Our very own representative TomTancredo (R-CO) has outlined conditions under which he would retaliate against the Muslim shrines of Mecca and Medina. A terrorist nuclear explosion in the US would be grounds for President Tancredo to authorize release of nuclear weapons against these two Holy Sites.
Now, it stands to reason that if a nuclear explosion occurs in the US, the president has to do something. According to Iowapolitics.com, Tancredo said
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” the GOP presidential candidate said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.”
To Tancredo’s credit he did come up with an actual idea – on his own – that if we get nuked by terrorists, we should do something. The problem with his solution of nuking Muslim shrines is that it would be a localized attack on a delocalized problem. Muslim antipathy towards the US is a political viewpoint; it is a philosophy that justifies their indulgence in one of mankinds most sensuous of opiate pleasures.
That pleasure is the near universal impulse to throw oneself down prostrate and grovel before the deity. Muslims of a certain bent (not all of them, mind you) have refined the notion of extreme groveling through the use of explosives. They enthusiastically celebrate this peculiar form of reverence with the pious formalism of martyrdom. For millions of young angry men with no viable economic future, it has an irresistable appeal.
Ascetic leaders like bin Laden are not motivated by the physical plane. Bin Laden is very much a charismatic hero figure who has cast off attachment to the material world. This is a kind of archetype. To the satisfaction of his followers, he lives in caves and walks the covetless path. Bin Laden’s goal is an Islamic Caliphate. A nuclear retalliation against any Muslim state, much less a shrine, will polarize many millions to bin Laden’s cause of Muslim hegemony for centuries to come.
There is some need deep within the human brain to assume an inferior posture before the deity. It cuts across all societies and religions. It is seems somehow discordant that the diety who set the spin of galaxies and the organization of DNA in motion curiously requires that humans proclaim their regret for those very attributes that make them simply human. It is a most peculiar and, I think, biological, proclivity.
It seems to me that the optimal response to an Islamic terrorist nuclear attack on the US can only be this- No nuclear response in kind. We absorb it and we express our regret that this heinous act was perpetrated on us. It would be our nuclear restraint that would cause the terrorist movement to stand out before the world as the focus of savagery.
Realistically, could a US president actually do this? It seems doubtful. The pressure on a sitting president to release a nuclear weapon in response to nuclear attack at home would be enormous. Our restraint and the cessation of one-sided middle eastern policies would do more to undermine bin Laden and his kind than any fancy weapons system or occupation force. It would be the one weapon that they could not counter. Consider the examples of Christ, Ghandi, and King.
The extinction of Muslim extremism must come from internal collapse. Muslims themselves must conclude that vile and murderous behaviour is unacceptable and that the religious justification for murder is a misread of their covenant with the deity.
Extremists amplify their effect with chemical energy- they use explosives. A small number of terrorists become Robin Hood characters and receive encouragement and recruits from their more passive background of countrymen. You can’t destroy this with airpower and mobile infantry.
A nuclear retalliation by the US would vitrify a few sandy locations, but it would also politically unify Muslims behind the extremist cause, irrespective of the damage done to the US in the first place. We cannot win by nuclear retalliation. We only facilitate further use of nuclear force. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not valid in the conflict with suicidal terrorists. MAD is a doctrine that is only valid between nation states with armies and the desire to survive.
All of this is not to say that we wouldn’t be pursuing the perpetrators. But nuclear demolition of Mecca would be counterproductive. Terrorism is a kind of franchise operation. How do you nuke the 50 or 5000 scattered, clandestine operatives who did the deed? It’s a bug hunt. The destruction of Mecca would only validate core suspicions about us- that we are metaphysically corrupt and maybe bin Laden was right.
A state can’t successfully wage a military shooting war against an idea promulgated by clandestine operators with little to lose. But police investigation over 20 years in concert with intelligent and fair international policies could render the bin Laden characters obsolete.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
It seems to me that if any political statements being made these days “endanger our troops and give encouragement to the enemy”, Tancredo’s has to be at the top of the list.
Amen brother.
Interesting postulations. The one thing that you failed to mention, is that people from that mind set (That being Islamic extremist’s) only respect one thing, and that is force. Not just power, but power that is exercised. Having been to the middle east and other parts of the world where Muslims abound I have found that to be true for the majority of that culture. No, not just the Wahabi’s either.
Nice reading list you have by the way. You might add “The Book of the Traveler.” Since you called Tom Tancredo “Our very own” I will presume that you are a local. The book is available through the Jefferson County Library. me myself? I have been taking a vacation from learning about the madmen that only want our destruction, and have been reading “Those damned Horse Solders!”
Nice blog, I will be checking back.
I would tend to agree with Patrick’s comments, but I will throw in a strong caveat at the end.
As an analogy, I’ve spent a fair amount of time of the past few years training our two dogs. The training is most effective when you look at things from their perspective. You have to make it clear to them that you are in charge, that they do not walk in front of you,… As humans, I don’t care if someone walks in front of me, particularly small children. It’s actually preferred as you can keep a better eye on them. The child, being human, won’t think that he is in charge, either. The dog will however. It won’t happen overnight, but the behavior of the dog will subtlely worsen over time. This is part of the reason that the smallest dogs show the worst behavior. People let the “cute little dog” get away with behavior that they would never tolerate from a huge Akito.
Now the caveat: Do the “Islamic extremist’s only respect one thing, and that is force. Not just power, but power that is exercised”? Thousands of years of middle eastern conflict would lead me to not agree. Israel has a military that is far stronger than any in the area and uses it. Does it really stop anything? Are the Palestinians not on the attack because of this? Do they think “we should not blow up this bus because they will retaliate”?
Only death will stop them, but when they do not fear death, (or worse yet, welcome it) there is a real problem.
Yes, nuking Mecca would be a very bad idea, as Islam puts great importance on these places, far more than is placed on any sites in Christianity. Christians are not expected to make a pilgramage to the Holy Land some time in their life. Nuking the site would alientate a huge amount of peaceful worshippers, with unpredictable dire consequences. It would be lashing out at everyone. It would be analogous to punishing the whole classroom because the teacher couldn’t identify the chalkboard artist who composed the unflattering picture of the teacher.
Negotiations occur amongst equals, each with something to gain and lose. Mecca and Medina melted will gain their attention. Breaching the Aswan High Dam provides credible downstream body counts.
Islam’s resurgence is the economic impossibility of cheap young males in massive excess of local opportunites. America imprisons two million young Blacks and Browns. European warfare (brief pause post-Black Plague) was young male ablation. National borders did not move. WWII Japanese and their God-Emperor vowed to fight – every man, woman, and child inch by inch over the whole of Japan – “until we eat stones.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki successfully argued otherwise. One city, one bomb; no survivors, no city.
The long term solution to Muslim adventurism is birth control giving value to individual lives. The only short term counterpoint is ablating 100 million meat puppets to defer the population problem.
Wow – this seems like another brilliant idea by a Republican candidate – do any of you people actually read (other than coloring books and Dick and Jane)?
This seems to have a whole bunch of problems:
1) Islam, Christianity, atheism, science, freedom, etc. are ideas or sets of them, and their main claim on existence is that people believe in them. They are propagated by communication and by the success of those who believe in them rather than by biological propagation of their adherents. Anything that gives credence to an idea will make it easier for people to believe in an idea, even if they don’t act on it. Nuking Mecca will likely lead many more people to mistrust and hate the US (and at least some to adopt the stance for which the nuking was perpetrated), both making it harder for people to believe in what we claim to believe and easier to believe things that oppose our beliefs. Since most of our status in the world is dependent on people believing in us and our way of life, this would seem to be cultural and national suicide with a whole bunch of extra murders thrown in. I guess Mr. Tancredo wants company wherever he ends up after he dies.
2) It has been put forth lots (but I don’t have the references on hand) that much of the “radical Islam” terrorism is not religious in nature (though it appeals to its members by such means) but a power grab. (Saddam proclaimed his country’s adherence to Islam, though it affected his actions little.) Mecca would be a useful tool for leaders of such movements rather than something of value – thus it would seem that holding Mecca hostage would be like divorced parents fighting over a child neither of them want, a situation that usually doesn’t turn out well for anyone involved.
Oh, other than the mass murder aspect, I’m sure that the Arab world will show mercy towards Israel on our behalf, and that Israel will show similar circumspection. Pakistan might actually be motivated to nuke someone other than India, and things could get really messy. As an idea to end lots of lives, Mr. Tancredo’s idea has merit, but as substantive policy, it seems to lack both sanity and logic.
“It seems to me that the optimal response to an Islamic terrorist nuclear attack on the US can only be this- No nuclear response in kind. We absorb it and we express our regret that this heinous act was perpetrated on us. It would be our nuclear restraint that would cause the terrorist movement to stand out before the world as the focus of savagery.”
You are exactly right–if we had not fallen into the trap of invading Iraq, we would have probably had bin Laden on the ropes a long time ago. Instead we are feeding the fundamental belief that keeps AQ going: namely that USA is in fact out to kill islamic society, and steal the oil wealth from their lands by force. We counter that belief by NOT Doing things like: invading Iraq….
The collapse of this would be to modify the US positions against Muslim countries and mainly Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do people always focus that the attacker is wrong (and he is) but they forget what caused it. Like pressing a spring and when it bounces and hits you, it’s only the spring’s fault. It’s Newton 3rd’s law. My discussion is here:
I happen to realize that the present problems in the middle east are the result of over a century of bungling and meddling in that part of the world by oil importers. Our bad habits there are hard to change with all of the monied interests involved.