« john locke on the individual's right to wage war | Main | reliability and functioning issues with the ar-style rifle »

May 30, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The situation you describe is similar to any non-Muslim nation facing continuous war with an Islamic one, i.e., a Jihad or Holy War. If the Islamic nation is nuclear armed, it will calculate that any retaliation to a nuclear first strike against the Infidel state, will at worst, lead to a nuclear retaliation on itself, and itself alone. Even if it was destroyed, the greater Islamic nation - the Ummah will continue.

This was precisely the case in the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kargill. Pakistani generals calculated that Pakistan could be sacrificed for the greater "good" of virtually eliminating all Hindus from the planet. The larger Muslim world would continue.

In such a situation, when dealing with religious fanaticism that grants paradise to mass murder, the MAD doctrine is a non-starter. As it turned out in the above case, President Clinton "convinced" the Pakistanis of the error of their ways - though it may be different next time round or with Iran.

The MAD doctrine though can be made to work. If Israel and India made a clear and unambiguous statement, that any nuclear strike on Israel or India would lead to the destruction of not just the aggressive Islamic nation but the entire Muslim world. The logic would be that if all Jews or Hindus were to be extinguished, then the retaliation, to be "proportionate", should be of a similar nature.

This doctrine is not known MAD for nothing - but it works.

john jay


our thinking runs very close, i think.

and, we are in absolute agreement that if "m.a.d." is to have any application at all in dealing with the islamic world, it must be very clearly stated by israel and the united states that the entirety of islam is destroyed in retaliation for any nuclear attack upon israel. i stated so much, in the post, when i said what must be done by american presidential candidates and by the israeli's if the muslim world is to be made to understand this.

john jay


A frighteningly logical piece.

I can recall the early 70's when the Iranians packed the MIT Nuclear Engineering Department with students, nearly doubling the size of the graduate program. That was pre-revolution, under the Shaw. This logic has been in the works for a very long time.

I recommend that we let the Iranians know that the US will unfailingly use our own nuclear weapons on them if anything like what has been speculated here happens to Israel. And use them to a point that nothing will be left in Iran, and Pakistani's will be living in lead-lined houses wearing dust respirators for a long time. I think it is the only policy that might derail the Iranian train wreck on the horizon.

john jay

rural counsel:

i tend to share your views on the role the u.s. should play in backing up israel.

i don't think u.s. politics nor foreign policy indicate it likely to happen. nor, in the long run, even if we can get shed of our current obomination, the influence of the left makes an assumption that this might happen a bit shaky.

better israel takes care of this issue herself, and soon.

john jay

p.s. thanks for the read. and, sorry to be so slow in responding, as i have been away from my keyboard. still places in the world where one can do this.

The comments to this entry are closed.