our options

[Biggsk@aol.com]

Someone wrote:

 >That is sad indeed - but things like nuclear war are not off the table as 
 >how to handle this, according to what I have heard.

It should be on the table as a deterrent - and then you pray to God you never 
have to use it.  But's lets look at recent history.  The United States and 
the Soviet Union both ahd huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other for years 
- and neither nation used them against each other.  Why?  Because of the 
stated policy of both nations called MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction!

When you have a gun cocked at your head and so does the other guy, clearer 
and saner thoughts will prevail.  Neither nation used these weapons on each 
other.

But now, the cars are different.  We know for a fact that rogue nations have 
small nuclear arsenals while others like Iraq are trying to get them.  We 
also know for a fact that Bin Laden tried to buy a nuke a few years ago from 
Russia.  They did not sell it to them (more than likely based on their own 
experiences with fundmentalists in breakaway republics and Afghanistan).  He 
is still trying.

Bio agents are easier to get but harder to control in terms of their own 
safety.  But they already have those, as CIA reports have stated.

Both of these, adding in chemical weapons (which Iraq has), are weapons of 
mass destruction.  You do not need ICBM's to deliver them any more.

These people have the resolve to use such weapons - and we have to have as a 
stated policy that we will to - but ONLY if they do first (which we stated in 
MAD).  That policy might save our nation an even more horrible consequence.

Keets writes:

> Nobody seems to have thought that far ahead, especially if this offensive 
extends over a long term.

Well - we are being properly prepared fur such a consequence it seems, which 
is smart.  I saw reports today of former vets running to recruiting offices 
to rejoin.  I also saw that the 18-25 age group are staying away in droves!   
Quite different from 1941!!
I suppose some rap concert or Britney Spears concert has to be taken out 
before these guys realize what's up.

Then I wrote:
 >To be very honest, I firmly believe that the first shots of World War 3 
 >have now been fired (and that has nothing to do with Nostradamus either).
 
And Keets replied: 

>Ouch.  We certainly hope not.
  
I would be the first guy to love to say he's wrong about this, but I don't 
think I am.  This has a severe danger of getting much larger much faster once 
horns are locked.  Many nations in that area have stable, if tenuous, 
governments that are disposed towards us.  However, they also have large 
populations of Muslims that are not into obeying the Koran that are of a 
fundamentalist nature.  These governments can be toppled and forced to change 
sides, with their armed forces coming out against us!

Look at Pakistan as a microcosm for what can be possible here.  A military 
government and loads of people that hate it and are for Bin Laden!  They are 
sitting on a time bomb basically, and only ruthless repression of their own 
may save the government - which will in turn escalate things from Muslim 
fundamentalists.

There are over 1 Billion Muslims in the world.  The vast majority are fine 
people that obey the teachings of the Koran as most Jews obey their laws and 
most Christians obey the Bible.  But, even 5 per cent of them (for sake of 
argument - I have no idea what the ratio would be and I doubt that anyone 
else does either) might be fundamentalists ready to die for Allah by taking 
down the infidels.  That's 50 Million possible soldiers for a Holy War.

That is what we potentially face.  These people live in lots of nations all 
over the world and can create lots of havoc if they rise as one in Jihad and 
lash out against a lot of governments and countries.

I truly hope and pray I am wrong - but my gut feeling tells me otherwise.  I 
think it all hinges on our military response and how much more they are going 
to strike back against us.

Greg Biggs/CVC