Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The Case For Wild Fire

A novel written by Nelson Demille (http://www.nelsondemille.net) “Wild Fire” details a common rumor about a modern day government policy that deters a nuclear attack against the United States. Although I do not endorse the plan laid out by the villains in this book (got to read the book), the concept of “Wild Fire” by-itself is worth exploring.

“Wild Fire” is supposed to be a modern day version of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD is the doctrine that governed the Cold War and assured that the Soviets and Americans didn’t drop nuclear bombs on one another, because it would have triggered the automatic destruction of both countries no matter who launched first. Wild Fire is rumored to be the policy that states that if a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack happens in the United States, the U.S. Government will automatically respond, no questions asked, by dropping nuclear weapons on Middle Eastern cities.

It is unknown which cities and how many would be attacked. This message has supposedly been articulated to every Arab/Persian/Asian Nation with large Muslim populations (remember Iranians consider themselves to be Persians, and Indonesians consider themselves to be Asian). Under this policy, much like MAD, even the President of the United States doesn’t have the authority or ability to stop the automatic retaliation.

Enough with debating the morality of the Iraqi War and our presences in the Middle East. No more brave American Soldiers will have to die. The time has come for the Government to take Wild Fire a step further. The U.S. Government should pull every American (civilian and military) out of the Middle East, and Eastern Asia and implement Wild Fire. Why such a drastic measure? In the opinion of the author, it would END ALL CONFLICTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, and the War on Terror. What better accomplishment could one hope for?

Before you think this idea crazy, there is a historical precedence. President Harry Truman, a Demorat, dropped nuclear weapons to END World War II. Since then we stopped counting World Wars, but we are up to number five (World War III was the Cold War, World War IV is the War on Terror, and World War V is the Wars between nation states because of World War IV).

There is no difference between this President launching nuclear weapons against Middle Eastern and Asian targets, and President Truman dropping the bombs on Japan. The action no matter how ominous, will end a horrible and costly global conflict and in the long term save American lives.

American Lives! That is what it is all about. Why did we go to War with Al Qaeda? American Lives. Iraq? American Lives! If the U.S. Government really wants to save American lives in the long term, it will do so by commencing Wild Fire.

--TPCS Blogger


Anonymous Badger said...

I'm all for turning most of the Middle East into a sheet of glass, however the justification for use of a program like Wildfire cannot just be to end the war. Truman dropped the bombs because of how many lives the island hopping strategy would take and that the war in the Pacific would be prolonged for an extensive period of time. Here we do not have a clearly outlined enemy like the Japanese were. They were an attacking nation, we could end the war by ending their threat. Terrorism is not as clearly delineated, no guarantee exists that the US would be safe by wiping out the Middle East. Unfortunately it might take an incident like the book has, a nuclear bomb going off in a US city to make sucha strategy a reality.

1:35 PM  
Blogger The Management said...

I don't have time to really get into this right now.. but MAD or Wildfire or whatever won't work against fundamentalist Muslims. You are assuming that Western Values, such as self preservation, are commonplace in Muslim nations. THey simply don't value life the way we do, simply looking at how they treat their women and children is enough evidence to support this.

NUke 'em, I got no issues with that. My point is that you can't rely on a policy of MAD to deter people who don't mind dieing.

10:13 AM  
Blogger Chowda said...

This argument reminds me of the Staples "Easy Button" where you press a button and all our problems with the Middle East go away.

No way. Sorry, I'd like to believe it was true, but the fundamental problem that I see with this is that this assumes that we are fighting other countries, which is an error the media and most liberal idiots make every time. The GWOT, although it occurs in multiple regions, is not really against a location as much is that it is against a mindset of the radical Islamic fundamentalist. Even if you shoot a rocket toward the Middle East, there are plenty of crazy nuts elsewhere that will try and do the hurt job on us later.

6:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islam itself is the biggest terrorist organization ever.
I lived with moslems long enough to realize that every non-practicing moslem is a passive member of the terrorist organization and every practicing moslem is an active member of the terrorist organization. Period! What other reasons are needed to waste them? If they had a chance to destroy us they would have no hazitation or remorse.

9:42 PM  
Anonymous Hops said...

"the fundamental problem that I see with this is that this assumes that we are fighting other countries." Uh, moron - we were taken to war with a country, Iraq, by a republican congress and republican president. Brainlessly opining about liberal views doesn't make your erroneous deductions true.

11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet if someone put it on a graph, less lives would be lost (in general, not just American lives) if we nuked the middle-east, than if we stayed at war with them. This war doesn't have an endpoint in sight, but if all the US troops pull out of there and a nuke comes down, we wont have to deal with that area again.

Now there's the thought, "That only solves a fraction of the problem. There are still other terrorist organizations." Still if you want to rationalize it by lives lost, I can almost guarantee nuking the place would result in less casualties. In addition to reducing the terrorist population by a ton, anyone else who previously thought of attacking America will have a second thought, once again reducing the number of possible terrorists.

I'd appreciate a comment pointing out any flaws in my above statements.

11:01 PM  
Blogger lawrence-murphy said...

Hey guys, its not the arabs you should be worrying about its us Euros. We're working really hard with the asians to produce a new world order with the USA as a third world country. ie no more big pick up trucks and no mc donalds

1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anyone that said blowing the Middle East off the face of the planet is a good idea is clearly most likely an America. All you guys ever seen to do is think about yourself! Obviously if a nuclear terrorist attack was launched on US soil retaliation would be necessary. But blowing up the entire Middle East would make you equally as bad as the terrorist organisation. Do you know how many innocent lives you would kill? Innocent women and children? Of course not, because you don't think of anyone but yourself. America is not the centre of the universe, think about how your actions will affect innocent people for a change.

12:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home