Thinking the Unthinkable: The Islamists’ Manhattan Project
At the beginning of this century, Americans believed in the world. Why wouldn’t we? The United States emerged from the Cold War as the planet’s sole economic and military superpower. We had shaped the globe’s institutions to our liking; they functioned under our captaincy. Then in 2001, our cities and people were attacked. The world displayed a month or two’s worth of empathy — since then, apathy. The organizations that anchor international rules have proven ineffective and corrupt. Nearly every American accepts this truism: the United Nations cannot prevent a nuclear 9/11. And that is what it’s all about, is it not?
Though 9/11 was nine years ago, the act fundamentally restructured the American conception of internationalism. Colloquially, we say the attacks changed everything; in actuality, more was clarified than changed. The collapse of the World Trade Center did not make obsolete the timeless instruments of statecraft. International harmony and multilateral accords are good insofar as those who participate in these pursuits continue to adhere to the rules in which they are grounded. As a foundation for peace and order, these concepts are merely sometimes necessary – but are always insufficient.
Just as a prudent lawmaker would consider the legislation of morality a futile effort, so too those involved in foreign affairs ought to remind themselves that the attempted adjudication of human behavior is bound to fail without the credible threat of force. The liberal democracies that comprise the free world are precariously in error to assume their adversaries are as equally devoted to the perfection of man as they. The belief that all cultures are equal — all peoples alike and with similar desires — is nothing more than collective hope-think; it is the most dangerous kind of mirror-imaging. It is a great lie.
In some quarters, the “enemy” has become an almost passé notion, where al-Qaeda killers are said to be misguided or politically immature — “a friend we haven’t done enough for yet,” in the words of philosopher Lee Harris. This therapeutic, post-modern worldview is prevalent in government and academia, and it directly undermines a society’s ability to interpret reality.
No international body has prevented Kim Jong Il from sinking South Korean vessels and kidnapping Japanese girls. Amnesty International never tamed the sadistic tendencies of Uday Hussein. The United Nations bureaucracy has shown no interest in stopping Vladimir Putin from poisoning people he dislikes. The promises of economic interdependence have yet to convince Mullah Omar or Dr. Zawahiri to take their theological inclinations a bit less seriously, and to discontinue their violence against innocents worldwide. Our enemies of the Islamist variety want atomic bombs. They want them for use. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon does not intimidate them. Dictators are unimpressed, too.
The despot is not interested in international organizations, save for his attempts to use the cult of victimization to bend these organizations to his will. Take the Islamists’ support for the Organization of the Islamic Conference to compel the UN Human Rights Council to make criticism or mockery of Islam a crime under international law. Does this support underscore the Islamists’ respect for the UN or dedication to the rule of law? No. For if these international bodies reject their demands — and subsequently, an unflattering cartoon lampooning their beliefs is drawn by someone, somewhere — then all bets are off. Fatwas are issued, embassies overrun, and unsuspecting good men and women killed. Such Islamist deviants are thus able to pursue the institutionalization of their deviancy, all the while operating outside the purview of international norms. It is not the mere hijacking of planes they seek, but of the apparatus of international order.
People of all philosophical persuasions ought to be able to acknowledge three unassailable truths: 1) there are dozens of international organizations comprised of hundreds of thousands of individuals who perceive a religious obligation to destroy American cities; 2) these individuals are the twisted-type; they’re sincere in their warped convictions and determined to accomplish their monstrous objective; they cannot be deterred, dissuaded, or bought off; 3) these individuals will one day ascertain the atomic means to achieve their calamitous ends — sooner rather than later, certainly within most of our lifetimes.
Martin Shubik, the Yale economist, liked to draw a curve of the number of civilians ten determined men could kill before they were killed themselves. Throughout history, the change in this number is sobering. As time goes on, fewer men have always been able to kill more people. Consequently, it is not fatalistic or paranoid to assume that we will likely one day witness ten men with ten vans or suitcases attempting to vaporize ten American metropolises. And if ten targets proved too ambitious — bin Laden called off the West Coast attacks on 9/11, after all — then five targets would suffice. St. Louis might make the cut, but New York City would not.
The scenario described is realistic and highly possible. The US and NATO need to have thought through the response to this nuclear possibility as well as biological and chemical attacks. The last thing a government should do is to react viscerally – clear heads are essential.
After 9-11, many analysts considered the attack as not severe enough to shake out our denial of what the threat is, derived from decades of deliberate post-modern obfuscation from the likes of Alinsky and Gramsci. Our problem is the blindingly obvious that our leaders are determined not to see. 200 years ago, Jefferson and Adams were faced with a similar threat in attacks on shipping by the Barbary Corsairs, though nowhere near as pressing in either time or distance. They were clear thinkers unbound by the constraints of political correctness, they heard what the Algerian ambassador said, and they did not say to themselves: “he does not really mean it”. They read the Koran and they knew the enemy. Eventually, that threat was removed by the Royal Navy in 1816.
We are in the Third Jihad, though it is really merely the third phase of the “divinely inspired” attempt to conquer and enslave the world started by Mohammed in 622. We may not think we are at war, but they do. We deny that our enemy is Islam, but Islam is quite clear who its enemy is. When the Third Jihad is over, and it may well last a century, historians will ask: “why were we so blind”. There are some who are not blind, and like Churchill in the 1930s, we really need them now to think through our response, such that our leaders are not bounced into the chaos of an angry and violent reaction because they cannot give a coherent answer to their electors.
NATO? NATO??????? Talk about being in denial . . .
Corsi and Guariglia are right. There is no defense. Well, there’s one, but we won’t take it. It’s assured nuclear destruction of all Islamic capitals within seconds of a WMD strike on the U.S. — with no investigation of who threw the first stone, whatever, just nuke ‘em all, and let ‘em all know now that that will happen for sure. They’d clean their own house in a jiffy. What? You object that Russia may provoke it? Add them to the assured destruct list. And on down the line. Should have done it after WWII.
But we won’t do that. On the first strike USA leadership will collapse or be non-existant and irrecoverable, and the public will succomb/submit (meaning of ‘Islam’) immediately.
And you think NATO or UN needs to be consulted???? Yeeeeesh!
You are absolutely right. You would hope through back-door channels, US representatives would inform Arab leaders – all of them – they’ll be held accountable in the event a nuke is busted on US soil. Mecca – gone. Tehran – gone. Madina – vaporized. You-name-it…dust. Unfortunately no recent occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave have the juice to do it.
The American people don’t “submit” to anyone. If the government breaks down after a nuclear attack, the military will launch without authorization. You’ll see Muslims slaughtered in pogroms long before this free people bows its knees in submission to damned Allah.
“When the Third Jihad is over, and it may well last a century, historians will ask: “why were we so blind”.”
If there are any historians around, and if the few humans left are not living a brutish, violent existence in caves.
This is a nuclear destruction scenario that could, quite possibly, lead to the end of civilized life. It could take 10,00 years to reverse, if ever, and if we survive at all.
You should have titled this, ”Living in Denial.” The vast majority of people just don’t want to face reality much less do something about it.
Exactly!!!
Is it just Americans? Seriously, people seems to think “nothing is going to happen”, or “bring it on” macho bull. It is like we don’t understand consequences.
Is this merely our attitude or do others share this naive notion?
More or less, I think it’s the same all over the West, maybe a little less here in Israel. What no one has mentioned in the comments so far is the idea of preemption.
There is no deterrent, that’s wishful thinking, talking about retaliation is also wishful thinking. It’s exactly what I said, everyone is in denial.
We are all in a war & won’t admit it.
So, I’ll say it again – PREEMPTION.
Only a complete idiot waits to be attacked.
The most dangerous thing about the United Nations is that people actually think it will protect them. Sure, tell all of the individuals who were murdered in Rwanda about that. Tell all the people in Bosnia about that. Tell all the people in Kosovo about that. Tell all the people in about a half a dozen African nations about that. The United Nations promises to defend people, but never delivers. It’s a big, bureaucratic, horribly overpriced, debating society that solves nothing. And if you think it will protect anyone from a nuclear terrorist attack, you’d better start building that bomb shelter right now.
As for preventing a nuclear attack, perhaps it’s time for a new American doctrine. Maybe it’s time we state to the world that we either all live together, or we all die together. Perhaps it’s time to state that if we are attacked by Islamic terrorists with a nuclear device, we will retaliate in kind against Pakistan (where the terrorists are probably located), and Iran, and North Korea, and Syria, and possibly any other major power (such as Russia or China) that supplied the technology to create the weapon (or weapons, whichever the case may be). In short, we either all live together or we all go down together. Terrorists cannot just obtain a nuclear device by buying it off the street. It has to be built by a country that has the technology to build it and the terrorists have to be trained in its use by some technologically advanced nation. So, if you can’t immediately prove who helped the terrorists, EVERYBODY suffers.
This policy will also give an incentive to all of the above listed nations to possibly help us in preventing terrorists groups from obtaining a nuclear device. After all, if they really believe that their necks and survival are on the line as well, perhaps they will assist us in preventing radicals from obtaining such a device? We should stop trying to hold hands at the United Nations and pray for peace and we should start telling the world that they, too, have a responsibility to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. And if they don’t help us, they will suffer as well. Maybe then they will listen.
Sounds like a good sound doctrine…maybe the next POTUS will deliver.
great article. I have never understood why we remain the the UN. It serves no purpose other than to proliferate the notion that America is evil and dictators are good. Honestly what evedence do you need? they make the countries with the worst human crimes violations in charge of preventing them, they Make Iran, a country that subjugates women and murders homosexuals the head of gender rights board. They chastize isreal for trying to stop weapons shipments. and claim they are murderers when they board a flotilla of terroists with paintball guns. Im sorry but the american people need to rise up and remove ourselves from the Useless Nations. They are nothing more than theives and dictators. Its time stand up and tell the world that we are not ‘global citizens’ we are a soverign nation, and in charge of our own destiny. either stand with us or get out of the way.
There is NO doubt that the analysis presented is correct-horrifyingly so.
When one lives in the Middle East, the epicenter of Islamic jihadist dreams of world domination, one dare not allow oneself to be swayed by fantastical thinking.
Whereas Israel is plagued by a small contingent of delusional ‘thinkers’-a tiny,but powerful self appointed elite from the left-one has to wonder if they really believe that they will be immune from the fallout of a Middle East Manhattan Project.
Tragically,the jury is still out on how far their delusions meander….
Globalism is no better than Islam. Its founding document is the Humanist Manifesto 2, a document devised upon the back of the original HM written in 1933. In the first few paragraphs, it excoriates religion (in an underhanded way, specifically Christianity, though not by name) and makes man out to be his own god, the original lie of Satan. Globalism’s economy is communism, its government fascism and its purpose plain Get rid of Christianity and establish man as god. Down with moral codes. Do as you like. Eliminate whatever ‘alienating factors’ get in the way.
Islam with nukes is not good. But Islam with nukes can be fought against. When everyone is a World Citizen, the only option is civil war and kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.
What??? Why should we have to rely on the UN? The only purpose that all of the UN’s members serve is to deliver powdered milk to impoverished children in Third World countries at a cost to this country’s taxpayers of several thousand dolars for every glass of milk that is served.
Would we assume it was an islamic attack? Would we then consider striking at the heart of Islam? Sure, those in Mecca/Medina probably had nothing to do with it. But after the attack would that really matter? What would the citizens of the US demand? Regardless of our Judeo-Christian values and the idea of innocent until proven guilty and to not kill the innocent, such an attack may be the last straw. failure to act in a powerful way will open the door to the US becoming a muslim country. Granted, such a response would cause muslims to riot around the world, but how is that different from today? At least after the response we would acknowledge that there is open war between islam and the rest of the world.
What would the citizens of the US demand?
I think even the non-religious elements of our society would be clamoring for “an eye for an eye”.
“We the people” might, but there’s no guarantee that The One would agree.
When he said (as quoted by Woodward) “we can absorb another 9/11 attack”, what he meant was that he, personally, would be safe- and that he could use such an attack to extend government, and his own, power.
Considering that The One does not believe we are in a war with Islamic extremists, and that anything along the lines of “man-caused disasters” is our own fault anyway, it is far more likely that he would reason more like this;
“There’s no way an IND could get into the country. Therefore, it wasn’t an IND. Therefore, it had to be one of ours. Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. soldier who went rogue; this must have been done by another such. OK, we call it domestic terrorism, declare martial law, purge the military of officers I don’t trust and replace them with ones loyal to me personally. Then we crack down on those really responsible- like talk radio, the NRA, and the RNC. I’ll teach those reactionary a-holes to f*** with Me!”
No, this would not be a realistic assessment of such a situation. But it is one that would not require The One to question his dogmas. And that is the one thing we can be sure he will never do.
clear ether
eon
The UN is currently run by and for the Muslims. The UN is a giagantic joke. This idea that all countries should suffer if the nuclear devices are used, well just environmentally speaking, every person on this planet would feel the effects of a decent size nuclear device. Economically speaking, depending on where said nuclear device would be detonated would deeply affect world economies; geez. What kind of future are the kids of today facing? What hope is there?
Maybe its time for a return to MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction.
If a US city is hit by an Islamic nation or terrorist organization, we take out the Islamic world starting with, but not limited to, Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Damascus, Islamabad, Karachi, Baghdad, Tehran, Qom, Kabul, Kandahar, Cairo, The Aswan Dam, Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya etc.
If they want to survive, they can restrain their lunatics.
PJM’s own Wretchard already analyzed this situation- in 2003;
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
The basic problem with an MAD policy, he found, is that it does not deter an enemy whose ideology considers martyrdom a feature, rather than a bug.
Read the whole thing. The final analysis is, like it or not, inevitable given the scenario.
clear ether
eon
The sole defense against this scenario is executive force: actionable intelligence, military strength, strong partnerships with allies, human espionage, covert and psychological operations, economic and diplomatic pressure — and a whole lot of killing and capturing the enemy, wherever he is, for decades if need be.
This should have been the response after 9/11. Such a response, along with diplomatic efforts among those nations and leaders with whom reason and persuasion were still possible (a list that we found out was much shorter than we thought), would have been the only defense against Corsi’s scenario.
As it is, “Cowboy” Bush’s tough talk was only accompanied by half-measures and faltering resolve in the face of domestic and international opposition. Obama’s subsequent rollback of the War on Terror and a return to the America-as-root-cause-of-terrorism paradigm are much, much worse.
Nearly a decade after 9/11, the moral of the story and the message to the world is clear: They got away with it, just as they gambled they would. And, to paraphrase Osama bin Laden, both our enemies and our “friends” around the world are looking for a new horse to bet on.
Thank you N.M.
The only reason that a scenerio like this is “unthinkable” is that we are blissfully ignorant and unaware of our enemy. They are dedicating their every resource 24/7 to the annihilation of Israel as commanded by Allah’s prophet Mo’. Trouble is; we are the ONLY obstacle to that goal, and therefore need to be rendered impotent when it comes to aiding Israel. THAT is the objective (not the goal).
To render us ineffective – How is that accomplished? Do Islamists really need nukes to do that? Are there other means by which they can accomplish their objective? I would submit that the strategy used to accomplish the objective was implemented a long time ago…the stealth jihad portion of it has been very successful. Next up…
Of course we could do something like attack Iran’s nuclear program, but heaven’s o my, they may retaliate. Anyway the Iranians would be sure to release a video before a nuclear attack claiming credit for Al-Qaeda therefore allowing the US to follow its traditional line of appeasement, just like in Lockabie and Beirut. So to avoid a confrontation with a third world despotism Obama and his Unicorn shepherds are going to allow the almost certain nuclear destruction of our cities. Oh BTW, if the Mullahs really want to finish the job they should hit our oil refineries. Imagine how we would distribute food without gasoline to move it.
The whole country is in denial. Obama’s legacy will be blood and plenty of it (which will be blamed on Bush of course).
The scenario that Corsi so vividly outlined was played out in my mind every time I heard Bush say we just needed to ‘shop’. Carry on everyday life like nothing was askew. I’ll give Bush credit – I think he at least knew with whom we were at war with even if he needed to be politically correct and instead stated islam was a religion of peace – pure unadulterated BS as we who take the time to educate ourselves on our enemies know. OK – I’m giving Bush the benefit of doubt but I think he fully realized what we were up against. I think of him as being in the right place at the right time. And I profusely thank God that it wasn’t Al Gore.
So now – along comes this rube Obama and he can’t even seem to mouth the word terrorist much less see the truth of what we already know about islam. And what do we really know of his possible sympathies with islam? So we are up against it – Obama has announced that we have the ability to absorb another attack from the radicals. Like this is just a boxing match and hey – don’t worry about those body blows to the kidneys – we can take it! To me that smacks of surrender to the idea of the inevitability of the next attack. We will be lucky indeed to survive this fool’s mis-handling of our economy much less absorb what he thinks is inevitable.
A note to Corsi: – each nuclear weapon leaves a tell-tale trace of elements (radioactive signature) that clue one in on where it was made. I’m quite sure our CIA has ‘DNA’ files on all nukes made throughout the world and like a ‘fingerprint’ can be identified back to it’s origins.
Why is Corsi’s reputation damaged? It is if you say it is, I suppose, as he has been linked to ‘birthers’ and ‘truthers’ – all of whom are labeled as complete crazies. Of course, many of those doing the labeling have agendas of their own. We saw this at Frontpage Mag, and we see some of it here. Let yourself be assigned (by others) to one of those groups, and you are to be excoriated. Personally, I don’t find that productive…
To the point at hand, yes, of course. And Terry is right again that preemption, specifically against Iran, is justified. Saudi Arabia needs, after that, to be forced to stop funding and organizing the Sunni jihad. Of course, none of this will happen. As one of the posters mentioned, globalists are in charge now. They also keep busy penning and corralling the ‘crazy Zionists’ who might actually put a dent in the Jihad.
Oh well, it’s the species. What can you do?
i don’t think i can agree that this is inevitable…the people of the western/democratic world are waking up even if their governments are still in denial. i see much more push back against islam on a much broader scale then just a couple of years ago. every western country (and even russia) has now been labeled as islamophobic (halleluiah) with some people even electing islamophobic politicians to office (sweden and the netherlands for example). i see the civilized world waking up and dragging their governments (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the light of islamophobia .
i use to hate the word islamophobic but now i love it and hope one day the civilized world will have it as their slogan…..i am having a t-shirt printed saying “I’m here I’m islamophobic, get used to it”…..lol
Bill Whittle interviewed the guy who invented the Neutron Bomb. He said that Iran should already have several bombs.
The only answer is to “Get off the X” or not be at a probable ground zero.
We’re going to be hit, sooner or later. If it’s sooner, Obama will immediately get on TV to apologize for causing the problem. If Palin is president, she’ll send nukes at the most probable offenders. Romney would probably launch nukes, and then apologize.
In any case, everybody knows there’s a problem. If you are unwilling to leave your comfort, you’ll end up just as dead as educated Cambodians.
Democrats, this does not apply to you. Please stay together in large cities for your own protection.
slowly the world is beginning to awaken from their stupor. americans are wide awake and brushing our teeth, ready to pushback the muslims determined to dominate us.
our president and his bowing and scraping and licking and apologizing have put every western nation state in harm’s way. even the dopey brits would not be swamped with anti-western muslims if we had a strong president.
he is not a world leader, so from israel to sweden to france and all around the planet, pushing back is being done without united states leadership.
americans will also have to do it on our own, because obama will be around until 2012. and, when it comes to bombings and murderous attacks, two years can be a long long time.
So … basically, what you’re saying is that life is risky?
There was plenty of concern about nuclear terrorism before 2001. That’s nothing new. Those who paid attention were aware of the western efforts to decommission and secure russian warheads, programs to ensure that ex-soviet nuclear scientists could earn an income from research rather than having to sell their skills on the market. Serious People have been worrying about and tracking nuclear material for far longer than the GWOT – which IS how those people knew (yes, knew) that iraq didn’t have a nuclear program (hence why “WMD” had to talked up instead)
Time is very large. It is probably only a matter of time before somebody, somewhere tries and succeeds in attacking a civilian target with a nuclear device. But it’s also only a matter of time before Earth gets hit by a decent-sized meteor. In both cases, it’s silly to assume that the US will be the target. There is a big world outside, you know
Screetching about muslims won’t help. Odds are (IMHO) they’re not the ones you need to be worried about anyway. The islamic states know they’re unable to defend themselves against a retaliatory strike, and they’re only barely able to put up the resources to develop the technology. They’re hardly likely to hand their goodies to some idiot who’s only going to bring grief back on them.
A nuclear attack might kill a few tens of thousands of people. Still, tens of thousands of people are killed every year in the US on the roads. Tens of thousands of people are shot every year. The normal mortality figure for the US is over 2 million deaths a year. Here’s an idea – how about letting The Serious People keep doing what they’re doing (because they seem to be doing a reasonably good job) and go back to worrying about things that might actually affect you?
Just a thought.
And the UN is what it is. It’s not a police force, and it’s not a military. That’s because nobody WANTED it to be a police force or a military. It’s a talk-shop and an administrative structure. That’s its point. Before demanding that it be something else, think through what that might mean for US interests, given that as countries like china and india grow they’ll come to have more influence over UN decision-making. Do you REALLY want it to have its own army?
The frightening truth is that, international institutions like the UN are set up to be welfare outlets for globalist participants and their families and associates, and paid for all by the host nation, . . .
And why exactly are we in the UN rape club?
You Americans are yet to understand that you have perhaps only one steadfast friend in the world.
You have allies in Europe, but these are fair weather friends, and they will double-cross you as soon as they can. You have Britain – but that country is being weakened from within, and it is dubious as to how long you can rely upon her. Canada and New Zealand you could probably once rely upon, but both those countries are now so riven with Political Correctness that it would be difficult for either of them to side with you in a fight – although they probably would, but the question is whether their hearts would be in it.
The asian nations of China, Japan, Korea, India and Singapore will side with you for as long as it suits them domestically, but will abandon you the minute it gets rough domestically. The South Americans are basket cases.
You have one friend – who has sided with you in every international war and contretemps going back 100 years, and would certainly side with you again even if it disagreed with you internally; because the ideals of the two countries are so much aligned. And yet, for some reason, the US treats that country, which is geographically as large as the lower 48, and which is extraordinarily wealthy, democratic, progressive and pro-US, as a nullity. It simply does not take the friendship that is and has been offered seriously.
The people of that country find it hard to understand.
That country is Australia.
Travel Alert! State Department Warns, “Don’t Go There! Don’t Do That!”
As an adjunct to America’s insane policy of dealing with Islamic terrorist attacks by waiting to be attacked, (since, as our president and Muslim commentator Fareed Zakaria have pointed out, we’re well able to “absorb” even nuclear assaults on the homeland), we’re now warning travellers and tourists to be careful out there when they’re travelling to and touring in Europe.
Obama made that “absorb” comment according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars and now travellers and tourists have been warned by our State Department of ”the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe. Current information suggests that al-Qa’ida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks.”
That alert goes on to warn: “Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Terrorists have targeted and attacked subway and rail systems, as well as aviation and maritime services. U.S. citizens should take every precaution to be aware of their surroundings and to adopt appropriate safety measures to protect themselves when traveling.”
Just as with domestic terror warnings, our government fails to provide any specific methods or techniques to implement that precaution or information on how to deal with or to avoid being reduced to splinters.
Excuse me, that’s not exactly true. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?page_id=2081)
If Israel is attacked with an atomic weapon, I suspect that the mode of delivery will be by truck[s], not by missile. For that matter, an attack on a USA coastal city will probably be from a ship carried weapon. You don’t have to drive up to the Empire State Building to get ‘close enough’.