Media experts have repeated the myth that asymmetric warfare favors the “little guys” often enough for it to seem like fact. Sadly, we even accept the inevitability of terrorist attacks and the prospect that we can do little to prevent them.
That is nonsense. All the civilized world needs is leadership with the vision to realize that MAD, which worked for 50 years, needs to be replaced with TAD or Total Assured Destruction.
MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, prevented hostilities between the great powers by holding their adversaries respective centers of industry and population hostage to the possibility of total annihilation.
The common wisdom with asymmetrical warfare is that terrorists have nothing they value. And it is true that our current adversaries lack the ability to build centers of industry or even to govern themselves.
TAD, on the other hand, recognizes that terrorists do have places and people that can be held hostage to the possibility of total annihilation. Consider: the Dome of the Rock, Medina, Mecca (terrorists do claim to be devout Muslims), families, neighbors, towns, tribes, and, ultimately, Arab Muslim population centers.
I ask, how does destroying an adversary’s center of industry differ from destroying the community that spawned him?
Even if terrorists are indifferent to the losses, TAD will motivate their communities to take genuine action against terrorism. After all, what better clarifies attitudes toward terrorism than the realization that the West can permanently solve the terrorist problem in an afternoon by pushing a few buttons?
[dfads params='groups=4969&limit=1&orderby=random']
[dfads params='groups=1745&limit=1&orderby=random']