bomb–don’t need to know where it’s going to be detonated. It might only take a couple of like-minded types to send the bomb to its final destination–and such compartmentalization would make it easier for him to blame it on the West when the blast took place. If OBL really wanted to be devious, he could simply dictate that the bomb be smuggled *through* Mecca, then detonate it remotely at just the right moment (we’re talking a multi-kiloton weapon here–within a mile or two is quite close enough).
Not really: the people involved in creating the bomb–or even most of those involved in smuggling the bomb–don’t need to know where it’s going to be detonated.
I think imagining that kind of compartmentalization views those who carry out these acts as mindless automatons who can be plugged into the scheme. What is dangerous about OBL and AQ is that they are a franchise, and people with any grievance can pick their spots. OBL doesn’t snap his fingers and send a number of suicide bombers to target X.
Of course, as things become more chaotic, it becomes easier to dupe someone into doing something like this, but the amount of duping necessary multiplies exponentially if OBL wanted to make it appear as if it were a Western power that did this, and if he wanted to maintain some level of denialbility. Also, this scenario (of trying to blame it on the West) is quite a bit different from OBL deciding that Mecca needed to be purified. Also, given the reverence that Wahhabi sects treat objects related to Koran, OBL would have to keep this secret from almost everyone.
This also points out (as someone in another post did) that we need to control the amount of fissile materials as a key step in dealing with problems like these.