Islamic law has to go the way of the dodo bird. Far too many of the laws within the Islamic legal system are controlling and backward. Chopping off the hands of thief’s, lashes with whips. Far too many death penalties exist: Stoning to death and death for leaving the faith. Most of these ‘laws’ are meant as a form of governance and control. Many of these laws are of 6th century ideology. A man being able to take his wife against her will, or being able to beat her. Modern psychologists are in agreement that rape is not about sex, it is about power. Islamic governance is about as totalitarian as can be imagined.
In order to eliminate Islamic nationalism and Islamic terrorism, Islam must be restrained and modified to the point that it is just another religion. If you have to travel to Mecca in your lifetime, so be it. Or if you have to fast for 30 days, that is your lookout. If you have to pray 5 times a day, that is your problem, as long as following these rules don’t interfere with others rights. This is religion as is known throughout the world. In other words, have Islamic law become extinct. No more enforcement of Islamic law. The same significance as the Pope’s ability to enforce the Catholic Churches rules. Complete lack of authority to control. In addition, governments that are based upon Islamic law will have to change significantly. They will have to drop the foreign policy of the Koran. Islam cannot be allowed to field an army as it is doing today. A large percentage of the Koran will have to be ignored and deleted.
Change of this type would eliminate Islamic law and nationalism. Getting rid of this is change on the cultural level. This is where culture shock comes in.
To help myself understand the scope of the problem, I have identified three major areas of concern:
1) The size of the Muslim population today is more than 15 times that of Japan during World War II. Japan was able to create literally millions of suicide attackers. Statistically, the potential to create suicide attackers from today’s Muslim population is staggering.
2) Today’s suicide attackers are coming from all parts of the world, not just from one geographical area or country.
3) Assimilation of Muslims is so poor. Many Muslims have assimilated well, but a large proportion does not. Please note the emphasis upon being insulted and the resistance to change. It is as if many Muslims immigrate and find out that in the new environment, they are NOT the privileged class. Naturally, the human tendency would be to lash out and attempt to change the environment, to set things right. In contrast, Japanese culture adapts more easily and readily. I am married to a 3rd generation Japanese immigrant. I know her parents well. They were both imprisoned in the camps during the war. Two (of the four) of their parents died in those camps. They are now Green Bay Packer fans. (I know, therapy is available) You can’t be much more American than that. They are just as loyal Americans as I. They are not an exception. How many incidents of violent behavior did we see within the Japanese-American population during World War II? Or in the 60 years since? That would have told us something, particularly after we had imprisoned so many of them. They have had much better excuses to launch retaliatory attacks than the Muslim population today. (Please note that I am NOT suggesting that we place Muslim-Americans into camps)
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Islamic cultural shock: Part III
I draw the similarities between Japanese and Islamic cultures because the strongest instinct in all living things is survival. Man has learned to overcome this. Suicide in warfare is nothing new. Even the Spartans at Thermopylae knew they would not survive. What makes Japan and Islam different is the repetitiveness of the events as a tactic of warfare. Throughout history, suicide attacks were seen from time to time, particularly in desperate situations. However, they were not repeated. Japan used the concept of suicide as a tactic of war by it’s military and it was intended for the entire civilian population to follow suit. Thus the very idea is cultural in nature. If we look at Islamic culture, I would not be surprised to find a similar culture of death, at least in that portion of the population that is dedicated. This is not to say they were or are the same. Differences between the Japanese and Islamic examples exist.
For example, Japan was an isolated geographical area and was united as one national entity. Islam is far more spread out and diverse. Although Islamic nationalism is an uniting factor, it is far from being as concentrated as in Japan. Many Muslims throughout the world are loyal to the national entity they belong to. These particular Muslims have assimilated, although many others have not.
On a personal level, the Japanese culture of suicide in most cases took the form of retrieving honor that one had lost. (Harir kiri) Islamic culture tends to retrieve honor by killing the person who brought dishonor upon one. The so-called "Honor killing". What concerns me the most is the fact that the Japanese did not end their use of suicide attack until not just overwhelmed, but threatened with cultural extinction.
By early 1945, it was apparent that only a direct invasion could end the war against Japan. The loss of life projected by such action was expected to be in the millions. The invention and development of the nuclear weapon gave the United States an opportunity to possibly avoid the protracted affair of invasion. It can be argued that Japan would have surrendered anyway, but it cannot be denied that the use of the ‘Bomb’ helped to speed up the process. In any case, the ‘occupation’ of Japan followed with all of the cultural implications associated.
The occupation of Japan was as complete as could be humanly performed. The government was redesigned, the education system was re-built and the economy was re-engineered. Thus the culture itself was changed, drastically. What was a huge advantage of this approach over any today against Islamic culture is the fact that Japan was isolated. Japan is a group of islands that had a common culture. Islam today is spread out over the globe. The areas of the "inner defense perimeter", Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Middle East are not isolated. Oceans or open water do not limit the geographical areas. Changing the culture would not be nearly as easy, or as complete. The very fact that it took atomic weapons and ‘occupation’ to move the Japanese culture away from the organized suicide mentality is of major concern. And the clock is ticking.
It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic nationalist organization obtains an effective WMD. I just do not see any reason why they would not deploy it immediately. Once an effective WMD has been deployed, all of the losses of life and property in wars involving Islamic nationalism going on today would be dwarfed in comparison. And it would all in be one place or several places instead of spread out over a number of continents. Retaliation would and could be expected. I would also expect escalation. After all, if someone nukes the US and destroyed New York, why would we stop at one or two cities in exchange? In any event, it could be expected that further attacks would occur.
For example, Japan was an isolated geographical area and was united as one national entity. Islam is far more spread out and diverse. Although Islamic nationalism is an uniting factor, it is far from being as concentrated as in Japan. Many Muslims throughout the world are loyal to the national entity they belong to. These particular Muslims have assimilated, although many others have not.
On a personal level, the Japanese culture of suicide in most cases took the form of retrieving honor that one had lost. (Harir kiri) Islamic culture tends to retrieve honor by killing the person who brought dishonor upon one. The so-called "Honor killing". What concerns me the most is the fact that the Japanese did not end their use of suicide attack until not just overwhelmed, but threatened with cultural extinction.
By early 1945, it was apparent that only a direct invasion could end the war against Japan. The loss of life projected by such action was expected to be in the millions. The invention and development of the nuclear weapon gave the United States an opportunity to possibly avoid the protracted affair of invasion. It can be argued that Japan would have surrendered anyway, but it cannot be denied that the use of the ‘Bomb’ helped to speed up the process. In any case, the ‘occupation’ of Japan followed with all of the cultural implications associated.
The occupation of Japan was as complete as could be humanly performed. The government was redesigned, the education system was re-built and the economy was re-engineered. Thus the culture itself was changed, drastically. What was a huge advantage of this approach over any today against Islamic culture is the fact that Japan was isolated. Japan is a group of islands that had a common culture. Islam today is spread out over the globe. The areas of the "inner defense perimeter", Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Middle East are not isolated. Oceans or open water do not limit the geographical areas. Changing the culture would not be nearly as easy, or as complete. The very fact that it took atomic weapons and ‘occupation’ to move the Japanese culture away from the organized suicide mentality is of major concern. And the clock is ticking.
It can only be a matter of time before an Islamic nationalist organization obtains an effective WMD. I just do not see any reason why they would not deploy it immediately. Once an effective WMD has been deployed, all of the losses of life and property in wars involving Islamic nationalism going on today would be dwarfed in comparison. And it would all in be one place or several places instead of spread out over a number of continents. Retaliation would and could be expected. I would also expect escalation. After all, if someone nukes the US and destroyed New York, why would we stop at one or two cities in exchange? In any event, it could be expected that further attacks would occur.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Islamic culture shock: Part II
For the past few decades, we have been seeing repeated suicide attack for only the 2nd time in all of recorded history. Because this is so rare and both happen within the last century, I would expect to find similarities between the two occurrences. This is why I keep bringing up Japan in the 1940's’with the mass repeating of suicide attacks generated by Japan’s military. (The Kamikazes were only the air power part of the suicide attack ideology. The navy had suicide attack torpedoes and suicide surface craft. The army had banzai charges and human mines along with other suicide ideas and weapons)
Japan had been in self-imposed isolation until the mid 19th century. The Japanese were impressed by the big, black US naval warships. After making this contact with the USA, Japan made a conscious effort to modernize it’s military. It sent it’s best to Europe to learn from the most advanced navies and armies in the world. Japan also purchased modern weapons to use as a base for building it’s own fleet and a modern military.
Although the military advanced rapidly and showed it’s strength and modern abilities in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905, the culture within Japan was not moving nearly as quickly. This demonstrated itself by the way that Japan conducted it’s foreign policy. Japan was aggressive and militarily expansionist. At the same time, culturally, Japan showed its backwardness with mid-evil ideas about being able to overcome physical obstacles by spirit and drive. Physical abuse was common in the military in order to make the men tough. Modern armies had generally long since abandoned the practice. This tends to stifle innovation and personal initiative. The idea that the men in the military were so willing to die for their cause could overcome all before it is an idea that breeds superiority and contempt of the enemy. This backwardness is really noticeable in Japanese military operations throughout World War II.
Even then, it took the breaching of the inner defensive perimeter (Saipan and the Marianas) to drive the Japanese to consider suicide units. Many Japanese were horrified by the idea of organized suicide operations. As I am certain within Islam today, we can find the ‘twisting’ of the Koran likewise stuns many Muslims. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Islamic governance has been in a state of decline for centuries. In the 20th century, with the formation of Israel, land that had been the first to be overrun was being lost. The innermost area of Islam, Mecca and Medina were now close to being in the front line. Islamic culture was not just on the defensive; it is on the point of being changed irrevocably. This is at least part of the reason as to why resistance to ‘occupied land’ is so consistent and intense.
Japan had been in self-imposed isolation until the mid 19th century. The Japanese were impressed by the big, black US naval warships. After making this contact with the USA, Japan made a conscious effort to modernize it’s military. It sent it’s best to Europe to learn from the most advanced navies and armies in the world. Japan also purchased modern weapons to use as a base for building it’s own fleet and a modern military.
Although the military advanced rapidly and showed it’s strength and modern abilities in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905, the culture within Japan was not moving nearly as quickly. This demonstrated itself by the way that Japan conducted it’s foreign policy. Japan was aggressive and militarily expansionist. At the same time, culturally, Japan showed its backwardness with mid-evil ideas about being able to overcome physical obstacles by spirit and drive. Physical abuse was common in the military in order to make the men tough. Modern armies had generally long since abandoned the practice. This tends to stifle innovation and personal initiative. The idea that the men in the military were so willing to die for their cause could overcome all before it is an idea that breeds superiority and contempt of the enemy. This backwardness is really noticeable in Japanese military operations throughout World War II.
Even then, it took the breaching of the inner defensive perimeter (Saipan and the Marianas) to drive the Japanese to consider suicide units. Many Japanese were horrified by the idea of organized suicide operations. As I am certain within Islam today, we can find the ‘twisting’ of the Koran likewise stuns many Muslims. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Islamic governance has been in a state of decline for centuries. In the 20th century, with the formation of Israel, land that had been the first to be overrun was being lost. The innermost area of Islam, Mecca and Medina were now close to being in the front line. Islamic culture was not just on the defensive; it is on the point of being changed irrevocably. This is at least part of the reason as to why resistance to ‘occupied land’ is so consistent and intense.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Islamic culture shock: Part I
I would like to apologize to my loyal readers for repeating myself so often. I do this because new readers may not know the background of certain points that are fundamental. Fundamentals do not change. Human nature does not change. It is easy to lose focus on the basics.
One factor overlooked by many in the wars against Islamic terrorism today is the idea of culture shock. Many parts of the Islamic world are culturally set in many ideals that are considered medieval. Chopping off the hand or lashes with whips as punishment. Stoning people to death. Religions fielding armed forces and or defending ‘occupied’ land or ‘waters’. These concepts are imbedded into this way of life.
People will fight wars to defend their way of life. Culture is a major part of that way of life. The very culture that had evolved around the ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery was what drove so many good southerners to defend it, even though most did not own any slaves. Their very way of life revolved around the concept of slavery and as a result, they defended the evil of slavery to the best of their ability and with their very lives. After the war had been lost, that way of life was completely destroyed. This is a major reason as to why we are seeing so much violence in the Islamic world as it attempts to come to grips with modern technology and ways of thinking.
In the view of many of the people who live there, the Ottoman Empire was the last real Islamic government. The Ottoman Empire took in most of what we call the Middle East today. It was broken up after World War I and replaced with numerous other national entities. Naturally, loyalty to these ‘new’ governments was weak. Nationalism based upon these new governing authorities could be expected to take many generations. Resistance to these unnaturally designed authorities has been constant and is present to this day. The very culture that had been built and thrived under the old system can be expected to change only slowly. Then came oil.
Oil provided wealth that had not been seen for centuries. And it was like winning the lottery. In cultural terms, it occurred practically overnight. With that wealth came new technologies and much more contact with the rest of the world. Along with that came modern ideas about governance, treatment of women, education, and lifestyles in general. This created great social impact and cultural pressure for rapid change.
The very way of life was and is being threatened on a massive scale. It would only be natural for the culture to resist these changes. As is being seen today.
One factor overlooked by many in the wars against Islamic terrorism today is the idea of culture shock. Many parts of the Islamic world are culturally set in many ideals that are considered medieval. Chopping off the hand or lashes with whips as punishment. Stoning people to death. Religions fielding armed forces and or defending ‘occupied’ land or ‘waters’. These concepts are imbedded into this way of life.
People will fight wars to defend their way of life. Culture is a major part of that way of life. The very culture that had evolved around the ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery was what drove so many good southerners to defend it, even though most did not own any slaves. Their very way of life revolved around the concept of slavery and as a result, they defended the evil of slavery to the best of their ability and with their very lives. After the war had been lost, that way of life was completely destroyed. This is a major reason as to why we are seeing so much violence in the Islamic world as it attempts to come to grips with modern technology and ways of thinking.
In the view of many of the people who live there, the Ottoman Empire was the last real Islamic government. The Ottoman Empire took in most of what we call the Middle East today. It was broken up after World War I and replaced with numerous other national entities. Naturally, loyalty to these ‘new’ governments was weak. Nationalism based upon these new governing authorities could be expected to take many generations. Resistance to these unnaturally designed authorities has been constant and is present to this day. The very culture that had been built and thrived under the old system can be expected to change only slowly. Then came oil.
Oil provided wealth that had not been seen for centuries. And it was like winning the lottery. In cultural terms, it occurred practically overnight. With that wealth came new technologies and much more contact with the rest of the world. Along with that came modern ideas about governance, treatment of women, education, and lifestyles in general. This created great social impact and cultural pressure for rapid change.
The very way of life was and is being threatened on a massive scale. It would only be natural for the culture to resist these changes. As is being seen today.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A sample of one of the problems that we face
I ran into the following comment on a site connected to Atlas Shrugs. This comment is a good indication of only one of the problems that we face when dealing with our enemy today:
"You Americans are childish, silly and histrionic. A lot like women, actually.
When my woman gets out of line, I beat her down.
Serves her right."
I replied:
I must admit, we can be childish and VERY silly.
We do love life. Unlike Islam, who an Islamic leader says: "We love death."
I must quote an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The put down of women is traditional Islam. Not enough of our population appears to understand this, YET. As the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes in this country indicates, we are learning. (Too slowly for my comfort)
The attitude quoted above appears to forget that we Americans can wage war with the BEST. And this war has yet to really begin. It is not generally known that the repeated suicide attackers of today are only the 2nd occurrence in all of recorded history.
The first time was Japan in the 1940's. And the US killed 'innocent' civilians intentionally. By the millions. (By the way, my wife is Japanese.)
THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Maybe we are not like this today. Are you certain that you want to find out?
"You Americans are childish, silly and histrionic. A lot like women, actually.
When my woman gets out of line, I beat her down.
Serves her right."
I replied:
I must admit, we can be childish and VERY silly.
We do love life. Unlike Islam, who an Islamic leader says: "We love death."
I must quote an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The put down of women is traditional Islam. Not enough of our population appears to understand this, YET. As the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes in this country indicates, we are learning. (Too slowly for my comfort)
The attitude quoted above appears to forget that we Americans can wage war with the BEST. And this war has yet to really begin. It is not generally known that the repeated suicide attackers of today are only the 2nd occurrence in all of recorded history.
The first time was Japan in the 1940's. And the US killed 'innocent' civilians intentionally. By the millions. (By the way, my wife is Japanese.)
THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
Maybe we are not like this today. Are you certain that you want to find out?
Friday, December 10, 2010
Banning Islamic law
I e-mailed this to the New York Times in response to an article about the Oklahoma ban on using Islamic law in Oklahoma courts.
Last summer, (2010) a New Jersey court overruled a prior ruling that a Muslim man was allowed to rape his wife because he was acting in accordance to his cultural (religious) beliefs. How the hell did this case get that far?
Islamic law allows a man to take his wife against her wishes. We call this rape. Islam allows for this because within Islam, a man has no other outlet. Islamic law allows a man to beat his wife. (He is not to leave any visible marks) Why is there a debate over this? I sure as hell don't want that debate over here. Islamic law enforces stoning people to death. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Non-Muslims owe Islam money for living in lands that are controlled by Islam. I don't care if ANY of this happens only ONE time. Oklahoma does not want ANY of this CRAP. I agree.
I would like to point out that I really don't give a damn if Muslims need to pray 5 times a day. If they need to fast for a month, that is their lookout. Praying and fasting is religion, as I know it.
However, Islam has a legal system. Many parts of Islamic law are hostile to our legal system and our values. (The issues listed above are only a small sample) Legal rulings based upon Islamic law will start violence and warfare. Don't think so? Let's allow a stoning and see what happens. (By the way, the rocks can't be small enough to qualify as a pebble and not so large as to kill with one blow)
Rape is considered by psychologists to be an act of power, not sex. This 7th century law is all about power, particularly when you consider the other restrictions upon women and how Islamic law holds a ‘special’ place for them.
Within Islam, a large debate is going on to determine the meaning of the law allowing a man to beat his wife. Many interpret the phrases as ‘turning away’ or some other less hostile act. I really don’t give a damn. MY interpretation is that NO man is EVER allowed to hit ANY woman. (In fact, battery laws don’t allow a man to strike another man.) I do not see any need to argue this issue. If Islam wants to sort it out, that is their problem. I do not see ANY need to hold this debate in this country. The people of Oklahoma have seen these issues within Islamic law.
Oklahoma saw what happened in New Jersey and decided that they do not want ANY debate on these issues. Once again, I agree.
Last summer, (2010) a New Jersey court overruled a prior ruling that a Muslim man was allowed to rape his wife because he was acting in accordance to his cultural (religious) beliefs. How the hell did this case get that far?
Islamic law allows a man to take his wife against her wishes. We call this rape. Islam allows for this because within Islam, a man has no other outlet. Islamic law allows a man to beat his wife. (He is not to leave any visible marks) Why is there a debate over this? I sure as hell don't want that debate over here. Islamic law enforces stoning people to death. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Non-Muslims owe Islam money for living in lands that are controlled by Islam. I don't care if ANY of this happens only ONE time. Oklahoma does not want ANY of this CRAP. I agree.
I would like to point out that I really don't give a damn if Muslims need to pray 5 times a day. If they need to fast for a month, that is their lookout. Praying and fasting is religion, as I know it.
However, Islam has a legal system. Many parts of Islamic law are hostile to our legal system and our values. (The issues listed above are only a small sample) Legal rulings based upon Islamic law will start violence and warfare. Don't think so? Let's allow a stoning and see what happens. (By the way, the rocks can't be small enough to qualify as a pebble and not so large as to kill with one blow)
Rape is considered by psychologists to be an act of power, not sex. This 7th century law is all about power, particularly when you consider the other restrictions upon women and how Islamic law holds a ‘special’ place for them.
Within Islam, a large debate is going on to determine the meaning of the law allowing a man to beat his wife. Many interpret the phrases as ‘turning away’ or some other less hostile act. I really don’t give a damn. MY interpretation is that NO man is EVER allowed to hit ANY woman. (In fact, battery laws don’t allow a man to strike another man.) I do not see any need to argue this issue. If Islam wants to sort it out, that is their problem. I do not see ANY need to hold this debate in this country. The people of Oklahoma have seen these issues within Islamic law.
Oklahoma saw what happened in New Jersey and decided that they do not want ANY debate on these issues. Once again, I agree.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
know thy enemy
The first rule of warfare is to know thy enemy. It is important to define our enemy today because we have an enemy that is at war against us, even if many refuse to believe this.
It cannot be disputed that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. This suicide attack was only a repeat of numerous suicide attacks that had been launched elsewhere throughout the world. After 9/11, suicide attacks were repeated in a number of other countries as well. These suicide attackers were supported from organizations that shared and inspired their actions. These attackers and their supportive organizations all have one thing in common: They are all Muslims. More specifically, they all believe in Islamic nationalism.
Islamic nationalism is similar to any other form of nationalism in that the population supports and believes in a certain system of governance. In modern terms, nationalism is centered on the nation-state. Nationalism is definitive as being Canadian, or English, or German, etc. Islam fits this definition.
Islam is far more than a religion. Islam is a form of government with a legal system that is complete with jurisprudence that goes back close to 1400 years. This is more than a millennia longer than ANY other modern nation. Islam has an economic system and foreign policy. Also like a modern nation, Islam fields an army to protect its interests. I call those who are supportive of this form of government an 'Islamist'. Or one who is an Islamic nationalist.
Islamic nationalists are our enemy. These are the people who support Islamic government. The reason I consider these to be our enemy is because Islam does not recognize the authority, responsibilities, or the geographical area of ANY modern nation-state. This is why ‘occupied’ lands can be anywhere in the world where Islam had control at one time or another. For Islamic nationalists, Islam is THE only true form of government. This ‘Nation of Islam’ is at open war against ALL other religions AND governments. Representatives of this ideology have even declared war openly like any other nation-state. These representatives and their organizations are fielding armed groups (Which I call their ‘army’) that are launching attacks upon our country and the other nations in the entire world. This is the enemy that we must defeat. Or else become part of the ‘Nation of Islam’.
It cannot be disputed that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11. This suicide attack was only a repeat of numerous suicide attacks that had been launched elsewhere throughout the world. After 9/11, suicide attacks were repeated in a number of other countries as well. These suicide attackers were supported from organizations that shared and inspired their actions. These attackers and their supportive organizations all have one thing in common: They are all Muslims. More specifically, they all believe in Islamic nationalism.
Islamic nationalism is similar to any other form of nationalism in that the population supports and believes in a certain system of governance. In modern terms, nationalism is centered on the nation-state. Nationalism is definitive as being Canadian, or English, or German, etc. Islam fits this definition.
Islam is far more than a religion. Islam is a form of government with a legal system that is complete with jurisprudence that goes back close to 1400 years. This is more than a millennia longer than ANY other modern nation. Islam has an economic system and foreign policy. Also like a modern nation, Islam fields an army to protect its interests. I call those who are supportive of this form of government an 'Islamist'. Or one who is an Islamic nationalist.
Islamic nationalists are our enemy. These are the people who support Islamic government. The reason I consider these to be our enemy is because Islam does not recognize the authority, responsibilities, or the geographical area of ANY modern nation-state. This is why ‘occupied’ lands can be anywhere in the world where Islam had control at one time or another. For Islamic nationalists, Islam is THE only true form of government. This ‘Nation of Islam’ is at open war against ALL other religions AND governments. Representatives of this ideology have even declared war openly like any other nation-state. These representatives and their organizations are fielding armed groups (Which I call their ‘army’) that are launching attacks upon our country and the other nations in the entire world. This is the enemy that we must defeat. Or else become part of the ‘Nation of Islam’.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
World Crisis
During October 1962, the U.S. came the closest that we have ever been to a nuclear war. The ultimate factor that stopped the confrontation was the backing down of the Soviet Union. They literally turned their ships around so that they would not be running the U.S. naval blockade. The confrontation that would have occurred had they not turned around has been commonly accepted as open warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet Union over the placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba. Eventually, a deal was reached that allowed both sides to ‘save face’. The leader of the Soviet Union lost his job just two years later. The leader of the U.S. lost his life just a little over a year later.
The point that I would like to make here is that although it is less likely today that a confrontation between nuclear powers will get to the same level that we were at in October 1962, the possibility of deployment of nuclear weapons is actually much higher today than in 1962. The Soviet Union proved that they are interested in raising their grandchildren. A nuclear exchange would have meant virtual suicide for all of the parties involved and many bystanders as well. Maybe humanity would not be able to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange. The point here is that even though the Soviet Union represented our greatest enemy, both sides are not interested in fighting a war that would probably result in their own destruction. This risk is inherent in ALL wars, but the nuclear weapon makes the probability very likely, not to mention the speed of the event. Today’s Islamic enemies have no such scruples.
I have drawn a similarity between the repeated suicide attacks of today and that of the only prior occurrence in human history: That of Japan in the 1940’s. As with most comparisons, many differences and similarities exist. A point here is: Can you imagine Japan NOT using a nuclear weapon if they had one in 1945? The United States DID use our weapons, as many others would have. A major difference between this situation and 1962 was that open warfare already existed between the two combatants. In any case, the use of repeated suicide attack leads me to believe that not only do our enemies consider themselves to be already at war against us, but that the restraint of mutual survival does not exist today like it did in 1962.
I cannot imagine leaders of Islamic ideology ‘turning their ships around’ like the Soviet Union did in 1962. Another major problem we face today is that it is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic groups obtains an effective WMD. I find it more than likely that it (Or they) will be deployed as soon as practical.
The point that I would like to make here is that although it is less likely today that a confrontation between nuclear powers will get to the same level that we were at in October 1962, the possibility of deployment of nuclear weapons is actually much higher today than in 1962. The Soviet Union proved that they are interested in raising their grandchildren. A nuclear exchange would have meant virtual suicide for all of the parties involved and many bystanders as well. Maybe humanity would not be able to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange. The point here is that even though the Soviet Union represented our greatest enemy, both sides are not interested in fighting a war that would probably result in their own destruction. This risk is inherent in ALL wars, but the nuclear weapon makes the probability very likely, not to mention the speed of the event. Today’s Islamic enemies have no such scruples.
I have drawn a similarity between the repeated suicide attacks of today and that of the only prior occurrence in human history: That of Japan in the 1940’s. As with most comparisons, many differences and similarities exist. A point here is: Can you imagine Japan NOT using a nuclear weapon if they had one in 1945? The United States DID use our weapons, as many others would have. A major difference between this situation and 1962 was that open warfare already existed between the two combatants. In any case, the use of repeated suicide attack leads me to believe that not only do our enemies consider themselves to be already at war against us, but that the restraint of mutual survival does not exist today like it did in 1962.
I cannot imagine leaders of Islamic ideology ‘turning their ships around’ like the Soviet Union did in 1962. Another major problem we face today is that it is only a matter of time before one of these Islamic groups obtains an effective WMD. I find it more than likely that it (Or they) will be deployed as soon as practical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
