1. it does not follow that the response we would have to someone nuking one of our cities is necessarily nuking Islamic cities. It seems to me that we don’t need nukes to destroy the Middle East if that’s what we want to do.

2. it might make sense to destroy the Middle East oil fields ourselves, & perhaps we ought to let the Arabs know that this is what we will be doing if one of our cities get nuked by anyone.

3. Narmer’s observation seems to point to the need to accelerate decentralizing our economy NOW. Once one city gets nuked, how long will it be before cities disappear? Much as I love living in the great city of Chicago, cities might be over with.

But such weapons would be essential to any internation order in the future like the one I layed out above, precisely because of the geographic restraints you outlined and similar ones around the world.

Americans (in general) tend to forget our extensive geography. A nuke in Sacramento would render that city, and a perimeter of ____ miles uninhabitable for ___ years, and kill _____ people. Would Baltimore be affected by fallout/radiation? No, it’s 3000 miles away. Most of the US population would never know the difference. However, most other countries are much smaller and/or densely populated.

All signatories would have to understand that even with the best efforts, they can’t be guaranteed no damage if they find themselves next door to a target. Taking out Pakistan would likely do damage to Indian nationals / territory / infrastructure. Can you imagine the Indian government, let alone the 1B+ people in India, approving that? Would the US abide by the treaty if we discover that AQ launched from Nogales?

That’s why Israel’s “Sansom option” works; 1 nuke with “Damascus” or “Cairo” on the side takes out essentially the entire country, and may just roach-bomb a few other nasties.

I’m not passing judgement on the morality of your proposal, this is a question of practical implementation. The mushroom cloud won’t respect lines on a map.

Really, the Islamofascism is only one problem we face. The heart of the matter is the exponential increase in technical savy and its global diffusion. In some ways Islamists are an easier problem, since they are supported by fairly well-known states and other financial / religious institutions that can be hit with a counter-strike. I doubt even the Mullahs are mad enough to slip Al Qaeda a nuke, since they will likely get nuked back even if the evidence linking them to a specific nuclear terrorism is tenuous or missing (as many commentators noted, we can also nuke other countries just to be sure we hit the state sponsors).

Anyway, the longer term problem is that actors will soon no longer need state sponsorship to do incredible harm. What about a few Gaia worshipers who conclude humanity is a cancer and they cooks up a well-designed and deadly virus? All it takes is a few PhD’s and run-of-the-mill equipment to inflict violence on billions, especially if the weapon self-replicates.

I really don’t see a way out that does not involve the creation of a “panopticon” society of universal surveilance (with AI systems doing the monitoring?). Really, if we and our societies survive then next hundred years in any recognizable form, I’ll be very surprised!

Here’s a cool link:
http://www.garreau.com/main.cfm?action=book&id=2

Sorry for the tripple post, the internet was a bit laggy and I hit submit more than once thinking it wasn’t working.

I haven’t run into this problem yet, but if I see more posts about it, I’ll take a look. We’re going to do some site improvements in the next month or so that should alleviate any “slow-loading” problems like this. Hopefully…

To launch is human. To optimize, divine. :-)

Even with all this, there were several close calls.

It’s very dangerous for people to conclude that because “deterrence” worked during the Cold War era it will necessarily work today, for example with Iran.

I see a lot of talk about how vunerable we are because illegal aliens are crossing our borders. But I think it is important to make a distinction between Christian Mexicans comming across seeking a better way of life: better pay, which leads to opening bank accounts, driver’s liscenses and applying for mortgages for homes and Muslim terrorists trying to cross the border to blow us up.

Immigration reform is essential… with so many people crossing the border, it just makes sense to streamline legal immigration for those just looking to make a decent living. With immigration reform, less people will cross the border illegally, making securing the border that much easier (without having to build a “berlin wall”).

I see a lot of talk about vunerable we are because illegal aliens are crossing our borders. But I think it is important to make a distinction between Christian Mexicans comming across seeking a better way of life: better pay, which leads to opening bank accounts, driver’s liscenses and applying for mortgages for homes and Muslim terrorists trying to cross the border to blow us up.

Immigration reform is essential… with so many people crossing the border, it just makes sense to streamline legal immigration for those just looking to make a decent living. With immigration reform, less people will cross the border, making securing the border that much easier (without having to build a “berlin wall”).

I see a lot of talk about vunerable we are because illegal aliens are crossing our borders. But I think it is important to make a distinction between Christian Mexicans comming across seeking a better way of life: better pay, which leads to opening bank accounts, driver’s liscenses and applying for mortgages for homes and Muslim terrorists trying to cross the border to blow us up.

Immigration reform is essential… with so many people crossing the border, it just makes sense to streamline legal immigration for those just looking to make a decent living. With immigration reform, less people will cross the border, making securing the border that much easier (without having to build a “berlin wall”).

I totally agree with this assessment. In fact, in the case of America I would take it a step or two further. If reactionary populism were to become the “new center” in American politics and culture, the results would not be pretty – and not just for our perceived enemies themselves (i.e. the Muslim world and/or the American Muslim population). Indeed, I’d imagine the backlash might fall even harder upon America’s own leftist/PC types in the elite MSM, college campuses etc. who have provided rhetorical cover and succor to those perceived enemies over the years. It wouldn’t be much of a leap for a reactionary populist public to demand that the PC left be purged from America’s cultural institutions once and for all – by any means necessary. It goes without saying that this purge – and the likely leftist backlash – is likely to be accompanied by not a small amount of bloodshed.

I’d like to hear how the several hundred individuals that have strapped bombs to their bodies in the last couple years are rational actors, and deterable. Have you forgotten that little equation?

As far as destroying Arab cities crippling the world economy, I think not. 4 US cities going up would do incalcuably more harm. Oil fields are not near cities, and Arab cities quite honestly add almost zero to world commerce. Furthermore, not to be too callous but if a major part of the US economy was vaporized the resulting decline in oil demand would more than offset whatever was lost in the Arab world.

As far as deterrance and our allies responses: that is why we need a doctrine of immediate reprisal against Iran and NK, and probably Syria. If we sit around for days squawking and mourning we either wont do it, will get preempted, or will do it and be seen as premeditated murders all the more. If our response is instant the enemy wont have time to respond, our allies will simply have to decide if they can live with what happened, and after all they were warned.

Well, by the time it gets to the silos, they will. As I understand it, their training drills are indistinguishable from the real thing until the keys are turned. (No doubt, this leads to heavy Maalox usage by missile crews…)

I call this the hard or soft option. Bush is attempting the soft option by trying to bring the Muslim world into the 19th century with consensual government. I’ve been telling my antiwar friends, that if they really are antiwar, they ought to be backing Bush 1000%, because if the soft option fails, that won’t mean the war ends, we pack up and come home. No, that’ll mean the terrorists win a huge victory, make huge gains in capability and commit even deadlier attacks against Americans.

This, as you say, will then cause a huge escalation, which I believe will lead to the deaths of tens of millions of Muslims. I try to tell Muslims, that America will not lose this war. The only question is, how many Muslims will die in order to win it. Since 9/11, America has gone out of its way to avoid killing people. That could change in an instant.

If Muslims succeed in convincing Americans, that Muslims cannot live peacefully with the West, it will be a catastrophe for the Muslim world. America might get hurt and hurt badly, but I believe we won’t be destroyed. Muslims cannot say the same.

I too grew up in the shadow of the Cold War, graduating high school in 1989.

Don’t forget, the Cold War didn’t really end, especially if you listen to the madness coming out of certain Chinese general’s mouths in the last few months, and MAD is still official US policy in the event of attack by a known state actor.

It’s roughly as follows (with the names of entities and weapons changed for the current reality :-)

-Any state may become a legally declared nuclear power by signing the Convention and submitting sample weapons to international inspection.

-Any state that uses nuclear or other mega-death weapons (lethal gas or communicable biologicals) is subject to nuclear retaliation, up to the point of extiction, by all other signatories.

-All civilian and military nuclear reactors and fuel production facilities of signatories shall have unique mixes (and hence identifiable signatures) of isotopes in their waste and fuel products, to trace and discourage any transfers to rouge powers.

The effective amnesty of the first of the above points provides a legitimizing incentive for currently rouge or undeclared nuclear powers to come clean, and for everyone else to normalize relations with them after they do. The last provision helps make sure everyone continues to stay a nice, safe, above ground member of the nuclear club.

If the Iranians, North Koreans, Pakistanis and Israelis were all out in the open with what they were doing, they would be much more likely to be viewed (and to behave) as rational actors. Nuclear Pluralism.