The Mice That Roared
And don't forget about the dozens of "missing" Russian suitcase nukes
There's a brand new book out entitled "Wild Fire". It debuted at No. 2 on the Times bestseller list, No. 1 at the Wall Street Journal and No. 1 at Publishers Weekly.
The author, Nelson DeMille, is advocating what I've been saying for years. How many times have I said that this really is a fight for the existence of Christendom? Unfortunately, The West simply won't "get it" until there are mushroom clouds over NY, Washington, London, Sydney, or Rome. And don't kid yourself... the bad guys would absolutely love to make that happen.
But anyhow, here's a bit of a write up in the Philadelphia Enquirer;
"It sounds radical, but what we're trying to do is keep Washington, D.C., and midtown Manhattan from being nuked. We're not trying to obliterate another part of world because we don't like them. But we have between 10-20,000 nuclear weapons, we're the most powerful nation on the planet, and, in the history of mankind, and we're being bogged down by guys with AK-47s and plastic explosives. We've got to rattle nuclear sabers. Not because we're bad guys, but because we're good guys".
If there were to be a nuclear strike against an American city, it (Wild Fire) would prompt an automatic response. The weapons once trained on the USSR would thunder down on the Arab world.
"Wild Fire is a pro-active response. It is a gun to the heads of Islamic countries - a gun that will go off if they fail to keep their terrorist friends from going nuclear," DeMille writes.
"This is a great deterrent because nobody wants to end the world as we know it," he told me.
"In 'Wild Fire,' I pose that we have something very similar to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Meaning, that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the presumption of guilt against Islamic terrorists would be very strong; we wouldn't need the proof, we'd never have the proof.
"We would automatically launch against the nation of Islam, specifically against the cities of Mecca and Medina, and other places like Damascus where we don't care for the government, and this would be a deterrent against a nuclear bomb going off in America."
A few point's where I disagree with DeMille ~
1. Don't make Mecca and Medina the primary targets. Damascus and Teheran will do nicely, thank you. If they don't get the message after that, the moslems most certainly can make their Haj to the world's largest glow-in-the-dark hole in the ground.
2. There is no "end of the world" scenario. What there will be is the deaths of millions who already advocate they WE convert to islam or die. This really is "us vs. them". They don't want our religion... they don't want our lifestyle... they don't want democracy. They want only one thing --- either we convert, or they kill us. Yes, it really is that simple. If you don't believe me, have your mom or your spouse or your daughter spend a few minutes with these fine fellows. Anyone remember the video of Nick Berg getting his head carved off?
Much like the Kamikazes in WWII, there was no "talking to" or "opening dialogue" with them. Our fathers and grand-fathers knew the score --- "the Kamikazes are trying to kill us. Before they do, we'll kill them."
We better start fighting this war like we intend to win it. If not, start weaving your prayer rug.
And don't forget about the dozens of "missing" Russian suitcase nukes
There's a brand new book out entitled "Wild Fire". It debuted at No. 2 on the Times bestseller list, No. 1 at the Wall Street Journal and No. 1 at Publishers Weekly.
The author, Nelson DeMille, is advocating what I've been saying for years. How many times have I said that this really is a fight for the existence of Christendom? Unfortunately, The West simply won't "get it" until there are mushroom clouds over NY, Washington, London, Sydney, or Rome. And don't kid yourself... the bad guys would absolutely love to make that happen.
But anyhow, here's a bit of a write up in the Philadelphia Enquirer;
"It sounds radical, but what we're trying to do is keep Washington, D.C., and midtown Manhattan from being nuked. We're not trying to obliterate another part of world because we don't like them. But we have between 10-20,000 nuclear weapons, we're the most powerful nation on the planet, and, in the history of mankind, and we're being bogged down by guys with AK-47s and plastic explosives. We've got to rattle nuclear sabers. Not because we're bad guys, but because we're good guys".
If there were to be a nuclear strike against an American city, it (Wild Fire) would prompt an automatic response. The weapons once trained on the USSR would thunder down on the Arab world.
"Wild Fire is a pro-active response. It is a gun to the heads of Islamic countries - a gun that will go off if they fail to keep their terrorist friends from going nuclear," DeMille writes.
"This is a great deterrent because nobody wants to end the world as we know it," he told me.
"In 'Wild Fire,' I pose that we have something very similar to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Meaning, that if a nuclear bomb went off in America, the presumption of guilt against Islamic terrorists would be very strong; we wouldn't need the proof, we'd never have the proof.
"We would automatically launch against the nation of Islam, specifically against the cities of Mecca and Medina, and other places like Damascus where we don't care for the government, and this would be a deterrent against a nuclear bomb going off in America."
A few point's where I disagree with DeMille ~
1. Don't make Mecca and Medina the primary targets. Damascus and Teheran will do nicely, thank you. If they don't get the message after that, the moslems most certainly can make their Haj to the world's largest glow-in-the-dark hole in the ground.
2. There is no "end of the world" scenario. What there will be is the deaths of millions who already advocate they WE convert to islam or die. This really is "us vs. them". They don't want our religion... they don't want our lifestyle... they don't want democracy. They want only one thing --- either we convert, or they kill us. Yes, it really is that simple. If you don't believe me, have your mom or your spouse or your daughter spend a few minutes with these fine fellows. Anyone remember the video of Nick Berg getting his head carved off?
Much like the Kamikazes in WWII, there was no "talking to" or "opening dialogue" with them. Our fathers and grand-fathers knew the score --- "the Kamikazes are trying to kill us. Before they do, we'll kill them."
We better start fighting this war like we intend to win it. If not, start weaving your prayer rug.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
4:37 PM
4 Comments:
I have had the same thought about nuking Mecca and Medina, or at least threatening to do so. However I am having a hard time reconciling this with what I see in the catechism about Just War. It appears we cannot intentionally kill children and other non-combatants - which a nuke strike would certainly do.
Incidentally I am no pacifist. I'm an Army Airborne veteran. I just want whatever we do to be consistent with church teaching.
Partick,
I share your concerns. But keep in mind that there's no such thing as an antiseptic war. As vets, we both know that war is a terrible thing and should be avioded... but not at all costs.
We didn't ask for this war, but the gauntlet has been thrown down.
I'm sure you would agree with me, a war for the very survival of Christendom isn't for the squeamish.
It is a terrible dilemma. We must defend our civilization from the pagans. Yet I see this at CCC 2314:
"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."
I think the key word here is "indiscriminate." If we nuke, say, Tehran and kill all its inhabitants, we are not making any distinction between those who are our enemies and those who are not. We are killing indiscriminately.
On the other hand, if we strike places we know to primarily contain terrorists or other enemies, and a few civilians are killed in the process, we are on firmer ground. Death of the innocent was not our intent; it was an unavoidable side effect.
Certainly these distinctions are not always easy to make in practice. We are obligated to try, though. I'm not sure DeMille is doing so.
Patrick,
I don't think that it would be indiscriminate at all. Those two cities are the veritable twin-hearts of islam. The moslem world would receive fair warning... "any mushroom clouds over the United States or any nation we have a reciprcal defense treaty with, then say good-bye to Mecca and Medina. You have been warned".
What they do with that warning is their business. If any given individual decides to remain in the cross-hairs, that's their call.
And besides, this is Total War. The only reason we haven't seen said mushroom clouds over NY, London, Sydney, Rome, etc, is because the bad guys don't have the ordinance and/or logistics to make it happen... yet.
But mark my words, once they do nuke us, all bets are off.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home