North Korea's Missile Test and the Bush Doctrine
by Rahul Mahajan
ZNet Commentary (July 12 2006)
The controversy surrounding North Korea's recent failed test of its Taepodong-2 missile, puckishly launched on July 4 as Americans celebrated their narrow escape from Korean, Vietnamese, Nicaraguan, and Iraqi tyranny, offers a window into various prominent views on the use of force.
Former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry and his former assistant secretary, Ashton Carter, made quite a splash on June 22 with an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for a pre-emptive attack to destroy the missile, which was then apparently being fueled up for the launch.
This was not an acceptance of Bush's famously misnamed pre-emption doctrine. Essentially, the pre-emption doctrine says that if we can make a claim that it might be bad if some country someday got some kind of weapons of mass destruction, the United States can bomb it. Obviously, even a reckless empire like the United States today doesn't just apply that to every country it doesn't like - say, Venezuela - but it has asserted the right.
Perry and Carter were simply referring to a much more traditional doctrine that, if a threat to you is clearly in existence and being mobilized for possible use, you have the right to neutralize the threat instead of waiting to be attacked. Of course, the North Korean missile test was not a real threat. Even had the Taepodong-2 succeeded, it couldn't carry a significant payload as far as the United States. Even if it could, there's no indication that North Korea would attack the United States. No state has since Japan in 1941, a time before we had a nuclear arsenal that could annihilate every major population center on the planet. And yes, it's a little strange for a country that menaces the whole world in this way to complain about the threat some other country poses by a missile test.
In any case, though, what matters is not the actual facts but the way the foreign policy establishment perceives them. And there certainly is bipartisan consensus that the North Korean situation posed a threat. The Bush administration does not disagree.
And yet, their response was basically to do nothing. When asked about Perry and Carter's proposal on CNN, Dick Cheney pooh-poohed the whole notion, saying, "if you're going to launch a strike at another nation, you'd better be prepared to not just fire one shot".
In fact, Bush and Cheney are anything but mad bombers; they are very discriminating in picking their targets. Bill Clinton was the one who promiscuously used force as an element of diplomacy. In 1998 and 1999, just two years, Clinton bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Serbia. Although Reagan had indulged in similar incidents of sort of random bombing as a show of force (as in Beirut and Libya), Clinton established it as a paradigm. Unlike Reagan, who was always highly constrained in shows of force, Clinton inherited a unipolar world.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, deliberately repudiates this method of doing business with the world. If they attack a country, they want to remove its government from power. This is the primary reason why, having taken out Afghanistan and Iraq, they are not moving against the rest of the "axis of evil". Even presented with a situation where they could have mustered broad support for attacking North Korea, they just sat on their hands. It's difficult to imagine what short of regime change would induce them to attack Iran or North Korea - and even more difficult to see how they could come up with a plan for regime change with all military assets bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq. Their foreign policy, formerly so aggressive, now appears ineffectual - they won't attack and they won't negotiate.
There is one thing Perry and Carter share with the Bush administration. In all their plans and scenarios regarding attacking these various countries, the attack is to be sold on the basis that the leaders of those countries - Saddam, Kim, the Iranian clerics - are crazy enough to attack a country poised to annihilate them. That's why we need to strike first. At the same time, they are fundamentally predicated on the sanity of those leaders - assuming Saddam wouldn't take the chance during a year of saber-rattling to funnel money and weapons to al-Qaeda, assuming they could take out the Taepo-dong and North Korea wouldn't retaliate with a devastating barrage on Seoul, and so on.
It's not just extreme mendacity, but actually part of a shared delusive complex. Makes you wonder which country really has the crazy leaders.
______
Rahul Mahajan is an author and freelance journalist, and publisher of the weblog Empire Notes at http://www.empirenotes.org. He has been to occupied Iraq twice and reported from Fallujah during the April 2004 assault. His most recent book is Full Spectrum Dominance: US Power in Iraq and Beyond (Seven Stories Press). He can be reached at rahul@empirenotes.org.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/12mahajan.cfm
Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html
ZNet Commentary (July 12 2006)
The controversy surrounding North Korea's recent failed test of its Taepodong-2 missile, puckishly launched on July 4 as Americans celebrated their narrow escape from Korean, Vietnamese, Nicaraguan, and Iraqi tyranny, offers a window into various prominent views on the use of force.
Former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry and his former assistant secretary, Ashton Carter, made quite a splash on June 22 with an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for a pre-emptive attack to destroy the missile, which was then apparently being fueled up for the launch.
This was not an acceptance of Bush's famously misnamed pre-emption doctrine. Essentially, the pre-emption doctrine says that if we can make a claim that it might be bad if some country someday got some kind of weapons of mass destruction, the United States can bomb it. Obviously, even a reckless empire like the United States today doesn't just apply that to every country it doesn't like - say, Venezuela - but it has asserted the right.
Perry and Carter were simply referring to a much more traditional doctrine that, if a threat to you is clearly in existence and being mobilized for possible use, you have the right to neutralize the threat instead of waiting to be attacked. Of course, the North Korean missile test was not a real threat. Even had the Taepodong-2 succeeded, it couldn't carry a significant payload as far as the United States. Even if it could, there's no indication that North Korea would attack the United States. No state has since Japan in 1941, a time before we had a nuclear arsenal that could annihilate every major population center on the planet. And yes, it's a little strange for a country that menaces the whole world in this way to complain about the threat some other country poses by a missile test.
In any case, though, what matters is not the actual facts but the way the foreign policy establishment perceives them. And there certainly is bipartisan consensus that the North Korean situation posed a threat. The Bush administration does not disagree.
And yet, their response was basically to do nothing. When asked about Perry and Carter's proposal on CNN, Dick Cheney pooh-poohed the whole notion, saying, "if you're going to launch a strike at another nation, you'd better be prepared to not just fire one shot".
In fact, Bush and Cheney are anything but mad bombers; they are very discriminating in picking their targets. Bill Clinton was the one who promiscuously used force as an element of diplomacy. In 1998 and 1999, just two years, Clinton bombed Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Serbia. Although Reagan had indulged in similar incidents of sort of random bombing as a show of force (as in Beirut and Libya), Clinton established it as a paradigm. Unlike Reagan, who was always highly constrained in shows of force, Clinton inherited a unipolar world.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, deliberately repudiates this method of doing business with the world. If they attack a country, they want to remove its government from power. This is the primary reason why, having taken out Afghanistan and Iraq, they are not moving against the rest of the "axis of evil". Even presented with a situation where they could have mustered broad support for attacking North Korea, they just sat on their hands. It's difficult to imagine what short of regime change would induce them to attack Iran or North Korea - and even more difficult to see how they could come up with a plan for regime change with all military assets bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq. Their foreign policy, formerly so aggressive, now appears ineffectual - they won't attack and they won't negotiate.
There is one thing Perry and Carter share with the Bush administration. In all their plans and scenarios regarding attacking these various countries, the attack is to be sold on the basis that the leaders of those countries - Saddam, Kim, the Iranian clerics - are crazy enough to attack a country poised to annihilate them. That's why we need to strike first. At the same time, they are fundamentally predicated on the sanity of those leaders - assuming Saddam wouldn't take the chance during a year of saber-rattling to funnel money and weapons to al-Qaeda, assuming they could take out the Taepo-dong and North Korea wouldn't retaliate with a devastating barrage on Seoul, and so on.
It's not just extreme mendacity, but actually part of a shared delusive complex. Makes you wonder which country really has the crazy leaders.
______
Rahul Mahajan is an author and freelance journalist, and publisher of the weblog Empire Notes at http://www.empirenotes.org. He has been to occupied Iraq twice and reported from Fallujah during the April 2004 assault. His most recent book is Full Spectrum Dominance: US Power in Iraq and Beyond (Seven Stories Press). He can be reached at rahul@empirenotes.org.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-07/12mahajan.cfm
Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html
posted by Bill Totten at
12:48 PM
1 Comments:
http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/
Male Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Nulcear Doctrine) Kalki Gaur
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
Male Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Nulcear Doctrine) Kalki Gaur
(1) DNA Doctrine
EXECUTION OF ENTIRE MALE POPULATION: Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor has an acronym DNA Doctrine. This doctrine promotes nuclear peace by postulating that any First Use of Nuclear Weapons would result in the total occupation of the Aggressor Nation and the mandatory execution of its entire male population.
Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor states as follows. Whenever a Nuclear Weapon Nation launches preemptive nuclear strikes against other Nation B, then the Victim Nation B will militarily retaliate to defeat the Nuclear Aggressor Nation A. The Nuclear Victim Nation B, will then execute the entire adult male population of the Nation A. In doing so the Nation B will not be violating any current Laws of War. The Nuclear Victim Nation B could also take over all the women, lands and assets of that Aggressor Nation A, without violating the Laws of War. If any Nuclear Power (A) attacks Nation (B), whether a nuclear or non-nuclear power, then once the hostilities are over, the world organization and world powers would arrange that the entire male population of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation A would be hanged and executed. The entire lands and resources of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation (A) would become the property of the Nuclear Victim Nation (B). The enforcing World Organizations would recoup their total cost of enforcing the DNA Doctrine, out of the national resources of the Aggressor Nation (A).
PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE IS A WAR CRIME: The United Nations should pass a treaty declaring that any first use of Nuclear weapons would be a Crime against Humanity and a War Crime. The United Nations should declare that it would supervise the mandatory execution of the entire male population of any Nuclear Aggressor Nation that used nuclear weapons in the preemptive nuclear strike against other Nation.
DNA DOCTRINE VERSUS M.A.D. DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, DNA Doctrine is more humane and results in more effective nuclear deterrent, than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, M.A.D. Doctrine. The M.A.D. doctrine is more destructive as it leads to a nuclear Armageddon. The Victim Nuclear Power would destroy the whole planet in case of preemptive nuclear attack and the resulting Second retaliatory strikes.
Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction is credible as a nuclear Deterrent and promotes world peace. M.A.D. Doctrine threatens the potential Nuclear Aggressor that the Nuclear Victim of the preemptive nuclear attack would launch the retaliatory strikes against the Aggressor Nation annihilating it. Sufficient nuclear weapons of the Victim Nation would survive the preemptive strikes, enabling the Victim Nuclear Power to launch the retaliatory strike against the Aggressor Nation, annihilating the Aggressor.
FANATICS & TERRORISTS ARE NOT RATIONAL: Leaders of the fanatic and terrorist Nations are not reasonable and logical. The fanatic Muslim Mojahideen believing in the ideal of Religious War Jihad and could sacrifice their own lives and even their lands, driven by their fury to convert Kefirs. MAD Doctrine will not deter fanatic Terrorist Islamic Nuclear Powers from launching the preemptive nuclear strikes against non-Muslim nations. Thus, the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) would fail to provide an effective Deterrent against a fanatic Islamic Nuclear States. Since Islam preaches fanaticism, so even a normal nation like Pakistan under the influence of religious frenzy could become irrational enough to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against Muslim States like Israel and India disregarding the consequences of the Retaliation.
INDIA-ISRAEL DETERRENT FOR PAKISTANI BOMB: India and Israel should jointly develop a credible Doctrine of Nuclear Deterrent against Islamic Nuclear Weapon Powers. India and Israel should promote the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. We should amend the Laws of War to include the provision of the mass execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressors. The problem is how to prevent any future Pakistani and other MAD Muslim leader from making preemptive nuclear strikes. How to stop Pakistan and other Muslim nuclear weapon powers from using nuclear weapons against India and Israel? When the Muslim nuclear nations realize that it could lose its entire male population, if it ever launches a nuclear strike against India, then it would never launch the nuclear weapons.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE BLACK MARKETS: Mad Muslim terrorists and fanatic Islamic nations could easily buy nuclear components to assemble a nuclear arsenal. Maniacs are irrational and not deterred by any future threat of Second Strike by the victim. Since any Second Strike retaliation would also destroy a large part of the world, the mad leaders argue that the Victim State would lack the Will for launching the retaliatory second nuclear strikes, as it could destroy the World. Because the M.A.D. Doctrine envisages a gruesome holocaust, so mad Nuclear States could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack. Mad nuclear State could argue that because the retaliatory Second strike results into a holocaust, the Victim of the nuclear attack would refrain from pushing the Nuclear Button. Thus logic of an Armageddon promoted by Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine would become counter productive and fail to deter a nuclear attack by Pakistan and other Mad fanatic terrorist Nuclear Muslim Regimes.
THE ARMAGEDDON PROMOTES NUCLEAR STRIKE: A mad leader of the Islamic Nuclear nation would argue that the sensible non-Muslim leaders would not respond with a counter nuclear attack as it would destroy a large part of the world. While Armageddon being the only credible nuclear option, it would fail to deter the mad, fanatic, terrorist nuclear nations. The Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to provide nuclear deterrent, against Pakistani nuclear weapons. Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to deter Pakistani Islamic Nuclear weapon powers from launching preemptive nuclear strikes.
SEMITES MASSACRED BROWN EGYPTIANS: Pakistan could drop Atom Bombs on Israel or India, either incited by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or blinded by Jihad spirit to convert Hindus into Islam. Desert Arabs could use nuclear weapons against agricultural societies, arguing that Arabs would survive the nuclear war in desert oases. Arabs attacked Iran, destroyed Zoroastrian Civilization, and forcibly converted Iranian Zoroastrians into Islam. Semite Arab had been a slave in the ancient Egypt Civilization of Brown Pharaohs. Semite Jews and Arab Muslims attacked Egypt to massacre the entire dominant Brown Race of the ancient Egypt. Fair skinned Semite Arab Muslims occupied Egypt and North Africa. Throughout history, whenever Muslims had military superiority they destroyed non-Muslim societies. Before the Islamic conquest Libya and Algeria was the granary of the Roman Empire. Conquest by the nomadic Arabs destroyed the agricultural economy.
ONLY MALE DEPOPULATION IS THE SOLUTION: The problem as How to deter any future mad Muslim Nuclear Power from using nuclear weapons against Christians, Jews or Hindus, who could be under the influence of the religious Jihad spirit! As explained above, the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to provide credible nuclear deterrent.
DNA DOCTRINES DETERS FANATICS: What could be the Solution? Even the most rabid fanatic, terrorist leader of a Muslim nuclear weapon State, would be deterred from using nuclear weapons against any other adversary, if it knew that the retaliation would be according to DNA Doctrine. Muslim Nations should unequivocally understand the following. The result of any Muslim nuclear attack on India, will be the mandatory execution of the entire Muslim male population of that Muslim nation. Besides it will also result in the confiscation of the entire Muslim Women, Lands and Resources by India. Then no Muslim nation would dare undertake a nuclear strike against India.
RETALIATE AGAINST ENTIRE ISLAMIC WORLD: Only the Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine would deter nuclear attack from a fanatic Islamic terrorist nuclear nation. DNA Doctrine would convince the Islamic World that the result of any Islamic nuclear preemptive attack would be the mandatory execution of entire Islamic male population. Besides all of its Women, Lands and Resources, would become the property of the nuclear Victim Nation.
PROBLEM OF PROXY INVASION: What should be the response if any small or Micro Islamic State with small population, decide to commit suicide in the name of Islam, launches the nuclear weapons against a very populous Nation? What should be the response, if the Organization of Islamic States, (OIC) or OPEC finances an Islamic State to develop nuclear weapons and use against other non-Islamic State say Israel, Vatican or Mediterranean Europe? Whether the Victim State or its allies could punish only the front nation, who physically dropped the Bomb or the retaliation could be against all conspiring Islamic allies? Should the retaliations be limited to the Proxy enemy the Front Nation, Mini State whose leadership they have bribed to drop the Atom Bomb, or could it be against the entire coalition? Any Arab state that finances Pakistani Nuclear Weapon Program will be considered a joint-aggressor, in case of Pakistani nuclear attack against India. India could retaliate at nuclear level against that particular Arab State.
RETALIATE AGAINST CO-CONSPIRATORS: In Common Law if Organized Crime issues a contract to make the hit, the entire crime organization is considered guilty of crime and is punished. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should unequivocally declare that any nuclear attack by any Islamic State would result in massive nuclear retaliation against the entire hostile Islamic Coalition, specially such Islamic Nations as aided, abetted and financed the Aggressor.
PROBLEM OF ATTACK BY A MICRO STATE: What should be the retaliation in case Islamic nations conspire to sacrifice one Islamic State to wage a nuclear attack on Hinduism and Judaism? What would the retaliation if the Micro State of Palestine (PLO) led by a terrorist, were to drop nuclear bombs on Europe, America, Israel or India, aided and funded by other richer Islamic States? Should the retaliation be limited to PLO? Islamic Nations could select a smaller State having a smaller population, to launch a nuclear attack on a nation of 900 million by proxy. They may argue that even if the nation-state with the population of only five millions, gets destroyed by the retaliatory strikes, it should be considered an acceptable loss, as it helps eliminate an enemy state. What should India’s response be?
REGIONAL RETALIATION: Indian Nuclear doctrine unequivocally declares that India will not restrict the populous nation’s retaliatory strikes to the smaller Nation that acted as the front in this Proxy War. Indian will retaliate by using neutron bombs, against all members of the enemy coalition attacked.
HINDUISM IS ONE NATION STATE: No Islamic nation has large populations, while Hinduism and Judaism are one-country Religions. The populous nation justifies the retaliatory nuclear strikes against the entire coalition of hostile nations, whose total population equals to that of the populous nation. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that if Islam were to declare a Religious War on Hindu India, a nation of 950 millions, then Indian retaliation would target the entire Islamic Bloc having combined population of 900 millions. If Islamic World incites Pakistan to launch nuclear strikes against India, then India would make targets retaliatory nuclear strikes against all Islamic States.
RETALIATE AGAINST ENTIRE COALITION: Indian Nuclear Doctrine will declare that the populous Victim of a preemptive nuclear strike has a legal right of counter-strikes against the entire Coalition of hostile Nations. It can retaliate against all conspiring nations, whose combined populations equal the populous Victim.
Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor unequivocally declares as follows. In case of any Islamic Nuclear strike by any Islamic Nation, against any non-Islamic Nation, the retaliation would target the entire Islamic World. The right of nuclear retaliation would justify India to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic World.
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
[SIZE=4]Male Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Doctrine) Deters Nuclear Attacks[/SIZE][COLOR=darkred][/COLOR]
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
DEPOPULATION WOULD DETER PAKISTAN: What should be Indian retaliation if Pakistan attacked India with an Atom bomb? Why should India declare unequivocally its response to any nuclear strike by Pakistan? Pakistan is trying to scare the world that it would use nuclear weapons, to settle the Kashmir issue with India. The United States is pressurizing India to internationalize Kashmir as it might lead to Indo-Pakistan nuclear confrontation. The problem of Indian doctrine is to convince the Nuclear Five (P-5) Nations that Pakistan will not dare to attack India with nuclear weapons. Pakistan can not attack India, because then India will depopulate Pakistan, both by using neutron bombs and conventional weapons. India also threatens to annex Pakistan into India.
AVOID CONTAMINATION OF LANDS: The problem is how should India make a retaliatory nuclear strike against Pakistan, in case of Pakistani nuclear attack on India? Any Pakistani nuclear attack on India would contaminate agricultural lands in India. Therefore, India would only use either neutron bombs or non-nuclear weapons to occupy Pakistani lands, because the use of Atom Bombs will contaminate Pakistani lands, that India will needed to resettle Indian people. Any Indian nuclear attack on Pakistan would contaminate Pakistani rivers, lands, and animals required for feeding Indians displaced by the nuclear attack. Therefore, India could not possibly contaminate Pakistanis agricultural lands, by retaliating with nuclear weapons on Pakistan, even if Pakistan launched nuclear weapons against India.
RETALIATION BY CONVENTIONAL ARMS: Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that in the aftermath of Pakistani nuclear attack on India, the Indian Army would invade Pakistan and occupy Pakistan without using nuclear weapons. Once India occupies Pakistan, after Pakistani nuclear attacks, than India will hang Pakistan’s entire male population, and take over entire lands and the resources of Pakistan. India will use these resources to feed those Indians displaced due to the destruction caused by Pakistani nuclear strikes.
RETALIATE AGAINST PAKISTAN’S ALLIES: Indian Nuclear doctrine should declare that Indian response will make retaliatory nuclear strikes against the capitals of nations provided aid and abetted, incited and supported Pakistan’s nuclear attacks on India. If any Nation provides financial support to Pakistan’s nuclear program, then in retaliation to Pakistani nuclear attack on India, India would also target nuclear weapons against all allies of Pakistan. India would then depopulate and occupy the lands of Pakistan’s allies. Nevertheless, India would not launch nuclear strikes against Pakistan, as any nuclear attack could contaminate the River System in the Subcontinent.
RETALIATE FOR PROXY ATTACK: Indian Nuclear doctrine should declare that, If China and North Korea used Pakistan to attack India in a Proxy War, then Indian retaliation would target major Chinese and Korean cities. Indian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine declares that Western Nations transferred Nuclear Weapons and Missiles to Pakistan to keep Pagan India under check. India will also retaliate against the West, if Pakistan uses the West supplied nuclear weapons against India.
BE BLUNT ABOUT RETALIATION: Indian Nuclear Doctrine should propagate Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. DNA Doctrine would provide credible nuclear deterrent against any Pakistani nuclear strike. We should occasionally remind citizens of Pakistan that we could hang the entire male population of Pakistan in case of any Pakistani nuclear strikes against India. Then no Government of Pakistan would risk a nuclear attack against India. India and Israel should be blunt with potential Islamic Nuclear State.
OFFER NO FIRST USE PACT: India should offer a No-First use of Nuclear Weapons Pact to Pakistan. India should not intervene if Pakistan used its nuclear bombs against any other country other than India. India should not oppose Pakistan’s nuclear programs, but declare in advance the consequence of any Pakistani nuclear attack against India.
INDO-PAKISTAN CONFEDERATION: The world would be safer with six (6) nuclear powers than with seven (7) nuclear powers. Christian powers would soon realize soon that the only way to eliminate the threat of the Islamic Bomb would be the Confederation of India and Pakistan. West should force Nuclear Pakistan to confederate with India. Both Pakistan and India could be Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. Nuclear India and Nuclear Pakistan should merge armies, to eliminate the possibility of Indo-Pakistan nuclear war. Pakistani peoples of Sindh, Karachi, Baluchistan, Pakhtoonistan has always dreamed of rejoining India. It is inevitable that Nuclear India and Nuclear Pakistan and Bangladesh would form a Federation before 2,005 AD. It is likely that the Aryan nations of India, Pakistan, Iran and Kazakhstan, South Asia and Central Asia would confederate to form Union of Aryan States, (UAS).
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
[SIZE=4]Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Vs MAD Doctrine[/SIZE][COLOR=darkred][/COLOR]
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Vs MAD Doctrine
LOSS OF WOMEN & LANDS DETERS FANATICS: M.A.D. Doctrine fails to deter mad leaders, fanatics, terrorists, and Muslim Mojahideen. Under these circumstances, the DNA Doctrine is more credible than the MAD Doctrine is. Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine of Nuclear Deterrent is more logical, more effective, more humane, and more civilized than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). A mad leader can only understand the severity of the nuclear retaliation, if we declare it in the simple language. DNA describes the retaliation of any Islamic nuclear adventure in terms of the loss of Islamic Women, Lands and Animals and Male lives. Bedouins rule Arab states, who just 30 years back lived in desert oases in tents on simple diet of dates and camel milk. Crude terminology of the DNA Doctrine lays emphasis on Male Depopulation and loss of Lands and Women that Arab men can understand instinctively.
PAKISTAN IS AN TERRORIST ISLAMIC NATION: Even civilized Pakistan eulogizes Bedouin ideals, as is evident in their anti-women laws that punishes a female victim of rape for adultery, by stoning her to death, while the rapist roams free. Recently Pakistan sentenced to death a Christian for blasphemy, while Muslims blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. We cannot treat Pakistan differently from Islamic fanatics, just because Pakistan is not an Arab but an Aryan. Indian Nuclear Strategy should treat Islam as a category to define the strategic nuclear retaliatory response. Pakistan believes Religion is the basis of the State. Judaic and Hindu Nuclear doctrine should treat Nuclear Pakistan as a terrorist, fanatic and an expansionist Islamic Nuclear Weapon Power.
M.A.D. DOCTRINE WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL HUNGER: Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction threatens the death of millions in retaliation for any preemptive nuclear attack. Depopulation of the Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine provides more credible nuclear deterrent, than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. The M.A.D. Doctrine would cause the contamination of the lands, essential for the food supply of the world. We could procreate human beings, but we cannot create new lands on this earth. The M.A.D. Doctrine would cause deaths by hunger, by a planet-wide contamination. Contamination of lands would be very high on the agenda of the terrorist nuclear Islamic leaders.
DEPOPULATION THREAT DETERS: The DNA Doctrine, the Mandatory Male Depopulation of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation would deter even the most rabid fanatic terrorist nation from engaging in any form of nuclear terrorism. The genetic make up or the DNA code of a fanatic nation is different. Christian-Judaic logic of the MAD Doctrine fails to deter fanatic Muslim nuclear powers. Only DNA Doctrine incorporates the genetic differences, the DNA code of the Islamic Civilization, to develop a credible strategy of Nuclear Deterrent. The DNA Doctrine emphasizes the depopulation of the entire adult male population of the nuclear Aggressor.
THREAT PLAYS A POLITICAL ROLE. We should not forget that the fundamental purpose of any Nuclear Doctrine is to make a political use of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear doctrine deters the potential Aggressor, by educating its leaders that any nuclear strike would result in retaliatory nuclear strikes causing overwhelming losses and the mandatory execution of its entire Male population.
DNA DOCTRINE IS NOT A RACIST DOCTRINE: DNA Doctrine explains to the mad, illiterate, fanatic Muslim nuclear powers what these retaliations would be in the idioms of their Culture and Scripture. The Indian Nuclear Strategy should convince Pakistan that India would not mind Pakistan’s Atom Bombs, so long as they do not threaten India. The Doctrine will not suggest that Pakistan be racially, genetically or culturally inferior to India, as both nations belong to Aryan Race and have the same food, language, and habits.
PAK CONQUEST OF ISLAMIC WORLD: Pakistan could use its nuclear weapons to conquer the Islamic world and India might support Pakistan. India should not object to any westward expansion of Pakistan. Perhaps Indians would prefer to work in Pakistan ruled Arab World, as then language of Islamic Empire would be Urdu which is very similar to Hindi the national language of Hindu India.
ISLAMIC ATTACK MEANS END OF ISLAMIC WORLD. Indian nuclear strategy would convince Arabs by DNA Doctrine. The Doctrine states that any attempt by any Arab country to finance and incite Pakistani nuclear attack on India could mean the end of Arab Civilization on this planet earth and the total loss of Arab lands and Arab men. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that any Islamic nuclear attack jeopardizes the very existence of Islamic Civilization on this Planet. India should declare in unequivocal terms that it would forcefully carry out the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. India would retaliate not only against the Islamic nation that would drop the Bomb, but also against its Allies, who had financed and supported its nuclear weapon’s program.
Conclusion:
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSION DOCTRINE: India under Indira Gandhi’s Government, exploded Atom Bomb in 1974 but called it a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE). India glorified this myopic policy with the aura of a Doctrine. Doctrine of PNE, as India named it, made India a vulnerable target of preemptive nuclear strikes without gaining any diplomatic, political, economic or strategic advantages for India.
PAKISTAN HAD PLANNED NUCLEAR STRIKES: Recently Pakistan had planned preemptive nuclear strikes against India at the time of its Nuclear Tests. Pakistan boasted about creating an Islamic India to become the Mohammad Ghouri of 21st Century, by means of preemptive nuclear strikes against India. India needs to induct in its Military Manuals a gruesome Doctrine of retaliation against any nuclear strikes against India. Indian Military Manuals should provide details at the tactics level, the procedure for the mandatory execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressor. Military Manuals would describe the role of officers to avoid the culpability for any violation of Laws of War.
DEPOPULATION OF NUCLEAR AGGRESSOR: India should unequivocally propagate the Nuclear Doctrine that mandates the execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressor that would launch preemptive nuclear strikes against India. This doctrine is against nuclear strikes against Indian targets only. India should widely propagate this Doctrine and pass necessary legislation so that its carrying out should overrule any conflicting Laws of War. The mandatory execution of the entire male population, as per the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, would violate neither the Laws of War, nor a Crime against Humanity, or the Crime of Genocide. The implementation of the mandatory execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressor, by the armed forces of the victim nation and its allies, would constitute neither a War Crime nor the violation of any Laws of War.
NON-NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON: There cannot be any nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan as they belong to a common civilization. No nation will use nuclear weapons against the nation belonging to the common civilization. Use Nuclear weapons to deter the inter-Civilizational wars. Conventional clashes of civilizations because of sibling rivalries would never conflagrant to nuclear exchange. Pakistan is over-populated, so India gains fewer lands even if it occupies Pakistan. Nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan could join forces and undertake military operations against other civilizations to share territorial gains. Indian doctrine of depopulation of nuclear aggressor is to remind the policy makers that any preemptive nuclear strike would result in an Armageddon by non-nuclear conventional weapons. It is morally repulsive for brothers to threaten nuclear retaliation. Depopulation by conventional weapons would be acceptable as lesser evil. Neither India nor Pakistan can use nuclear weapons against each other in the Age of Civilizational Wars, as both belong to a common civilization. Indian doctrine of depopulation of nuclear aggressor is a threat by elder brother to the arrogant younger brother, to behave properly otherwise he would lose his leg, wife, and lands. But nuclear India would protect Pakistan even by deploying nuclear deterrent, if ever United States and NATO invade Pakistan to de-nuke Pakistan as a follow-up of their counter-proliferation policy. India would come to the defense of Pakistan whenever the United States and NATO invade Pakistan to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. The goal of doctrine of depopulation of nuclear aggressor is to discipline Pakistan.
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/
By
THIRD WORLD WAR, at 8:25 PM, September 06, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home