Beneath the Planet of the Apes - bomb - mutants
Mutant Service from beneath the planet of the apes

You’re not going to like this. As a matter of fact, I don’t like it either. You may feel free to shoot loads of barbs my way, though I won’t have time to respond to them. I just feel like I ought to float an idea. Make of it what you will. And don’t think I don’t realize this is an exercise in armchair speculation. I am a policy maker only in the kingdom of my own imagination. So are you.

Not too long ago, the President and his sock puppets were seeking to bamboozle, er, I mean convince Congress and the American public to okay his misbegotten plan to “punish” the Syrian Fuehrer Assad for gassing his own citizens for the crime of wanting a monster like him out of office. I agreed with the great majority in rejecting the whole enterprise. I had supported George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were noble experiments. They have proven failed experiments. Why walk right back into the lab for another round of trials? I used to regard it as racist to disdain the Middle Eastern nations as not yet ready for democracy. Whether it is racist or not, it now appears to be true. Democracy cannot function in the midst of endless, fanatical sectarian terror. And we ought to have learned that the whole area is a quicksand pit. Good luck with it, Arabs.

Our reluctance to continue in the job of World Policeman inevitably raises the question of Isolationism. President Bush was probably right at least about this: if we don’t fight the terrorists on their own ground, we will more and more fight them on ours. So if we shake the dust from our feet and leave the Islamic countries to their fate, we are going to have to decide how to fight the battle that will follow us home. And I have an idea. This is the part I don’t like any more than you will.

Remember the Cold War policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD for short? We uppedRad the stakes as high as they would go, warning that if either we or the USSR unleashed a nuclear assault on the other, there would be an apocalyptic response. It was a suicide pact and succeeded in making any direct warfare between the parties moot. It just wasn’t a viable option, and neither was any conventional conflict that might lead to it.

But this will not work in preventing the kind of asymmetrical conflict we have with Islamist Jihadis. But this might. I am thinking about a policy of Retaliatory Assured Destruction, a response to any terror strikes on American soil provably linked to Al-Qaida and affiliated demons. In the wake of such a terror incident we would launch annihilating nuclear strikes on any of the countries known to harbor Al-Qaida and not already trying desperately to liquidate them. Such an announced policy might prompt Pakistan, Afghanistan, whomever, to get busy fast trying to exterminate the vermin lest they go down with them. And if they do go down with them, then they asked for it. I’m not talking about regime change. We’ve seen how futile that is. We train the armies of the new government only to have them turn around and shoot our trainers. To hell with that. To hell with them. We will have to play hardball once it’s the only game in town. Israel’s been in spring training for a long time now. We should be, too.

Isn’t this barbaric? Yes, but I fear the world situation as it appears to be shaping up will leave us no other options. If we indulge our tender consciences, we will become accomplices in the demise of Western Civilization (pardon the redundancy).

Europe is on its way to Islamicization. Nice knowin’ ya! The Eiffel Tower will become a minaret. “Idolatrous” art in the Louvre will go the way of those Buddhist rock reliefs in Afghanistan once the Taliban took over (unless we forcibly air lift the treasures out of there—sounds like a good movie plot). You know the crazy Salafists in Egypt want to destroy the “pagan” Pyramids, right? Well, at least we’ve got pictures of all that stuff. These bastards are the locusts from the bottomless pit.

You understand, I’m not hoping any of this will happen; I’m just thinking about the worst case scenario. Somebody has to.

So says Zarathustra.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to RAD

  1. grgaudreau says:

    Holy “nukelar” weapons, Bob, you’re not kidding when you say “Rad”! I shudder to think what would happen on the international scene, especially with the Chinese and the Russians, if the US were to, say, use a small tactical nuke and hit Mecca, for example–we all know that the Saudis support these terrorist bastards, but that would not go down well at all. I think the US would be inviting the “Mother of all wars”. Here in Canada, we think the US is rather hawkish and meddlesome, but nukes in the middle east!?!? That’s way over the top, even for the US of A.

    Generally speaking, I love Zarathustra Speaks, but this one is a bit too rad for my taste.

    GR Gaudreau

  2. tybee4ch says:

    Dr. Price: You are spot on. No other choice. Wilbur Smith the author has written about this. This is not a word fight but a real one. Carter in Midway, GA

  3. bahumuth says:

    I really enjoy your podcast but you should refrain from embarrassing yourself with conspiracy theories about Muslims taking over Europe. The number of Muslims in the European Union is less than 4%. Russia boasts between 6 and 30% and they somehow averted converting to Sharia Law.

    “Playing hardball” just sounds like the same kid of right-wing nonsense used to justify defending stupid wars like Vietnam. “We could have won that 19-year-long war if only we had the guts to kill more women and children!”

    I’m glad that you, like every other conservative, suddenly “learned your lesson” about Iraq once you no longer had a Republican president to defend, but maybe if you and all the other conservatives had learned it after the discovery that the Nigerian yellowcake deal was fake, or after realizing that all the destruction in Iraq on your TV screen wasn’t just liberal propaganda, or after the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group said we should get out, or after the State Dept. admitted the U.N. presentation Powell gave on the WMD’s was fiction, or after the Plame affair, then maybe we’d have a lot less than the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies lying in the grave just so Republicans could prove that they don’t “cut and run” like Democrats do.

    Republicans aren’t the only ones who do not want to get involved in Syria. But starting a war is not the same thing as trying to end one. It’s downright insulting to try and compare a 5+ year invasion and occupation of a country in response to a completely different enemy, based on fabricated evidence, in complete rejection with the international community, which ultimately led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, to a UN-backed mission to punish a regime for violating international standards using limited air strikes for a short period of time, with no boots on the ground, in a civil war that was not started by us. Since these planned strikes did not involve a plan to end the war and curb the ongoing violence but are merely designed to “punish” Syria, then I don’t think it’d be a good idea either, but even if we did go through with it, then it would have been more like billion-dollar war in Libya than the trillion-dollar war in Iraq.

    I had a lot more respect for Republicans finding their way to becoming pseudo-Libertarian Neo-Confederates back in 2004, but this new wave of Republicans becoming “Libertarian” or “Tea Party Patriots” just seem to be jumping on the bandwagon to the Republican Re-branding ceremony, and it’s especially loathsome to hear the same “Muslims are going to take over the world” propaganda even as they begin to embrace isolationism. Not every war is bad. Clinton saved thousands of lives in the Balkans without a single American casualty and Republicans didn’t show the “resolve” to support that war for one day, much less five years.

    So says Jeff from Chalmette.

  4. rfisher8211 says:

    I agree. We’ve paid billions of dollars to Pakistan to … keep Osama bin Laden safe, and then they whine after we’ve smoked him. We should have retaliated against them for harboring terrorists that were plotting attacks on us, not *reward* them with billions of $. It’s absolutely insane. They need to police themselves or face the consequences for aiding terrorists.

  5. admin says:

    [Reprinted from Bob’s personal e-mail from Charles Hoffman, Los Angeles, CA]


    Just read the latest Zarathustra. This is similar to my take on it, although I stop short of nukes –best not to open that can of worms. Plenty of other ways to blow stuff up. My foreign policy: “Fuck with us in any way and we will pound you flatter than a pancake. And we won’t hang around and try to fix everything –we’ll just forget about you until you’re a problem again.” I suppose I’m the last person to think taking down Saddam Hussein was a good idea. No one else had his wealth and power, no one else had his clout in the Arab world, and no one else flouted his contempt so openly. He had to go. I consider Iraq War an historic inevitability that would have come about no matter what –Saddam would have forced our hand and it wouldn’t have mattered if the president was Obama or Hillary or whomever. Even now, if one of these potentates becomes too big of an asswipe, even someone like Obama is going to realize, “Hey wait a minute –I have giant aircraft carriers.”

    Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan did indeed force the enemy into a defensive posture and make them react to what we were doing –we have to keep pressure on them somehow; otherwise they will gain the initiative. For the future, I see less in the way of open warfare and more subterfuge, use of proxies, and use of special ops. Bush administration began the war on Islamic terror right after 9/11, not fully realizing this was a whole new ball game. World War II was like a boxing match –hit, hit, hit. The Cold War was more like wrestling or grappling, the contest being settled by sheer endurance. The war on Islamic terror is going to be a mixed martial arts bag. Like I said, a new ball game –and therefore a certain amount of trial-and-error involved. After all, who in 1946 knew exactly how to wage a fifty year cold war?

    “Give peace a chance.” Yeah, right. It had its fucking chance. The Islamists have been pissing on us since at least 1979 and what did we do? Backpeddle all the way. As for an end of war –as far as major industrialized nation-states slugging it out toe to toe, it HAS been ended. You’d think more people would be happy about that.

    Best, Chuck

  6. admin says:

    [Reprinted from Bob’s personal e-mail from C.J. Henderson, Brooklyn, NY]

    In all honesty, I don’t get it …

    What’s to object to in that?

    I’m not trying to be funny. What is it you don’t like about your proposal? That it’s practical? That it makes sense? That it merely says … fuck with us one more time and we’ll give you a fucking like you ain’t never known before?

    Sorry … I’ve been saying this for years. Put up or shut up. Now, we don’t nuke six countries for a mailbox explosion. But … another 9/11 … a sarin gas attack in the NYC subways at rush hour … a blockbuster bomb set off on Hoover Dam, cutting the power for hundreds of millions, destroying crop land, ruining the water supply for 20% of the country …

    Fuck ’em. Nuke ’em. Here’s the speech–

    Six months ago we warned the world what was coming. We said any such barbaric attack would not be tolerated. An attack that kills this many civilians, launched by an enemy without the decency to declare their intent, launched by an enemy who murders the innocent in the name of a fairy tale? A make-believe character? This is more than barbaric, this is lunacy. And it will no longer be tolerated.

    Over the last six months, some of you have joined in the war on terror to the fullest. Your efforts have hurt the enemy, and they have cost you. Now they will pay for all their mistakes. We told everyone we were not bluffing. Now we prove it.

    For the next fifteen days, every day at noon, a city housing major terrorist leaders will be destroyed. If they are in Paris, it will be destroyed. If they are in Kuzian, Tebol or Berlin, it will be destroyed. Remove the cancer from you lands, or we will do it for you.

    And, to prove that we are not bluffing, do understand that today is one of those days.

    Today, the Ka’ba Mosque, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, is ground zero. If you are there, do not bother to flee. Simply look up. Why look … there comes the hand of god now, to reward you for all your efforts. The only god you and the rest of your kind ever need fear.

    (pause for split screen and resulting flash)

    That was today.

    Where is tomorrow?

    Twenty-four hours. Clear the filth from your land. You know who you are. Do it.

    Or we will.

    Something like that … right? Sorry, maybe old men just like rattle sabers, but I say, get it over with now.

    Happy New Year.
    yer pal;

  7. Monty Python – Marriage Guidance Counsellor skit
    “This is your moment Arthur Putey”

    RMP, hope you are doing well & HNY. These sort of posts of yours are starting to make much more sense now after I’ve read your book “Paperback Apocalypse” (2007). I just keep telling myself, [Arthur Putey voice] “Yes! I know I can do this too! I’ve been pushed around long enough! This is it! At last I’m a man!”


    (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, RSV) Indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

    and Krishna pisses his pants laughing…. he loves Python!

  8. MalleusMaleficarum says:

    Cor blimey governor! Harsh words indeed.

    Are you not, perchance, playing into the hands of your theist adversaries who think that anyone who backslides from Fundamentalist Christianity becomes a war-mongering demon atheist?

    Still – I applaud your outrageous ability to say what you think and the hell with it.

    A dying art.


  9. randy says:

    “No other choice.”

    Wrong. There is always at least one other choice Tybee4ch. In this case the rational choice is not to take an action that is almost certain to initiate a nuclear war that would claim billions of lives.

  10. Backwards Ganglion says:

    I agree that the threat of severe punitive military action without any “nation building” nonsense would be a more effective deterrent than the incredibly wasteful approach we’ve been using. However, you would have to be 110% sure that a given terrorist attack was carried out by the party you plan on holding responsible. Terrorists would have an extreme incentive to either avoid detection or pass the blame off on someone else (possibly even framing a nation they would like to see destroyed).

    Of course, there has always been a simple, easy, inexpensive, nonviolent and humane way to prevent terrorism from hostile nations. It doesn’t even involve an intrusive, expensive, inconvenient, potentially dangerous security/police/spying apparatus.

    Drum roll please…

    Don’t import millions upon millions of people from third world countries, especially from countries with a penchant for terrorism, where lots of people have a grudge against you. Make things very unpleasant for intruders and more so for those who knowingly employ, house, or smuggle them. Don’t give welfare handouts, affirmative action preferences, subsidized loans, etc. to the very few foreigners we deem worthy of granting citizenship or residency.

    Sure, many of them are decent people, but being a decent person doesn’t give you a right to citizenship or residency in the U.S., or any other country, for that matter.

    Cue the hysterical protestations from those who think enforced diversity at any cost is “our greatest strength”, and anybody who doesn’t agree enthusiastically enough is a Nazi. The same people who created this situation, against the will of the general population, will now insist that it is unthinkably cruel to actually deport anybody, or to start enforcing immigration law after a long period of actively facilitating illegal immigration. Squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube, and then ridicule anybody who wants to put some back in. Let’s just keep squeezing.

    How many have to die, here and abroad, foreigners and citizens, on the altar of diversity? So far, the count is well into the thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands

    if the recent Mid-East east wars could have been avoided without the 9/11 attacks as a provocation/justification. And that’s just one cost amongst countless others that we needlessly impose upon ourselves.

  11. thepowerofmeow says:

    This is just crass utilitarianism.

    I understand the fear, but we can’t become the same as the crazy Islamists to defeat them.

  12. JCHardy says:

    I think the military almost has you covered on this one; they call it Shock and Awe. Nuclear weapons aren’t really required, and you can use it for show or for actual destruction. I think what we need is zombie Gen. LeMay.

Leave a Reply