Nuclear Attack On American Soil?
Most discussions focus on covert activity but state-sponsorship is still a requirement for entry into the nuclear club. Our actions are inadequate to deal with the problem. We’ve failed to stop Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons and furthering the spread nuclear technology. But we’ve removed Saddam and discouraged Kaddafi; only to become obsessed with utopian nations-building. Leaders of both political parties emphatically oppose Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; but they oppose doing anything concrete to stop Iran even more.
The French newswire, AFP, reports that at a recent “international conference on nuclear terrorism” in Miami, experts called for “renewed efforts to crack down on black market sales of nuclear and radioactive material.” This was followed by the shocking (shocking!) news that “the likes of Al-Qaeda network leader Osama bin Laden -- responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States -- are actively seeking nuclear material.” The productiveness of the conference can be gauged by the summary statement: “Communication, sharing and coordination ... are the essence of what will ultimately make our network stronger than the terrorist network."
If that doesn’t convince you of the expertise and competence of those charged with protecting us from an attack that is because they aren’t convinced either. In a Washington Times’ article titled “FBI director predicts terrorists will acquire nukes” we learn that it isn’t only foreign terrorists that are a threat but “homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence” i.e. those inspired by Islam to wage jihad.
Not to be outdone in defeatism, passivity, and denial, the New York Times, in an op-ed called “After the Bomb” is concerned about avoiding another Katrina-like response of the Federal government when (not if) we are attacked. A passing quip urges that we resist “the temptation … to retaliate.” Instead the author urges that we grovel for the cooperation from the governments who gave the terrorists nuclear technology. No mention is made of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction that kept our enemies from using nuclear weapons (either directly or through proxies) during the Cold War.
It is common to hear that we can never morally use nuclear weapons; too many innocent people will die when it is only a few perpetrators (covert like al Qaeda or dictators like Saddam) who are responsible. Usually this is accompanied by some vacuous moral vanity about “being better than they are.” Finally this is capped off with “we brought it on ourselves” with the implication we have no moral right to respond.
When talking to the younger generation, what’s shocking is the widespread belief that we were morally wrong to use nuclear weapons in WWII. Growing-up in the 1950s and 1960s this was considered a crank-viewpoint. It is almost standard now although I’d like to have hard statistics to gage if my sample is correct. The vast moral doubt that permeates the younger generation about our nation and our culture suggests a lack of self-esteem required to vigorously defend this nation against foreign threats. The accompanied acceptance of an eventual nuclear attack is the result of a surrender which is first and foremost a moral surrender. A person or nation that doesn’t believe in their worth and greatness won’t have the righteous fighting spirit to insure their existence.
The spiritual killers within are our greatest enemy. Civilizations aren’t destroyed by primitive savages unless they’ve been already destroyed at the core from within.