...or why 9/11 hasn't been repeated.
From WorldNetDaily:
Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?
Worth a read and contemplation. Seems as though the concept of "MAD" (Mutually Assured Distruction) that we thought evaporated after the Cold War may have found some use in the current day.
If this IS policy, and I hope it is, what is the "win" strategy? In the Cold War, MAD was part of the strategy because it stretched the USSR's ability to remain competitive; then to push them over the financial edge, Reagan stood up Star Wars missle defence that made the Russian stockpile of nuclear weapsons largely obsolete. Chessmasters call it a checkmate.
Here we find a similar situation. Could fledgeling democracies in the region eat away the underpinnings of the Osama foundations? The nuke option has seemily stalled our opponent while they determine if we're bluffing. What now though? Past history dictates that opponents, more often than not, make fundamental miscalculations of the US. The article seems to put forth the idea that the invasions in Afganistan and Iraq were meant to be educational for Osama; to help him not make a miscalculation.
But, if it is a bluff and Osama tries to test it? They'll be tempted to test it in a big way since they're throwing Mecca on the poker table. It becomes a winner take all situation for Osama. If we don't nuke Mecca, he wins as we're proven to be pussies. If we do nuke Mecca, we reinforce his propaganda about the US and how this is a war against Muslims.
I hope the policy makers are sipping their thinkin'-bourbon on this one. As much as I think a mecca-nuke is a viable option in retaliation, we may find outselves painted in a corner.
Posted by nose at January 10, 2005 08:01 PM