I am not liberal enough to get sent to hell in an atomic fireball

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.edailynews.info/articles/2005/08/19/news/opinion/op01.txt

>>>India and Pakistan have already learned what the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics discovered in the '60s and 70's. Now that you've got nuclear weapons, you can't afford to use them because, if you do, your enemy will reciprocate and use them on you.

Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD turns out to be, not a matter of Cold War policy, but a fact of life.

That is balm for the soul but there is a fly in the ointment. The tenets of MAD presuppose that one is dealing with two rational parties that do not wish to precipitate the annihilation of their own nations.

Unfortunately, Islamic governments cannot always be depended on to act rationally. Many of these countries are ruled by fanatical theocracies that believe that infidels (that's us) can and should be murdered at the pleasure of Allah. And to make matters worse they believe that dying a martyr's death guarantees a trip to paradise. That makes it extremely difficult to gauge their future behavior.

It is not unimaginable that one or more of these governments might decide to cash in their tickets to heaven and send the unbelievers to hell in an atomic fireball, just for good measure.<<<

I don't agree with most of the rest of the stuff in this LTTE but I do agree with the above excerpt. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to avoid the above scenario from happening some day?

Don

[1956]

1. Start with

The IMMEDIATE impeachment of our LEADERS!!! Recount the last election- and put Kerry in charge! Well, I can dream can't I??

[enki23]

2. well, it's actually bullshit, for the most part

i don't believe for a minute that "many" (or any, for that matter) middle eastern nations are actually led by theocratic madmen of the sort described. not really. not to that extent. not that it isn't possible; i'll never underestimate the ignorant depravity of humankind. i just don't see any evidence that such is actually the case right now.

of course, we're doing our damndedest to help make it come true. but that's another issue altogether.

[Karenina]

15. But the U.S. IS!!! EEEEK!!!

[Ignoramus]

3. MAD is the crack addicts philosophy

You can't just escalate continuously into infinity. The cycle has to be broken.

The way to avoid this situation (Islamic governments using nukes against us), is to find the individuals and arrest them, while simultaneously changing American policies that are imperialistic and ant-arab.

It's the same old story over and over and over. There isn't a quick path to peace. That is terrorism. It doesn't work. The one and only way is the long hard road to peace using law and democracy, not terror.

[Psephos]

4. The governments are less of a problem than the fanatics

Islamofundies are like all fundies: they think that they alone possess the truth. If the truth is that infidels must die, so be it. Governments tend to be a bit more pragmatic, and usually act to consolidate their own power and interests, regardless of whatever rhetoric they spew. It's a tough reach for even a radical government to find that igniting Earth in fireballs increases either their power or their interests.

Unfortunately, the fringe fundy wing of Islam believes strongly that whatever it takes to establish a global caliphate is not only necessary, but even honorable. Atomic weapons are merely a means to an end (or the end, to be more succinct.)

For an interesting read on what drives the Islamofundies, check out this link. Part of the answer to your question may be in there.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,druck-369448,00.html

Peace.

[Old and In the Way]

5. MAD only works if you have rational leaders.

People like Bush, OTOH, all bets are off. If Bush is talking to God and he truely is "born again", what makes him any different than the mullahs in the ME?

[northzax]

6. while there is a danger

with apocalyptic religion influencing MAD, it's not any higher than megalomaniacs or psychopaths, (what was Nixon but a paraoid megalomaniac? or JFK? or Stalin?) and what was Stalin but a psychopath? There are always some idiots who think a nuke exchange is 'winnable' and that attack is incipient, but cooler heads have always prevailed. Then again, no nuclear power has ever been backed against the wall...

[radio4progressives]

7. Someone should remind Don that Christian Fundelmentalism operates on the

same principles of other extremists religions, in so far as the next life goes.

religious fundelmentalism, especially Christian and Islamic is a dangerous and gathering threat to all living things on the Planet Earth.

[marbuc]

8. One suggestion

Do not poke at the hornets' nest with such statements like "Bring em' on" "wanted dead or alive" or "you're with us or against us." Also, do not force our values onto a culture that believes our ways are decadent, and conflict with their religion. Do not overthrow a government and occupy that country simply to advance your own economic and strategic interests. I'm no expert in diplomacy, but these seem like the wrong thing to do.

[wuushew]

9. Such presumptions of Islam are racist

Is Iran any less fruity than Pakistan? Also I fail to see why any supreme act of self sacrifice would be evident in the age of WMD and not the prior centuries and millena of organized government and warfare that Persia successfully weathered.

How about all the Jesus freaks that run this country? There is nothing rational about spouting rapture nonsense.

[mmonk]

10. I wouldn't bank

on that theory.

[charlie]

11. Yeah

Even countries we consider "rational actors" can come under the thrall of a psychopath. It's rumored that Stalin was murdered because he wanted to start WWIII. Maybe we got lucky in a moment MAD provided no deterrent. There aren't really any dependable stopgaps when it comes to nuclear weapons.

So a "fanatical theocrat" decides to make the big strike against the Great Satan. Is he willing to allow the incineration of his country (and perhaps sympathetic neighbors) for that moment of glory? Kinda pointless if the base of operations for Righteousness on Earth is vaporized while a howling, wounded Satan is left standing. I also notice that precious few Big Cheese theocrats end their lives as martyrs. They're always too precious to the cause to die.

There's a good chance possession of nukes would finally convince those hardcases they're tempting total annihilation and would temper their madness.

[dpibel]

12. Ethnocentric jingoism: Salve for the American Soul

What in the hell is with all of this "they're all irrational, unlike us" shit?

"Unfortunately, Islamic governments cannot always be depended on to act rationally."

That would be, I guess, as opposed to the perfect rationality now on display here in the home of democracy, truth, and freedom? You are, I trust, aware that nuking Vietnam was bandied about as a real option by the cool, rational, thinking people who then governed God's Own Country?

What is rational about what the government of the USofA is up to?

"Many of these countries are ruled by fanatical theocracies that believe that infidels (that's us) can and should be murdered at the pleasure of Allah."

As opposed to a fanatical plutocracy that believes that infidels (that's anybody but us) can and should be murdered at the pleasure of Dollars?

"And to make matters worse they believe that dying a martyr's death guarantees a trip to paradise."

This would be as opposed to the far more rational notion that dying in a war, no matter how immoral, makes you a hero who died for a noble cause. And would anyone care to venture a guess as to what percentage of the young people killed in Bush's war were described at their funerals as being at that moment in the presence of God in Heaven? High 90s would be my minimum.

This crap about "they want to kill us all because we're infidels" stuff has just got to stop. There's no great Muslim army massing to invade our hallowed shores. There's no great interest amongst the vast majority of Muslims (and by that I mean something on the order of 99.9999%) in killing Americans, unless they happen to be Americans who have invaded their country, and that's a national issue, not a religious one.

I put the likelihood of a madman from America unleashing a round of nukes way higher than some mythical Muslim on a jihad. You think there's not discussion going on right now about how keen it would be to lob a few Iran's way?

[raccoon]

16. great post. What jumped out at me too, was the statement:

"Unfortunately, Islamic governments cannot always be depended on to act rationally."

And the Bush junta CAN be depended on to act rationally????

[wuushew]

13. Iran would be preventing substantial CO2 emissions by going nuclear

NNadir raises some good points in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x28914

The threat of global warming is a given and will factually kill people now and in the future. Declaring countries guilty for non-given future events is arrogant and wrong.

If America got off its damn oil addiction and stopped supporting Israel no one would level malice against us, certainly not on a global scale involving state actors.

[northzax]

14. it is strange that the only solution we hear

from freepers and the gubmint on the energy crisis is 'more oil' or 'more nukes' but only for us, I guess, them darn Iranians can light their houses with burning camel dung, I suppose...