The Taliban-Iran threat

As I have said before, it is an unshakable principle that no sharia regime can be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Either the weapons, or the regime, must be destroyed. Roger Chapin writing in the Washington Times points out that some or all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of the Taliban at any time. This, continues Chapin, means that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons must be destroyed. Now.

The risk, Chapin continues, is not only or mainly from the Taliban. If the Taliban got possession of nuclear weapons, they could sell them to Iran, which could launch them from ships located outside U.S. territorial waters to explode high over the middle portion of the United States, creating en electromagnetic pulse which would essentially destroy the United States, causing the deaths of most of its people within a year from starvation and disease

So, again, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons must be destroyed. Now.

Chapin proposes a way to destroy the nuclear facilities of Pakistan, as well as of Iran and North Korea, short of a military attack, by offering them a large scale aid package as a quid pro quo for allowing us to dismantle their nukes. But, he continues, if the offer is rejected, we must destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Now.

America’s survival put at risk
As Obama rolls the dice on his far-off visions
By Roger Chapin | Friday, May 15, 2009

While we focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan is being destabilized at an alarming rate, and the consequences could prove catastrophic to ourselves and the whole civilized world before we know it.

Consider these possibilities:

(1) Fearing a Taliban takeover, corrupt Pakistani officials panic and secretly sell nuclear weapons to Iran or al Qaeda for personal profit. Israel’s current preparations for an attack on Iran make such a prospect all the more likely.

(2) The Taliban clandestinely or overtly gain control of several of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons for its use or sell them to Iran or al Qaeda.

Any way you look at it, events are spinning out of our control quickly, especially with Israel almost certain to soon destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and very possibly much more.

Not only may Iran launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel, but anticipating a U.S. retaliatory strike, it could also hit the United States with a pre-emptive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack at the same time.

According to the congressionally authorized EMP Commission, such an attack, launched by firing one or more nuclear tipped missiles from a freighter and detonating them 200 miles above our heartland, could kill 70 percent to 90 percent of the U.S. population within a year from starvation and disease. The EMP effect would knock out most of our computers, shutting down our electric power grid and water pumps along with most everything that relies on electronics to operate.

Virtually overnight most of our country would be put back into the early 19th century. Given the messianic, apocalyptic mentality of the radical Islamics, this is, indeed, a very real prospect.

So instead of deluding ourselves that our dangerously naive president can somehow wave a magic wand over fanatically zealous radical Islamics who are determined to destroy the Great Satan, we must immediately present not only Pakistan, but also Iran and North Korea this ultimatum:

In exchange for a hefty aid package, allow the internationally supervised destruction of any and all nuclear weapons and facilities, along with ongoing foolproof inspections, or we will destroy them together with any retaliatory capabilities we deem necessary.

And let it be known that if our ultimatum is rejected and any retaliation to our attacks occurs, we will inflict catastrophic damage on the offender’s infrastructure and military with the goal of forcing regime change.

Let everyone understand that our very survival as a modern nation is in grave peril and we will take any and all actions necessary to ensure our survival. Respecting the so-called sovereign rights of nations cannot even be a consideration when they pose a menace to our national security. Nor can Pakistan’s professed need to be able to counter India’s nuclear capabilities, especially since India threatens no one.

Also let us realize that negotiations at this point are not a rational option, for they have no realistic prospect of success and would only provide our adversaries a golden opportunity to strike first, just as the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

In this nuclear age, there is no margin for miscalculation. We simply cannot risk a nuclear doomsday in reliance on the good faith of ruthless killers who are the devil incarnate.

Let us recognize that the consequences of our pre-emptive actions, however serious they may be, in no way threaten our own survival and are not even on the radar screen when compared to the very likely outcome of our inaction.

America must wake up and stop being taken in by President Obama’s Triple A crowd of apologists, appeasers and accommodators of our mortal enemies. The Triple A’s would gamble our very survival on their foolhardy dreams of defying all recorded history to achieve brotherly love and world peace through an irrational and nonsensical display of weakness, blind trust and undeserved respect for those sworn to destroy us.

Such meek and cowering behavior by the world’s superpower can only serve to further embolden and convince the Adolf Hitlers of the world that the United States is no longer willing to pay the price for being the master of its own destiny. In their eyes, the time may never be better to do their deadly deed before the unclenched fist of Mr. Obama is swept aside by another Ronald Reagan in the White House.

Roger Chapin is founder and president of Make America Safe, a new policy and educational organization in San Diego that focuses on the threat posed by radical Islamics to U.S. national security.

[end of Chapin article]

- end of initial entry -

David Yerushalmi writes:

Your point is the right one, not Chapin’s. Chapin’s is vague. It is the Shariah, not what he calls “fanatically zealous radical Islamics,” which is just a sign to me of muddled analytical thinking. Does “fanatically” add something to “zealous” or do either add any meaning to “radical” and what is an “Islamic”? This, as I know you know from your writings, is demonstrative of the incoherence of both speech and thought even by otherwise “conservative” men.

Also, the offer of aid is futile. No self-respecting Pakistani or Iranian would allow this diminution of sovereignty over money.

LA replies:

Yes, I missed that phrase “fanatically zealous radical Islamics” when I read the piece. Chapin is upping McCain’s “radical extremist Islamists,” or “Islamist extremist radicals,” or whatever his formula is. When a person doesn’t have a clear concept of what the “bad” Islam is, the only way he can adequately express the badness is to keep adding on “bad” adjectives. But the result of this adjectival piling-on is that the “bad” Muslims keep becoming an every tinier group.

Thus the phony word “Islamism” was adopted by conservatives to describe the radical Muslims who supposedly make up 10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population, the rest of whom are “moderate.” But then, over time, these same conservatives began—and, I’m sure, with no awareness that they were doing it—speaking of “radical Islamists,” implying that there are “moderate” Islamists and thus destroying the very meaning of “Islamists,” i.e., radical Muslims. Once Islamists had become moderate (just as Muslims are moderate), the conservatives had to keep pushing further, saying things like “extreme radical Islamists,” which implies that “radical Islamists” aren’t really extreme, and that only “extreme radical Islamists” are the problem.

This exfoliating incoherence arises from the primary refusal of conservatives to acknowledge unequivocally that Islam is the problem. Given that initial denial of truth, the subsequent, ever more absurdist denials of the truth result almost automatically.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 15, 2009 02:15 AM | Send