By Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law


President Obama has refused to recognize radical Islam for the existential threat to Western civilization that is manifestly represents.  He, his supporters and main advisors still tend see the events of 9-11-2001 as a tragedy, sort of a national disaster like a plaque of earthquakes, when in fact it was the first (but not the only) major attack on a Western power by fanatical Islam.

The President, his advisors and supporters talk about “nuclear proliferation” as if it were some version of the bird flu, not the means by which fanatical Islamist intend to exact retribution against us.

Tellingly, Governor Romney’s GOP Presidential nomination acceptance speech skipped any mention of the ongoing Afghanistan war. No doubt he was advised that opening any discussion on that topic would distract from the economic issues that will determine this election.

The looming problem, the pachyderm in the closet, is that the nightmare specter of a nuclear armed Islamist superpower will dominate the foreign policy and national security concerns of the USA for the next fifteen years, whether we are in an economic mess or not.

The military hierarchy of Pakistan controls a cache of deliverable atomic bombs.  The number is north of 100.  And Pakistan is at risk of slipping entirely into the control of Islamist ideologues, as is Egypt. Afghanistan is part of the Pakistani problem because it is a haven and a staging area for the Taliban radicals who also have a strong presence in the Pakistani security and military.  That local scenario, dire as it is, is but the tip of an iceberg. Iran is perilously close to going nuclear itself. It gets worse….

For the moment, USA territory is not within these weapons’ delivery zone, except as some putative “suitcase nukes” could be smuggled past Homeland Security.  Given the daunting difficulties that attend any serious effort to actually do something about the Pakistani arsenal of atomic bombs, a “realist school” has emerged within our national security community with something like the following stance:

This is too big for the USA to fix.  We must rely on mutually assured destruction, the deterrence standoff that served us so well in the Cold War, with the additional advantage that the USA is outside the immediate zone of danger.  Even if our deterrence policy doesn’t work, what is the worst case? A bunch of Arabs get into a mutual nuclear exchange with the Israelis and/or each other?  The survivors, if any, will have disarmed themselves. We have enough oil and gas reserves to get along. Problem solved.

This is similar to the thinking of the hapless crew of the Titanic just before they learned of the full scope of the pending disaster.  Here two problems with the “realist” school…in addition to the obvious moral one:

[A.] The MAD doctrine of (deterrence through Mutually Assured Destruction) that worked fairly well during the cold War with the Soviet Union depended on a simple standoff between two rational adversaries, each with a great deal to lose. It will not apply to a complex array of armed adversaries some of whom are fanatics.  Mutually assured martyrdom is not a formula for the survival of Western civilization.

[B.] New climate modeling estimates, reworking the “nuclear winter” scenarios of the 1960’s, now raise the dire prospect that a much smaller nuclear exchange will have equally catastrophic world consequences.  There are new, chilling research findings, using more powerful computers than were available in the 1960s, jointly released by Alan Robock, professor of climatology at Rutgers University and associate director of the school’s center for environmental Prediction, and  Owen Brian Toon,  chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a fellow of the laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics there.

The Pakistani arsenal alone can “cripple global agriculture” with “the effects [that] would last for at least 10 years” dramatically reducing food supplies and producing mass starvation directly affecting “around one billion people” and indirectly affecting all the rest.

This was never just about Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other single theater of armed conflict and unrest in the region or the world.  It was and is about restraining and eventually disarming a 12th century, fundamentalist jihad that is seeking to use 21st century weapons and the platform of a superpower Islamist state or coalition.  This vision potentially unites the Muslim nations of the Middle East in one glorious purpose: to use war to cancel the unjust sense of inferiority visited on them by the decadent modern societies that have out-produced and outperformed them on almost every measurable level.

This is jihad as therapy.  Its real aim – both psychologically and existentially – is to tame, then shame, subordinate and ultimately to destroy the modern, secular-infidel Western model of civilization.  This quixotic Islamist dream is on a collision course with reality that most certainly will prompt the most rabid elements in the jihad struggle to overreach, to miscalculate and to actually use nuclear weapons, whether or not a majority of peace-loving Muslims approve.

This means that only a robust, even ruthless, policy of jihad disarmament holds out any realistic hope of preserving the world from disaster. This entails denying all of the jihad’s operatives and power brokers all access to atomic bombs, radioactive-contaminant bombs, and toxic biological agents.






Worry has focused on the U.S. versus Russia, but a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan could blot out the sun, starving much of the human race.


Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon

Scientific American, January, 2010,

“India and Pakistan, which together have more than 100 nuclear weapons, may be the most worrisome adversaries capable of a regional nuclear conflict today.

“Less sunlight and precipitation, cold spells, shorter growing seasons and more ultraviolet radiation would all reduce or eliminate agricultural production. Notably, cooling and ozone loss would be most profound in middle and high latitudes in both hemispheres, whereas precipitation declines would be greatest in the tropics.

“Our new calculations show that the climate effect s even of a regional conflict would be widespread and severe. The models and computers used in the 1980s were not able to simulate the lofting and persistence of the smoke or the long time it would take oceans to warm back up as the smoke eventually dissipated; current models of a full-scale nuclear exchange predict a nuclear winter, not a nuclear fall.

“The total amount of grain stored on the planet today would feed the earth’s population for only about two months…


Copyright © 2012 by Jay, B Gaskill (except for the quoted material)

As always, links, quotations with attribution and forwards are both welcome and appreciated.  For everything else, please contact the author via email < >.

Leave a Reply