fuck em if they can't take a joke.

I didn't de-link you, and I responded to your comments. And Ara, I may have misunderstood Dean, but so have you. He wasn't making a joke.

I don't think there's any significant chance of us using nukes. I do think our next response to a major terrorist attack is to restrict visas to citizens of countries from which a significant number of terrorists come: Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, France, etc.

Our response is like a ladder. We'll hit every step increasing pressure, and nukes are all the way at the bottom. We'll mount special forces raids into these countries before we use nukes. We'll enforce a national quarantine before we use nukes. There are too many other options to envision us ever using nuclear weapons.

Do you think you may have made remarks previously that caused people think you're endorsing radical courses of action rather than just pointing out that they are a possibility? I've said gloomy things about what the U.S. may do, but no one's ever thought I was in favor of such.
Of the predictions you made, are they all things that you would categorically oppose, should there be more attacks on the U.S.? And if so, what do you think of using 9/11 as a justification for apparently unrelated efforts like the war in Iraq?

Uh, listen up, PG. When you've read my weblog for a few months, you can make judgements about what I've said or done in the past. Otherwise, frankly, you should shut the hell up. I've seen in influx of folks like you recently, making claims about me and what I've said that are patently untrue, and I'm really tired of it.

The war with Iraq was fully justified on several levels, and I've written about it, at length, more times than I can count, and for over a year have been arguing so. You aren't aware of that? Then tough: I owe you no new explanations now.

As for my "advocacy" of the disturbing possibilities of how America would react to more 9/11 style attacks or worse: I would advocate some of them, recommend against others of them, and would be disturbed and upset by all of them. Want a more explicit answer? Go start reading my back archives, or ask specific questions. Otherwise, go read someone else's weblog: I don't need snotty trolls who know nothing about me but are willing to haughtily act like their prejudices are justified because they've seen one or two things they don't like.

Unlearned Hand:

One thing Dean's World is not is an irony-free zone.

I comment accordingly.

P.S.

I agree with everything Dean said in his original post.

Do you people seriously think that the US would not use nuclear weapons on someone if one was used on us? And do you really think that would be the moral thing to do?

I would consider it recklessly irresponsible to just sit back and take it, if one of our cities were destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Doing so would elimintate the entire concept of "deterrance" that we use to protect ourselves. Many of us would argue that this has already happend on a smaller scale which is why 9/11 happened and why we needed a firm military response.

Aaron - I agree that if we were attacked by nuclear weapons, we might respond in kind. But Dean specifically said "another attack or two on the scale of 9/11"

While I think that attack a heinous and horrible occasion, neither it nor a repeat of it is equivalent to a nuclear attack on our soil.

Aaron,

Since I'm the only person in this thread who said I don't believe nukes will be used, I can only presume you are referring to me. I was considering a more conventional terrorist attack rather than a nuclear attack. I think the odds of a nuclear attack are rather small. It's much more likely that they will use the McVeigh fertilizer mixture to destroy the Holland Tunnel, for example.

It's unclear to me that we would respond with a nuke even after a nuclear attack. We might, but on what target? What if we have absolutely no evidence as to who dropped it?

There's a great many things I would do before dropping a nuke on Riyadh, Mecca, or Cairo. Which would be worse: to kill millions of civilians or to enforce a no-travel ban on citizens of predominantly Islamic countries?

There's no doubt we'd respond with something the rest of the world wouldn't like. But I'm not sure using nukes is the answer. Deterrence works when the attacker is a government. I'm not sure it will be valid in all possible circumstances regarding terrorist use of nukes. Without deterrence, there's no point in using a nuke. We'd be better served by a conventional invasion along with regime change.

I think if we had credible evidence that a government (say, Iran) was involved, we'd respond in kind. But I don't see that as a likely case even in the unlikely circumstance of a nuclear terrorist attack. My previous comments were based on the liklihood of a nuclear attack at all. When a nuclear attack is considered specifically I don't have a strong opinion either way. It depends on the circumstances.

A full refund??! Dean, I'd post my bank number for you right here in this thread... but there's only one problem: I enjoy reading you! :)

PS: Do you happen to know that lawyer, or banker, or former government minister, or executor of an estate, or whatever he is, who's been e-mailing me from Nigeria?

Since reports are that al Qaeda's plan for the WTC attacks were to knock the buildings over into the surrounding structures, killing up to a quarter-mllion people, I think it's reasonable to say that we would have considered that the equivalent of a nuclear attack.

Someone over at Winds of Change pointed out that the 9-11 attack released energy equivalent to a small nuke

Dean,
I do take exception with your drawing of a cause and effect relationship.
The A-bomb was not a direct cause for Pearl Harbor. It was the culmination of all the events between the two.
It is unlikely that the A-bomb would have been used if they thought they could have ended the war without losing a massive number of american soldiers.
This calculation was based only partly on Pearl but mostly on the defense put up by the Japs on places like Iwo Jima.

I agree with Dean's original post, too (the one he mentions in this original post). Anyone would. Any country in the world, any time past or present, would react exactly the same, no matter what kind of government.

Canada did the exact same thing in WWII. Canada, for crying out loud.

It was just after the Pearl Harbor bombing that Einstein decided to send a letter to the president. It was upon recieving this letter that the US enthusiastically began the development of the A-Bomb. Considering none of Japan's enemies at the time were developing A-Bombs, I'd say Pearl Harbor is pretty much the direct cause.

MJ,

If you look at Dean's post that was criticized, he specifically mentioned the scenario of a suitcase nuke detonated in the US.

As for credible evidence, it is extremely likey that we would provide credible evidence as to who provided the nuke. It does take a government to make one, especially with the level of control that the major nations of the world attempt to exert on nuclear capability.

If North Korea, for example, were to give a nuke to a terrorist group what would the US do? One can argue a lot of ways about what is the most moral thing to do. In such a case there are no longer any good scenarios, a lot of people will die. Our actions can only affect who it is that dies. We can attack North Korea conventially, in which case they kill some of our soldiers and are very likely to kill millions of South Koreans and possibly large numbers of Japenese and/or Chinese. Or we can do nothing to North Korea and send the message that they can sell nukes to help their crippled economy, in which case more terrorist get nukes and use them to kill innocents. Doing nothing would so the world that our nuclear arsenal is worthless, for we have not the will to use it and it would no longer act as a deterrant to protect us. Don't ge me wrong. I think that nuking anyone at any time for any reason and a horrible and terrible thing. I so however realize that it may not always be the worst option.

If you take nukes out of the picture, I agree that it is unlikely that the use would use them. The only way I can see the US(at least as we currently are) using nuclear weapons is in a case where we truly belief that not using them would cause greater deestation and loss of life(which was the justification for using them against Japan).

Still there is also a tremendous difference between tactical and strategic nukes. As I recall dean mention use of tactical nuclear weapons, which is a far different thing. They are not for mass indescriminate destruction, instead they are powerful batlefield weapons that would be used on military targets. The US has not used such weapons in the past largely because accusations of using WMDs would follow despite the fact that such weapons are not WMDs(and before that because we feared any conflict escalation with the USSR on the other side), there is also the potential radiotive effect that could be harmful to non-military personell. When faced with a heavy fight where we can potentially lose 10 or 20 thousand US troops, would those concerns be waived and tactical nuclear weapons used to save those lives and destroy those of the enemy? I don't know. I can certainly see where it would be possible.

Starhawk,

Of course there were many events between(and before) Pearl Harbor and the use of a nuclear weapon on Japan. Just as there are many events that led up to the attack on 9/11 and will be many more before the war on terrorism is over.

What is at stake here is the realization that our system of national security has failed(at least to some extent). It failed largely because our enemies perceived a weakness, despite our military forces. Either that was a weakness in the resolve to use them, or in our ability to find those responsible(or perhaps both). Since we have now taken very strong actions to correct both of those notions, it is reasonable to belief that our system of deterrance has been greatly restored. If it again fails, however, then greater measures will have to be take nto ensure our enemies that attack us is a VERY BAD THING TO DO. What will that entail? Who knows, perhaps it would require a level of destruction requiring the use of tactical nukes, maybe it would require strategic nukes, perhaps it would require only the swift capture and trial of those responsible. There are a ton of different scenarios.

The point is this. Before Pearh Harbor, America saw World War II as a European/Asian problem. It was not worth getting involved(at least not much). Japan shocked us into the realization that the war was going to involve us, we were in the way of Japan's ambitions and could not sit it out. And so we entered the war and prosecuted it ruthlessly to destroy our enemies. We did not approach it the way we did WWI, where we went in mainly to help europe. Our perception of the world and our place in it changed.

Similarly, Americans saw militant fundamental muslim terrorists as a Middle East problem. al Queda changed that with 9/11, forcing us to realize that we are seen as the enemy and that again we can't sit this out. There are differences, it is not nations that directly attack us. We have shown restraint in our attacks, restricting our actions to minimize loss of life as much as possible, we can do this because of the tremendous military supeority we enjoy.

Something that came up in WW2, was the idea that the Germans were starting another war because the devestation of WW1 didn't really reach the German people. Sure, they were hurt economicaly and politicaly and things were unpeasant in Germany after the war as they struggled with the conditions impose oon them by the allies, but their countryside wasn't destroyed. Their civilians were not harmed. There were many that felt that the low cost of the war for most civilians allowed them to support another great war. Such thoughts led to actions like the firebombing of dresden, and the repeated firebombigs of Tokyo. Civilians were targeted to convince the enemy that the cost of waging such a war was too high, to end the war and to never attempt another one. Maybe that was right, maybe it was wrong, but it was a decision that the US made once. Do you think that we would not make it again?

Aaron,

He says "... or a suitcase nuke". Since I don't think it's likely I focused on the other possibilities.

You could make a case that we might deduce where a nuke came from, but given our current state of intelligence I'm not willing to bet the farm on it. If all we know is that Iran and North Korea have nukes are we going to hit them both? What if we add Syria? What about Pakistan? Do we just guess and hit one? If we pick the wrong one the effects you mention still apply.

I think I consider the issue in a longer time frame as well. At some point all the Islamic nations are going to have nuclear weapons. If a suitcase bomb goes off in NYC are we going to nuke them all?

The only thing that can prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons is the replacement of oil as our primary energy source. As long as they have oil we can't isolate them sufficiently to prevent it. I don't know if it's 5, 20 or 50 years. But it'll happen eventually.

There are no answers to these questions because there are too many variables, and even the basic circumstances change over time. That's my point.

I'm not sure where I follow you that their having oil ensures that they will develop nuclear capability, is it because that means they will have money? On a government scale it is not all that expensive to make a nuclear weapon. It is simply very hard to do without other people knowing you are doing it. I don't see oil as really being a major factor there, other than the fact that their economies are largely based on it. Nothing that we do is likely to change that. Even if the US stopped importing oil and solely relied in our only current viable alternative of nuclear power, the world would still have a high demand for oil and the Middle East would still make lots of money off it. Not nearly as much as they do now, but more than enough to build a nuclear weapon if they find it important to do so.

As to tracking down where a suitcase nuke came from, I simply have more confidence in our investigative and intelligence capabilities than you do. There is far more information left behind than simply guessing from the list of nations that have nukes. It is posible that we wouldn't know who did it an therefore not be able to act with a retaliation of that scale? Yes. It is also, however, possible that we could track down the weapon and where it came from. In such a scenario our decisioin to use nukes is at least a strong possibility.

I don't like the world that you see as possible(or the one that I have been describing for that matter) very much. The idea of the current arab nations with nuclear weapons is not at all agood one. You propose that we can stop that by not buying their oil. I don't see how that is true, unless it can happen on such a worldwide scale as to virtually eliminate the oil market. If that were to happen, the middle east would probably quickly start to look like much of Africa does, which would eliminate the threat to us, but still not be a good thing.

I agree with Dean that the anger of Americans would be terrible to behold. The exact steps of the response cannot be predicted, since all depends on the circumstances.

However, I think that this current war is like a small fire set to prevent a larger fire (I forgot your exact analogy--prairie burn?).

And I agree that this is a War FOR Civilization. We should not put our heads in the sand.

Karine,

I mentioned in one of the other comment threads that Bush's policy of controlled burning may prevent the massive wildfire that might otherwise result. Was this what you meant?

To be clear, both the controlled burning and the wildfire are metaphors for American military action. The first is the remarkably precise, targeted warfare that we have seen in Iraq. The second emphasizes the capacity of the American military for overwhelming destruction. Iraq demonstrated our incredible level of technical control, but it did not come close to illustrating the vast scope of our destructive potential.

As discussed earlier, there were several days during the last subscription period that I was, for one reason or another, unable to read your publication. I thank you for the pro-rated refund I receved for these days. I've enjoyed your work when I've read it, so you will find attached my remittance for the next subscription periods.

Aaron,

I'm saying we would need to apply extraordinary pressure to prevent the acquisition of nukes. Their possession of oil, and the attendant ability to blackmail us with it, prevents us from applying the requisite amount of pressure. Especially without UN support, which we'll never get.

*shrug* Dean? I suspect that posts of "Well, I liked him till he said soandso but now I'll never read him again! *harumph!*" are just blogdom's equivalents of posting "I'm leaving for-EVER! *HUFF!*" in forums, or Usenet's "I'm done with this group AND you idiots!". Dramaqueenism. ;]

And they always come back... *snicker*

People really intend to [leave a forum, quit reading, stop browsing a group, insert variant here] tend to just wander off and not come back: no drama, no big fuss.

dowingba:
"Considering none of Japan's enemies at the time were developing A-Bombs, I'd say Pearl Harbor is pretty much the direct cause."

Um, no.

Actually Einstein wrote that letter before Pearl, and did so because a healthy number of European scientists (now living in America) asked him to do so.

Their motivation was to build an atomic bomb before Hitler could. Not many people know this today, but the bomb was originally meant for Germany.

In fact, many of these same scientists resisted the idea of using the bomb against Japan, since the Japanese didn't have a nuclear program...

mj, you say "I don't think there's any significant chance of us using nukes... Our response is[will be] like a ladder. We'll hit every step increasing pressure, and nukes are all the way at the bottom."

You've never heard of the Jacksonian tradition, have you? It's just as strong as the Jeffersonian or Wilsonian memes, and in some ways stronger. It has displayed itself in every major war we've fought. Indeed, the idea of "remember XXX!" is Jacksonian.

Dean's original point was that Americans are capable of terrible things if provoked. I'm surprised no one has picked up on his reference to the Japan firebombings, and I'm sure that very few people today know that the FDR administration seriously considered using chemical WMDs (poison gas) against the Japanese, if an invasion of Japan became necessary.

Aaron, you refer to Hamburg and Tokyo to say "Civilians were targeted to convince the enemy that the cost of waging such a war was too high."

Um, no. In 1943, Bomber Command didn't have the precision to target specific factories, nor did they have a strong daylight capability. This left area bombing.

I will agree that Bomber Command put a higher premium on direct damage to enemy morale than did the USAAF, but Hamburg was (and is) a major industrial city, hence a good target for area bombing, and widespread damage to industry.

As for Japan: by 1945, the USAAF had made tremendous progress. The Japanese homeland defense air forces were generally ineffective against the B-29s, but the USAAF had advanced almost too far. We had the world's most powerful bomber flying six miles above the earth at a speed that most Japanese interceptors couldn't match in a flat race. The daylight Japanese interceptors were not effective, and the night-time interceptors nonexistent.

One of the unexpected obstacles was the jet stream; the Superforts flew so high that it regularly mucked up air speed calculations. The bombs weren't falling where they were supposed to.

The next problem was that production didn't follow the European pattern of centralization. Much of Japanese production was farmed out to small locations spread out across an entire city.

Then, consider the combination of Japanese preferences in construction and materials (light, made of wood, to avoid earthquake damage) and the near nonexistence of modern fire-fighting methods in Japan at the time. This gets you cities that were practically designed for fire attacks.

So: you need to reduce or destroy the enemies industrial infrastructure. There are no high concentrations of industries to attack, as in Europe. The building construction, made to resist damage from earthquakes, works equally well in resisting blast damage from HE bombs. The USAAF's attempts to implement their doctrine of high-altitude, precision bombing has turned out fruitless.

How do you answer the riddle? The typical HE (High Explosive) bombs weren't working. The high-altitude attacks weren't working. The targets were too spread out, across an entire city. At this rate it would take a couple of years to reduce Japan's industrial potential.

LeMay's answer: napalm. If you drop to 10,000 feet, you solve a lot of problems. No jet stream to muck up bomb drops, and you burn less fuel. Come in at night, and you don't need gunners; the Japanese night fighters were nearly worthless. If you drop the gunners, you save fuel. If you drop their guns and ammo that's more fuel.

Then you load the planes up with napalm instead of HE. The first benefit is that you can cover more territory with a single bomber, as you don't need to concentrate the bombs in a small area. The second is that -since the planes don't have to fly a tight formation- you save even more fuel.

Add all this up, and all the savings in fuel allow you to put even more bombs in a single plane, which allows you to spread the attack out even further than before.

The result: the fireboming of Tokyo March 9/10 was the single worst air attack of the war; 200,000 people died. Many of them boiled to death as they dove into swimming pools or canals to avoid the flames.

But it wasn't deliberate; it was (to paraphrase Hansen) "the American Way of War."

Bonus points: of the total damage done to Japan, what percentage did the atomic bombs contribute? As Dean says, no fair using Google to look up the answer...

Casey,

Your comments, while condescending, would all be true in the relevant circumstances. We are willing to do virtually anything to those responsible for attacking us.

The issue is how far are we willing to go in the prescence of uncertainty. The Japanese example is inapt (as would a German analogy) because they all bore responsibility for their government.

It was reasonable during the cold war to place the onus on the Soviets. This may not be the case now, and almost certainly won't be the case in the future. If North Korea, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Arabia all develop nukes in the next 50 years are we going to nuke them all if we are attacked?

At some point we are killing millions of people because we don't trust their governments. Should Pakistan be included? We certainly aren't going to hit everyone who has nukes. France is a maybe, but Britian is definitely a no. At some point this strategy becomes untenable.