It would not surprise me to learn that the US has already privately told the leaders of the more prominent Islamic countries that a terrorist nuclear attack on the US would result in unspecified consequences should a link to their countries be established. Let them imagine the nature of the response.
I was acting more or less as the agent provocateur du jour when I posted the article. I knew it was certain to foster commentary, a Good Thing. Nonetheless, the article's reasoning is flawed not only for the reasons its own author discusses, i.e., his suggestions would have an opposite effect to those which are intended but also because, like the Doomsday Machine, the response it advocates is in no way related to the harm done. After all, if Iran somehow is found to be guilty of promoting a successful nuclear attack on the US, what sense does it do to wipe out Mecca or Medina? After all, the Shias hate the Sunnis and vice versa, so why damage the Sunnis for something the Shias might do? And why eliminate the presumably moderate Indonesian Muslims who might be on a hajj?
No, the article makes no sense in any number of ways. However, I recall reading Herman Kahn eons ago, and I thought that putting on his mindset might be fun for a day. You might recall his various gradations of nuclear war, from tactical nuclear weapons use to paroxysmal, world-ending violence.
trace.ntu.ac.uk
I certainly didn't expect folks to get so worked up. And I surely hope no one takes the guy seriously. |
