Nuclear Attack Quotes
The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has inhibited the use of atomic weapons since WWII. If one nuclear nation attacked another, the attacked nation would still have time to retaliate and both countries would be destroyed. However, Iran by their own statements and past history might not be inhibited by large losses and death in retaliation. Iran, a theocracy, has a religion that believes that any Muslim who is killed in defense of Islam will immediately go to heaven. They have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of their citizens in their war with Iraq. Iran is a much larger country than Israel where a single nuclear bomb would destroy the whole nation. One retaliatory bomb would do terrible damage to Iran but much more of the country and its people would survive. The Iran fanatics might make such a tradeoff as a religious obligation. This is why, most of the world is doing much to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon at all. Rafsanjani’s logic however assumes that if Iran fired one bomb, Israel would retaliate with one bomb. However, Israel has the capability of carpeting all of Iran with a nuclear muti-warhead retaliation so Iran would also be completely destroyed. However Israeli policy has been to never discuss anything about nuclear weapons and their policies. Some ultra-fanatical Muslims have argued that even of all of Iran and its people were destroyed, this would be a worthwhile “martyrdom” so that the remainder of the Muslim world would be free of Israel. This is illustrative of how difficult it is negotiating with religious fundamentalists who control a nation.
On the issue of nuclear proliferation, the United States and most of its allies have traditionaly maintained a double standard. Nations that alrady had nuclear weapons were not expected to disarm while, counties which were not stable democracies were strongly pressured to give up their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
This quotation is one of history’s great examples of the classic problem of quotes taken out of context. The Blog was dealing with the potential reactions if Islamic terrorists set off a nuclear device or a radioactive dirty bomb in the United States. Lowry was reporting that in the event of a retaliation there was then a considerable amount of sentiment for attacking Mecca, the holy city of Islam. However, the Arab press picked up Lowry’s quote and Muslims throughout the world were told that the Editor of a prestigious American Journal admitted that there was much American public sentiment for a nuclear attack on Islam’s holiest city. By the time this “fact” was spread by word of mouth, a huge proportion of Muslims the world over truly believed that America was indeed out to destroy Islam. The fact that the “sentiment” was only in the context of a hypothetical retaliation for a first nuclear strike was totally lost by the time it reached most Muslims.
