Clueless on Deterring a Jihadist Nuclear 9/11
By Moorthy Muthuswamy
The long-awaited Nuclear Posture Review announced today by the Obama administration falls short on protecting America from a jihadist-inspired nuclear 9/11.
Indeed, the greatest threat the United States faces in the medium to long term is in the form of a nuclear 9/11. The trend-lines are propelling us strongly towards what former Secretaries of Defense Perry and Schlesinger's 2009 Commission Report calls a "tipping point" for proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
An attack of this magnitude will be carefully planned and calibrated, with targets chosen with a purpose in mind. The dastardly 9/11 attacks have given a window into the purpose.
Fervor for theologies and ideologies appear to be on the wane, except that of Islam-based ideologies. Indeed, none are inclined to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents to advance their cause, unlike the jihadist ideologies.
The "cause" embraced by jihadists is based on two key schemes: internally it involves implementing sharia -- a medieval custom of certain Arab tribes of the bygone era and externally, it revolves around jihad -- a multi-front religious war aimed at conquering land and people for Islam.
From a jihadist viewpoint, the non-Muslim majority United States has to be taken down from its status as a great economic and military power. America is seen as a major stumbling block in conquering the world for Allah and is resented for providing a successful model of strength, prosperity and liberty.
It is, therefore, by no means a wild guess to state that a nuclear strike on the United States will likely have some connection with practitioners of jihadist ideologies. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, an architect of Islamic Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, declared that Pakistan's nuclear bombs are "the property of a whole ummah [worldwide Muslim community]," so that some Muslim nations or groups could use them on infidels to bring about "the end of days" and lead the way for Islam to be the supreme religious force in the world.
Among the critical approaches to mitigating the nuclear threat is a strong declaratory policy that discourages anyone to aid the use of nuclear weapons on the United States or its allies. The existing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) deterrent doctrine defined in 2008 by the Bush administration calls for retaliation through resort to all of our options [that includes retaliatory nuclear strikes] on "those states, organizations, or individuals who might enable or facilitate terrorists in obtaining or using weapons of mass destruction."
However, the Obama administration decided to dilute the above stance by "substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons." Moreover, the Nuclear Posture Review released today will focus on countering the nuclear threat through enhanced "efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, to identify and attack terrorist networks, and to strengthen security measures with allies and partners. This would include efforts to "secure nuclear weapons and materials worldwide." Furthermore, the review is "likely to recommend more vigorous intelligence aimed at tracking nuclear smugglers and anticipating terrorist attacks, and more robust actions within the nuclear laboratories to expand abilities to identify nuclear materials in other nations that might be passed surreptitiously to terrorists."
Proliferation of nuclear technology to the likes of Pakistan, Iran and North Korea has exposed the futility of enhanced policing. There are grave doubts about the efficacy of nuclear forensics. For instance, the source of a nuclear attack on the United States is supposed to be determined by analyzing nuclear material left over after the blast to look for "signatures." However, this forensics is not only time-consuming but unreliable in a world in which nuclear technology and material have proliferated--and due to the lack of cooperation and transparency on the part of the states that sponsor terror.
Moreover, many terror-sponsoring states may have been convinced, for the right reasons, that they are unlikely to be implicated and held accountable decisively when there is seemingly lack of clear-cut evidence of them supplying nukes to the terrorist groups which eventually use them. Indeed, it is pertinent to note that similar reasons of plausible deniability have been used by Islamic states such as Pakistan to fund and sponsor terror groups, including the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Due to the prospects of a cascade of proliferation, in the aftermath of nuclear attacks, the burden of evidence and analysis suggests that we might not be able to determine the origin of the nukes with certainty. Regrettably, the 2008 doctrine fails to spell out our retaliatory intent under this scenario. Even while claiming to "revamp the nation's nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats," the administration's nuclear review just released today has failed to address this deficiency.
The core problem with the administration's approach to mitigating the nuclear threat appears to be its reliance on policies that have been largely ineffective thus far. Most disturbingly, the nuclear review appears to have sidestepped the need to identify jihadist motivations and to counter the spread of jihadist ideologies.
In a 2005 speech, the U.S. Treasury secretary made this observation about the export of radical ideologies by government-linked Saudi charities: "In addition to the export of terrorist funds, we are extremely concerned about the export of terrorist ideologies. These teachings are as indispensable to terrorists as money, and possibly even more dangerous." For instance, the funding and indoctrination of Muslim communities aided by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran have given rise to the likes of America-hating al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and many other terror entities. The point couldn't be overstated: without this root cause, the desire for and ability to wage jihad and, hence, the intent to acquire and use nuclear weapons are very unlikely.
As history suggests, we have a much better chance of identifying the group or the community involved in carrying out the attack. Therefore, in the above context, a nuanced and strong nuclear declaratory policy has to state the intent to retaliate disproportionately and devastatingly against those states, societies, or groups that have been engaged in the hateful indoctrinating process of the community which gave rise to the group that executed the attack.
A revamped WMD deterrent doctrine along these lines should put the onus on nations such as Saudi Arabia to play a leadership role in rolling back the jihadist passion of anger and hatred it helped to create around the world.
Sadly, the path President Obama is taking to achieve his vision of a world without nuclear weapons fails to address the real nuclear threats from terrorist entities.
Dithering on the part of the Democrat-led government in Washington offers a leadership opportunity for the Republicans. Securing America from a nuclear holocaust is a goal few Americans would have any qualms about.
The writer is a U.S.-based nuclear physicist and author of the book Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War. His email is moorthym@comcast.net.
ISLAMAGEDDON
"The Muslim world is seething with a thousand and one real and imagined grievances and resentments against the West.
They feel humiliated by the West's accomplishments compared with their own inbred backwardness. They want revenge for the Crusades, colonialism, cartoons, Israel, ice-cream wrappers, Salman Rushdie, science, piggy banks and all the other humiliations that they believe in their paranoid state that the kuffars have deliberately inflicted on them.
To Muslims, all relationships are of dominance/submission and honor/shame. If they can't be dominant, they sulk, whine and claim victim status to sympathetic bleeding-heart liberals, while secretly nursing their pent-up fury and humiliation. Once they think they might get the upper hand, the sulking immediately flips into murderous hostility. So, infidels, beware the coming Islamageddon. Once Muslims can take on the West there'll be an orgy of rape, murder, torture and mutilation that will make the two previous world wars seem like a family squabble." http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-supremacism-and-muslim-sense-of.html
The one good thing about Obama is that he has awaken the regular joe citizen and he will be bounced out of office by 2012> could the terrorists know this?
"An attack of this magnitude will be carefully planned and calibrated, with targets chosen with a purpose in mind. The dastardly 9/11 attacks have given a window into the purpose."
Yeah, I'm sure that Obama has his targets all picked out all ready.
When ever Allah closes a door, he opens a window.
... the greatest threat the United States faces in the medium to long term is in the form of a nuclear 9/11.
The Saudi princes who fund the global Jihad are thinking we'd never do a retaliator nuke strike on Arabia or Persia for fear of irradiating all that oil.
*** 18:83 ***
Moslems love death, so what's to deter them? A good place to start is to imagine what would make them least happy.
How about a very public build up of ICBMs and tactical missiles with warheads soaked in pig's blood. Broadcast videos of the blood being harvested from pork slaughterhouses, being shipped in railroad tankers, and finally being packed into the weapoons. At the same time, soak all bullets and artillery shells in the stuff, and make a big show of that, too.
What do we have to lose? We've little to nothing going for us in the struggle right now.
*** 15:26 ***
Isn't there a Moslem superstsition that there will be no trip to porno heaven of permanent erections if you're defiled during the moment of death. Emphasize to the Moslem public that with our new pig's blood ordnance, when they die the lights will go out, that's it. No 72 virgins no rivers flowing with wine no fruit & cheese plates no thrones and no young boys like hidden pearls.
It's be good for the pork producer and would
Clueless?
Nonsense!
The O-bastard is a malevolent shyster. This is meant to exempt certain nations from retaliation.
Remove this turd from office before he destroys the US forever!
Michell admitis it!!!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=136769
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/04/jay-smith-sharing-your-faith-with-the-muslims-part-2/
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/04/jay-smith-sharing-your-faith-with-the-muslims-part-3/
Jay is a christian apologist who debates with muslims on Speakers Corner and on university campuses at a very high level, his heart is to share Christ with the muslim people he loves and to expose the false religion that is Islam. in this exclusive video, he shares his heart for the muslims and starts to explain his work as an apologist.
Another failure by the administration to learn from Sun-Tzu or any other military strategist with half a brain...
I'm currently living outside of the US and am contemplating staying outside until the population removes its collective head from its nether side and votes these idiots out of office.
I wonder if O-man got in a fight with a thug who had a club, what would he do? Would he ask the thug to put the bat down and "fight fair?" Honorable combat only exists in societies like Medival Japan when Bushido was the common understanding. Against an idealogy like islam that has no regard for adherents of other faiths, then all weapons need to be options readily at hand.
Bashiruddin Mahmood, an architect of Islamic Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, declared that Pakistan's nuclear bombs are "the property of a whole ummah [worldwide Muslim community]," so that some Muslim nations or groups could use them on infidels to bring about "the end of days" and lead the way for Islam to be the supreme religious force in the world.
The Islamic "end of days" will not lead the way for Islam to be the supreme religious force in the world. It will kill it, destroy Islam in its entirety.
Perhaps we will need a nuclear 911 to wake up the world and finally euthanasia Islam. Regrettably, horribly, it may be so. The whole ummah will pay dearly for it. Total war.
The Obama administration has the pungent smell of Chicago corruption. This type of corruption is all about money and power. A Mafia style shake down operation. Obama was installed by his Chicago clan to put a good face on this corruption.
So when I hear of big international deals that weaken our security with no possible advantage to us, I think of the money that is probably involved. Obama and his cronies are probably raking in a hidden fortune and we get the ultimate shaft.
"As history suggests, we have a much better chance of identifying the group or the community involved in carrying out the attack. Therefore, in the above context, a nuanced and strong nuclear declaratory policy has to state the intent to retaliate disproportionately and devastatingly against those states, societies, or groups that have been engaged in the hateful indoctrinating process of the community which gave rise to the group that executed the attack."
The most important paragraph in the article.
We all know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and has begun enriching uranium again(see google earth photos). Now OBAMA has decided to give them aid in the form of F16s. F16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Why would Pakistan need F16s to fight insurgency?in Afghanistan or Pakistan. This AID is aimed at destroying INDIA or any other country that the F16 can fly to. Could that be the US??
Most of the folks on this site are better informed than i can ever be, especially Robert so it would be of paramount importance to discuss this subject on this website by knowledgable and informed people. I urge Rober Spencer to look into this and post his comments. many thanks
Hi Bharat:
I understand your concern of the U.S. sale of F-16s to Pakistan. I don't like Pakistan having nuclear weapons or their delivery systems either. I suspect that the sales are meant to gain consultative access to the Pakistan Air Force, and the moral implications are being discounted for the following reasons:
1) Pakistan's missile program gives them the most reliable and longest range means of delivery. The F-16s add only marginal utility, and using them in this manner removes them from the air defense role that would protect Pakistani sites.
2) Pakistan can obtain equivalent aircraft from China. Continuance of the U.S. embargo on the F-16 sale would not deny Pakistan this capability, and it would deny U.S. access to PAF personnel. [Please note that the issue is not profits from the sale - if this was important the original embargo would not have happened, and the U.S. taxpayer is likely footing the bill anyway]
Such are examples of how "national policy experts" think. It's all true, and it doesn't matter a bit once people start dying.
Sorry, but as long as Mecca remains with its evil idol and orders to kill infidels for setting foot there, Allah and his total supremacist world domination cult with promise of paradise will ever be the #1 threat to a nuclear-armed world. If any U.S. president wants to even think of a world without nukes, he needs to use nukes just one more time, on Mecca, to destroy the home of the evil idol and take the fanaticism out of all Muslims, if not cause Islam to disintegrate completely as a political force, allowing Muslims to finally join the human race. See the Winslow Plan for Defeating Islam at http://go.to/winslowplan
i think i will double down on my bet that there will be a nuclear "pop" bomb (low yield) detonation used somewhere soon. Obama just made it very clear that we can't, or won't, do anything about it.
wonder if that silly Atomic Clock will move the minute hand back up towards midnight now?
o for crying out loud... now that supreme doofus TL Winslow (or whatever moniker he's hiding behind by these days) is now trolling the JW.
Robert, plz utilize your good judgement to police this guy quick. he is a complete fool and dangerously insane. thanks.