TCS Daily

Revisiting WARNO

By James Pinkerton - August 2, 2006 12:00 AM

"Whither Deterrence?" That's an interesting question to ask at a time when undeterrable missiles, thousands of them, have been raining down on Israel from Lebanon. Of course, the question of deterrence -- or not -- has, shall we say, implications for Americans, too. Surely it would be better for any country if incoming missiles could be intercepted. And if I can be allowed a personal point, I will note that more than five years ago I wrote -- here in TCS no less -- that the civilized nations of the world needed to get together, as an international alliance, to thwart this threat.

Saul Singer, editorial page editor for The Jerusalem Post, asks that question -- "Whither Deterrence?" -- in a recent opinion piece. Singer laments that Israeli complacency allowed Hezbollah to build up that huge missile arsenal; the Israelis wrongly thought that their even larger retaliatory arsenal would keep Sheik Nasrallah in check. Today, he sighs, "There is a widespread sense that it was a mistake to rely so completely on deterrence. In reality, we had become the hostages of a terrorist army and its masters in Tehran. We thought we were deterring them, but they were deterring us from doing anything about their growing arsenal." To put it bluntly, Hezbollah can't be deterred, because they don't fear the deterring attack; Shia, stoked up with religious and nationalistic fervor, don't fear death. So now, with negotiations seemingly useless, Israel must go north into Lebanon to destroy the missiles. Maybe they will succeed in this mission, and maybe they will fail. But we know for sure that they can't stop the missiles once they're launched.

A similar threat-situation is emerging in North Korea. Everyone agrees that the NoKors are continuing to build up their nuke stockpile, even as they seek better missiles. So what's the US doing about this gathering danger? Not a whole lot. Of course, as things stand now, we don't have any good options.

  • First, there's the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea -- which is not a possibility. For one reason, the Chinese, Russians, and South Koreans wouldn't stand for it. For another reason, as the Israelis are discovering in Lebanon, it's hard, bordering on impossible, to knock out a well-entrenched missile system from the air.

  • Second, there's deterrence -- also not much of a possibility. Nobody knows what makes Kim Jong Il tick, but if he is not swayed by the starvation death of a couple million of his people over the last decade, the certainty of his being deterred by our counterforce is, well, dangerously uncertain. Indeed, we might even ask what would happen if Pyongyang fired, say, a single missile against the US. Would the countries surrounding North Korea -- China, Russia, even South Korea -- think it was OK if we responded fully to such a "pinprick" NorKo attack? The South Koreans might say to Uncle Sam, "Look, you lost a ship, or a base, because of that North Korean missile attack. But if this crisis escalates into full-blown war, then the North Koreans might take out their aggressions on the South, starting with Seoul, which is just 30 miles south of the DMZ. So all-out fighting could mean the death of millions, even tens of millions of Koreans. And we don't want that. So c'mon, Americans, learn how to take a punch. And practice, at most, 'proportionate response.'" The American commander-in-chief might not agree to such a request, of course. But it's also possible that he, or she, might feel there's no other choice but to limit the American response to a North Korean provocation. In which case, the whole idea of deterring North Korea would be lost.

  • Third, there's national missile defense (NMD). Oh wait, that's not really an option, because NMD doesn't really exist. Yes, the Pentagon has its Missile Defense Agency that's doing good work -- lately in conjunction with Japan -- but let's not kid ourselves: After a brief NMD surge at the beginning of the Bush administration, the idea of actually defending the homeland has been crowded out by other priorities, notably Iraq. As Brian Kennedy of The Claremont Institute explains, "Only the most rudimentary land-based system is being built and deployed in Alaska and California -- and it lacks the full complement of radars and satellites to ensure its success." So if Kim & Co. keep up their technical progress, the US might soon find itself confronting the same basic threat from North Korea that Israel is confronting from Hezbollah in Lebanon -- only much worse, because the North Koreans have nukes.

And speaking of nukes, how about those Iranians? We know about them, and the threat they pose.

Meanwhile, other countries are becoming more deadly, too. Pakistan, for instance, seems bent on becoming a major WMD power, if not a major economic power. And now Taiwan, which is a major economic power, wants to be a major military power, too. It should be noted, immediately, that Taiwan is an ally of the US, but it should also be noted that alliances aren't always permanent. And it should further be noted that if countries we like are standing up their missile programs, it's a lot less likely that countries we don't like will be standing theirs down.

Not surprisingly, all this missile-defense ferment, worldwide, is provoking Americans to think more about the NMD issue. While some plucky groups, such as the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, have been thumping the tub for a long time, with little audience, the bigfoot pundits are now starting to weigh in more heavily on the issues of missile defense, deterrence, and non-deterrence.

Last week The Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger speculated that we were now living, like it or not, in "Katyusha World," referring to the legendary Soviet-era missile. In this world, he continued, "To the specter of North Korea and Iran delivering WMD by long-range missiles, now add Katyusha-like strikes from very small rockets and missiles."

Writing in the same newspaper, military expert Robert Kaplan, reminded us that it's not just Hezbollah that can't be deterred. Reviewing Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias, by Richard Shultz and Andrea Dew, Kaplan noted the culture-chasm between traditional militaries and their likely future foes: "The problem ... is that the Pentagon -- the product of a rational, science-based Western culture -- relies on objective quantification for its analysis." Objective quantification, that is, about the success or failure of deterrence. "But what happens," Kaplan asks, "if there is nothing to quantify?" That is, if the enemy is more interested in martyrdom than quantification?

These are scary thoughts, undercutting, the strategy of deterrence that we inherited from the Cold War. And if the American people were properly alerted to the threat, they would demand action on National Missile Defense. That's the view of Fred Barnes, writing in The Weekly Standard, who espied a distinct political opportunity, for whichever party could embrace it:

"The widely held view in the defense community is that the deployment of anti-missile assets by the United States is not keeping pace with the growing missile threat. The war in Iraq, for one thing, has forced serious cuts in funding for missile defense. Planned deployments were delayed and the number of actual antimissile units was reduced. This year, House Republicans have sought to cut spending further." [Emphasis in original.]

Which is to say, it's possible that pro-NMD Democrats could get the jump on the Republicans. Democrats could ask, for example, if George W. Bush's "forward strategy for freedom" has made America safer against the increasing prospect of a missile attack. It's worth recalling that back in 1960, Democrat John F. Kennedy campaigned for the presidency decrying the "missile gap" -- that is, campaigning to the hawkish right of Republican Richard Nixon. And JFK, of course, won that election. But, as Barnes says of the Howard Dean-ized Democrats these days, "given their record, don't hold your breath."

Still there has been some progress on NMD. The Journal editorial page recalled a breakthrough moment in 2001, when the US pulled out of the ridiculously restrictive Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty:

"When Mr. Bush informed Vladimir Putin that the U.S. intended to exercise its legal right to withdraw from the ABM pact, the world didn't end. The Russians moved on to bigger issues, and much of the rest of the world decided that they'd like to join the missile-defense club. Six nations now participate with the United States in developing new missile-defense technology and nearly a dozen others use some of what's already been developed."

And the reason for this NMD enthusiasm, of course, is as clear as the flight path of a Hezbollah missile descending onto Israeli civilians. If the peace-loving nations of the world can't deter such barbaric attacks, those good-guy countries will have to learn how to defend against them.

And so, at last, if I might be permitted the personal again: In May of 2001, more than three months before 9-11, right here in TCS, I suggested the creation of a NATO-like consortium to deal with looming missile threats. I suggested calling it the World Anti-Rogue Nations Organization. WARNO had a nice evocative sound to it, I thought. WARNO was not only a good military idea, I argued, but it was a good political idea, too, addressing the concern, even then, that Bush was some sort of errant cowboy:

"But Bush could go further, beyond alleged unilateralism, beyond reported bilateralism, all the way to enunciated multilateralism. The most obvious and also most lustrous multilateral precedent, in which America sought to create a new peacekeeping structure around the world, is the Truman Administration. In the wake of World War II, Truman put forth the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, the Point Four Program to distribute foreign aid to the Third World, the Mutual Security Administration to send out military aid, and, of course, the capstone of post-war peacekeeping, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

A half-century later, the Cold War is over, but new forms of missile war -- and maybe attack by weapons of mass destruction -- loom on the horizon. So perhaps the time has come for Bush to propose some equally ambitious security structure, such as, say, a World Anti-Rogue Nations Organization. Is the planet ready for WARNO? Is Bush ready to lead such a multilateral organization, knowing full well that isolationists on the right as well as the left will oppose him?"

Admittedly, such an organization, explicitly aimed at missile defense, might not have prevented 9-11, but the idea of cooperation among allies is enduringly important. After all, despite all their political differences, the stable nation-states of the world are united by this much: They desire to see the skylines of their national capitals remain intact. So they could agree, at least, on WARNO.

And a couple of weeks later, in June 2001, I brought up the idea again, in the pages of Newsday, quoting Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, to the effect that the world could use a "multilateral entity [that] could deal with the many dangers that nation-states face -- from missiles to hackers to terrorists-under a broad internationalist umbrella."

Finally, the day after 9-11, I quoted the same Rob Andrews back here in TCS: "We should form an international alliance that would, as President Bush said, 'hunt down and punish' the terrorists. It has to be international because we need common ground with other organized states -- the Israelis, the Russians, the French, plus maybe less conventional allies, such as the Saudis -- to make this work."

Now, five years have gone by, and the overall threat to the world is greater than ever, as the missile + WMD threat has grown greater than ever.

It's never too late to do the right thing, of course, but maybe now the Israelis wish that all the civilized countries of the world had banded together, years ago, to establish a robust system of missile defense. As for other countries, not yet in the line of missile-fire, we've all been warned: It's time for WARNO.

James Pinkerton is the TCS Daily media critic.



What goes around comes around
The problem is self correcting. The only significant rogue nation today is the United States. And they are choking on the twin bones of Iraq and Afghanistan. In time the American public will get tired of the waste of blood and money and replace the rogue government with a more responsible one. Meanwhile their national vitality is being drained by the effort of fixing the unfixable.

But maybe you have a different perception. Is there some other government on earth that goes around invading and occupying other countries for ideological reasons? Maybe I've missed some key event in the news.

Moral Equivalence
I guess the rubber needs to meet the road and people need to decide:
1) Do they love liberty for themselves?
2) Do they love liberty for others?
3) What will they do to ensure liberty for themselves?
4) What will they do to ensure liberty for others?

You have apparenlty decided that you do not care if others have liberty and are not willing to defend it for yourself or for others.

Which then leads me to suspect you would prefer your liberty at the expense of others: tyranny, as long as you are the tyrant.

Neither liberty nor tyranny
You can love liberty for yourself all you like, friend. But when you start loving liberty for me, get off my cloud! I don't want to have to buy a gun just to argue with you.

Go pursue liberty on your own side of the fence. I have a whole different view of how life should be lived. It's called tolerance and amity, and is based on mutual respect.

WARNO Warrented
You really are a light-weight thinker, Roy. Do you actually believe the Jihadists or the North Korean Regime are in the least bit interested in "mutual respect?" They could care less about you and your "view of life." All they want from you is that you cave to their will -- or that you die. That's it, Roy. All the bleeding-heart liberalism in the world will not change that one iota. You can appease all you want, it won't change a thing. You and your "intellectual" allies are simply "useful fools."

I love the way roy declares opposition to terrorists to be roguish behavior
To roy, the only evil in the world is the US. And no amount of evidence will change his mind. (Not that he has one to change.)

the only liberty roy loves, is his own, everyone else is expendable.

tolerance and amity
Funny, these are two qualities you have never shown.

What you want is to force everyone to support you, and then force them to be like you. And if they won't, then you want them dead.

actually, roy does believe that
he is utterly convinced that the only reason anyone in the world misbehaves, is because the US forced them to.

Every single ill in the world can be traced back to something the US did.

Look at the "surrogacy" thread. Their roy openly declares that the entire problem is due to the Israeli's and their constant killing of innocent Hezbolla agents.

Mutual respect
I think I'm reading both groups correctly when I say they are both insisting that the US recognizes their right to exist. Which we don't.

Therefore their objection to our position is precisely the same as Israel's objection to the Hamas and Hezbollah position. It's amazing how the writers who convince you how to think what you think can cloud your mind against this simple realization.

That, my friend, is what mutual respect is all about. We agree not to trespass on your turf. You in turn agree not to trespass on ours.

BTW if you want a response from me, best to bring up my comment and then click on the "post comment" bar. You have responded instead to the original article.

I am on some sites with a disciplined response to silliness and some not. When people just spout the party line in any direction, the best thing to do is ignore them. If you follow this suggestion, which I have offered before, you will see the people in question growing shriller seeking a response. They really offer nothing, and I can only believe that they earn points in some way with friends or mentors. Don't feed it.

Party Lines
I have a different view about responders like Roy Bean and Liberal Goodman. I think they serve a very useful purpose. They give us great insight into the thinking of the fringe left. I guess given the take-over of the Democratic Party by such "thinkers," the use of the word "fringe" is no longer accurate. Still, you know from their comments what the other guys are thinking. That's got to be worth something.

terrorists have no right to exist
What's the use of respecting a group who's stated goal is to kill you?

No Korea and nukes
Pinkerton says that using nukes against No. Korea would not be approved by Russia, China etc,but did China, Russia etc. have to approve of Truman's order to drop two atomic bombs on Japan? His one order for two bombs could have been avoided if our Dept. of State could talk him into a massive prisoner exchange and our intelligence community could show how demoralized the Japanese were. Maybe a naval blockade of No. Korea and some support for a rebel group to overthrow Kim Jong Il could do the job.
Whatever happened to SDI and ozone man Gore's old favorite "Brilliant pebbles" to defend the United States from nuclear attack?
W's promise to punish the evil doers rings hollow as he has not captured or killed Osama Bin Laden or camel jockey Muammar Gaddaffi.

Cruising for a Bruising
I pulled this clip straight from the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance's website:

Arming of Hezbollah Reveals U.S. & Israeli Blind Spots
New York Times, July 19, 2006.

...While the Bush administration has stated that cracking down on weapons proliferation is one of its top priorities, the arming of Hezbollah shows the blind spots of American and other Western intelligence services in assessing the threat, officials from across those governments said. American and Israeli officials said the successful attack last Friday on an Israeli naval vessel was the strongest evidence to date of direct support by Iran to Hezbollah. The attack was carried out with a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, an American intelligence official said. At the same time, American and Israeli officials cautioned that they had found no evidence that Iranian operatives working in Lebanon launched the antiship missile themselves. But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.

Pants Down
Which means they won't be caught with their pants down again.

We Can Only Hope
...assuming the lesson they learned is that; "anytime, anywhere, we may be attacked with a cruise missile." Makes you wonder why the CMD radar defense system even has an OFF-button.

I am sure Pinkerton is not the first to propose WARNO or something like it.

Ben Bova is probably not the first to propose the International Peacekeeping Force (Sounds like Wilson's idea) but he proposed this in "Assured Survival" in 1984.

Soldier of Fortune discussed an American Foreign Legion several years ago. Composed of non-US citizens, it could be deployed with no American parents worrying about their children.

Patriot Games
The 159 patriot anti- missles fired to date , inclusive of systems development and deployment expense ,have cost
about $ 60,000,000 each. Estimates of the intercept rate vary from about 40% to near zero. (source ISI and MIT)

But as this is a technophile forum, let us assume Raytheon will indeed meet the unmet criterion of delivering a large number of patriots at $ 1.2 million, and that they achieve a 50% intercept rate agaist the crummy katushya and Frog missiles at issue today.

There are supposedly 8,000 of the things presently in Lebanon, and they are being produced elswhere at a rate on the order of 10,000 or more a year .

Have fun doing the math Jim.

You sure are ...
You sure are mighty easy about throwing around that word 'friend', Roy. Based on what you say and think, I'd guess you likely don't have too many. Just as a curiousity, Roy, is Roy actually an name typically used where 'your turf' is? With regards to the 'trespass' statement perhaps you might recall the statement made not too long ago by OSB's #2 spelling out the big plan which included eliminating the Israel, taking care of all of the ruling factions that help the crusaders, running/killing the westerners out of the ME and taking Spain back. If that's accomplished do you think they'd be likely to respect 'your turf'?

Spoiling for trouble
You seem mighty testy today, good buddy. Get up on the wrong side this morning? Or are you just prepared to dislike me?

We're here to debate the issues, not to give our pugnacity a workout. If you'd like to challenge any statements I've made, bring some evidence and have at it. I'll graciously accede if you can make your point.

"With regards to the 'trespass' statement perhaps you might recall the statement made not too long ago by OSB's #2 spelling out the big plan which included eliminating the Israel, taking care of all of the ruling factions that help the crusaders, running/killing the westerners out of the ME and taking Spain back."

By "OSB" I assume you mean Al Qaeda. Surely you can distinguish the bluster from their capabilities. Can't you? Al Qaeda has as much chance of destroying Israel and making all us earthlings bow to Mecca as you have of growing wings and flying to the moon.

I wouldn't get too upset by them. People say things when shaking their fist at the sky. But most of the bombs raining down on them are Made in America.

are not designed to defend against short range rockets.
The only defense so far are standard anti-aircraft systems.

A tactical high energy laser THEL is being tested but it mush not be deployed yet.

PAC-3 is a completly different system than first deployed in the early '90s. That system was designed as an anti-aircraft system and was quickly modified to try and knock down Scuds.

"Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is a surface-to-air guided missile defense system that builds upon the existing Patriot air defense infrastructure (used most notably during the Persian Gulf War in 1991). The new fully operational PAC-3 provides advanced capability against enemy cruise missiles, aircraft, and unlike previous systems, tactical ballistic missiles."

" Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) is a surface-to-air guided missile defense system designed to detect, target, and destroy incoming ballistic missiles flying three to five times the speed of sound. PAC-2 was first deployed by the U.S. during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and successfully shot down Iraqi Scud missiles. In doing so, it became the first anti-missile system to eliminate hostile warheads in combat.

The original Patriot Air Defense Missile System, dating back to the 1970s, was designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. During the mid-1980s, however, the U.S. Army decided to expand Patriot to deal with the growing threat of tactical ballistic missiles, in particular the Soviet SS-21A (Scarab A, OTR-21, Tochka), SS-21B (Scarab B, OTR-21, Tochka-U), and SS-23 (Spider, OTR-23, Oka). Initial modifications to the system were dubbed Patriot Anti-tactical Missile Capability-1 (PAC-1) and involved software, radar, and missile trajectory upgrades.

The second expansion phase, known as Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2), occurred between 1986 and 1988. It included a superior interceptor missile as well as upgrades to its software and guidance algorithms. The enhanced PAC-2 system had the ability to shoot down longer range ballistic missiles. In particular, it was capable of destroying the hardened metal shell that surrounded most enemy warheads.

PAC-2 arrived not a moment too soon. On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. immediately was faced with a serious problem: Iraq had Soviet-built Scud missiles capable of delivering both conventional and chemical weapons, and these Scuds were faster than the SS-21 and SS-23 missiles. The U.S. was certain that Hussein would launch if attacked. To make matters worse, the PAC-2 interceptor missiles were still in the initial stages of production and not scheduled for completion for another five months.

Raytheon immediately went into round-the-clock full-plant production mode and, by early January 1991, it had shipped 424 PAC-2 missiles to the Persian Gulf. On January 17, U.S. and Coalition forces commenced their air attack on Iraq. The following day, Saddam Hussein began firing his Scud missiles at military and civilian targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia. PAC-2 immediately went into action."

" Northrop Grumman has developed a new high-powered laser system known as Skyguard, said to be capable of defending against short-range ballistic missile, cruise missiles, short- and long-range rockets, artillery shells, mortars, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The new system is based on technology developed for the highly successful Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL). The recently unveiled program would appear to be a purely American rebirth of the THEL program, cooperation on which between Israel and the United States has undergone some difficulties.

In past years, THEL has successfully destroyed long- and short-range rockets, mortars, and artillery projectiles. According to a Northrop Grumman press release, Skyguard features greater power and a larger beam, which allows it to generate a protective shield of approximately 10 km in diameter. The system is designed to defend deployed forces, large military installations, civilian populations, or industrial areas. (Article) "

Costly Chemical Lasers
Lasers: Israel's Rocket Defense?, July 18, 2006

...Northrop claims that SkyGuard's exhaust is mostly helium and steam, and requires a "keep out zone" of only 30 meters, Aerospace Daily notes. The price: maybe $200 million, plus $1,000 per shot ... According to a company spokesperson, Northrop thinks it can squeeze Skyguard "into the equivalent of three standard, 20-foot ISO containers" -- much less than the eight contemplated before.


Northrop Unveils Skyguard Laser Air Defense System
Aviation Week, July 13, 2006

...Against harder RAM targets, the effective range is 5 kilometers (3.1 miles). Weather can degrade the system but not nullify it, Wildt said during a presentation in Arlington, Va., on July 12.

...The system's exhaust is mostly helium and steam, and requires a "keep out zone" of 30 meters (32.8 yards), which the company says is smaller than conventional rocket systems such as Stinger and Patriot. If required, a scrubber could be added to the system to make the exhaust completely safe, McVey said. Because of the chemical fuels required, each Skyguard shot costs about $1,000.

...Long a supporter of chemical lasers, the Army recently has shifted its focus to more mobile solid-state lasers, which are less bulky but also much less powerful than their more mature chemical cousins, McVey said.

Why WARNO is doomed to fail, and an alternative that might work.
WARNO relies on one thing that the United States simply cannot count on right now: International cooperation. Europeans are aware of the threats of terrorism and rogue nations, but they would prefer to let us take the heat for intervening to protect them. The Spanish example of cutting and running from Iraq is instructive here. They were convinced that they were bombed because of involvement in Iraq, and so they ran away to avoid future bombings. They thought it was safe to do so because they knew that we would finish the job, and help track down the people responsible for Madrid.

Even when they recognize a threat, they are more inclined to sit down and have diplomatic discussions and pass resolutions than to put troops at risk. Witness Iran. President Ahmadinejad is a terrorist (he took part in the hostage-taking at our Tehran embassy for one,) who has denied the holocaust and announced plans to use nuclear weapons on Israel. His end goal is to cause the beginning of World War III to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam. This is not a sane individual. He is actively seeking the apocalypse, and the Europeans want to talk to him. The same is true of Hezbollah and North Korea. They all want to reach agreement with people who have demonstrated that they will violate those agreements without a second thought.

I propose an alternative that I will call the ATA (Anti-Terrorist Alliance.) The ATA will consist of member states who are members of the "Coalition of the Willing" and anyone else who is willing to join and will agree to the terms. Main features will include:

- No alliances or weapons sales with non-ATA countries. Also, announce that there will be no retaliations against terrorist groups or interventions on behalf of non-member states.

- Manpower, money, materiel and intelligence-sharing committments to the ATA. Forces will be commanded by ATA appointed commanders. (This will be unpopular, but given that the same thing is essentially done with NATO, I think it could work.)

- Nations that provide active support to terrorist regimes and/or terrorist organizations (as defined by a list compiled by the ATA Council) will not be allowed to join, and should be sanctioned.

- There will be an ATA Council, roughly equivalent to the U.N. Security Council in role. Membership and voting strength will be determined by a nation's share of troop committments.

- The Council's first act should be the establishment of an alternative Geneva Convention-type document for dealing with the rules of war applied to insurgencies and terrorism, taking in to account the realities of fighting Jihadis. The U.N. cannot even define terrorism, being the first to the international table with some sort of proposal will carry a lot of weight.

I think the critical element that will make something like the ATA successful where the WARNO might not be are two requirements:

1) Pick a side: The ATA would make a very serious distinction between member and non-member states. When some of the international naysayers and fencesitters (like France, Germany and Russia) realize that they can longer expect cooperation and protection from us, they will have to choose between the evildoers in Iran, Lebanon, North Korea, Libya, etc. and the civilized world. The smart money is on them picking the side of civilization once they are bombed.

Furthermore, this should help eliminate free-riders. A nation that does not contribute will not be allowed to join, and a nation that does not join will have no protection from the ATA. Luxembourg and Switzerland were able to avoid joining NATO because NATO would act as a shield against Soviet tanks regardless of membership. Here they will not have the same assurance. Terrorists do not need to conquer Germany to reach Luxembourg.

2) Put your money where your mouth is: By requiring that nations that wish to join and have any sort of say in what goes on contribute both money and troops, it forces greater cooperation on the members, and hopefully will foster greater consensus as to what needs to be done. The effort becomes truly multilateral, rather than a U.S. led effort with a couple of hangers-on contributing thirty or forty troops.

As a final note, if this organization can take one or two successful and public actions, the U.N. will begin to be seen as the useless institution it represents. Just for this purpose the ATA is almost worth it.

19 ra_heads
destroyed the World Trade center.

A few well placed vials of anthrax would do a very nice job whereever you live Roy.

They may not get you to bow to Mecca, but they will kill you.

Insane and ridiculous
The minions of the Evil One are not about to get a stranglehold on my little corner of Pleasantville. There aren't enough of them on earth to take over here.

Plus, it's obvious from your anthrax comment who my real enemies are. People like you.

Must be nice to live in a cocoon,
safe from the world.

Living in a cocoon of my own devising
Actually, marjon, I'll tell you what's nice. Finding out what life is like on this earth, and building a cocoon that will be effective insulation against whatever the world has to offer in the way of difficulty and strife.

The Zionists didn't play it right. When they came to a new land in search of freedom from persecution and anger, they screwed their chances by making enemies of the people they found living there. This is not a moral judgment so much as a practical one. When you come to a new land, make new friends. Because they were there first. And if they're not happy, you ain't going to ever be happy.

I've lived in my present location only since I retired, seven years ago. And I'm happy, and my neighbors are happy with me. I didn't make a dumb mistake when I moved here.

You have misjudged the situation, they don't upset me at all any more than any other free roaming vermin. This is because the situation is being addressed instead of entertaining fantasy like notions that if we are "nice" to them they'll be "nice" to us.

You seem to be reading into this particular fantasy. I'd like to say that you've got your head in the sand, but where it actually is probably leaves a nasty stain about your collar.

"In 1897, though, Palestine was a sleepy Arab backwater of the Ottoman Empire. It had been ruled from Constantinople by the Turkish sultans for nearly 500 years and was populated by largely Arab peasant farmers, most of whom had never heard the word Zionism.

Herzl realized early on that the Jews as a small, weak, dispersed people would have no chance to create a state of their own without the backing of a world power."

"SHUSTER: Some early communities of Jewish immigrants had been established in Palestine. Estimates of their population in the 1890s range from 20,000 to 50,000, living among half a million Arabs. Herzl and his followers paid little attention to them, says Benny Morris, author of Righteous Victims, A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict.

BENNY MORRIS: They knew there were Arabs there. They preferred not to look at them, but they weren't Palestinian Arabs in the sense that these Arabs who lived in the area of Palestine at the time of Herzl didn't see themselves as Palestinians. They were just Arabs who saw themselves if anything as southern Syrians. But generally they regarded themselves as just Arabs. The movement, the national movement of Palestinian Arabs come into existence decades later. "

"After Jews began to immigrate and purchase land, Palestinians began to realize that this will lead eventually to either their domination or their expulsion. So spontaneous riots broke out in Jerusalem and Jaffa. And then again in 1929, in much larger explosion throughout Palestine. "

"It was only in the '30s when suddenly in one year as many Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine 1935 as had lived in the country in 1918 that the Palestinians realized: a. they were going to be outnumbered in their country and b. the Zionist movement was clearly developing at a pace which would enable it to conquer the country whether they had a majority or not. This terrified the Palestinians, and it led to a mass uprising which took the Palestinian leadership completely by surprise as much as it was a shock to the British. " {Sounds like what's happening in the USA with the Mexicans.}

First I think what is very significant to note is that there were Jews living in Palestine prior to 1900 and that in the followin decades, Jew emmigrated, presumably legally, and PURCHASED, not stole, PURCHASED land from, could it be Arabs?

So if the residents of New Hampshire don't like Libertarians, moving to their state to take over the government, they should prevent them?

And if people you don't like start buying property and moving into your little piece of heaven, you will try and stop them?

New folks in the neighborhood
You make my point elegantly. I might add a very good essay written by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in support of your thesis:

And yes, my key point is that if libertarians, or Palestinians, or Soka Gakkai wanted to move into my neighborhood in large numbers because they liked it and wanted to be a part of it, I would welcome them with open arms. That's what we're about here.

But... if large-L Libertarian Party members wanted to move in so they could constitute a numerical majority and subvert the place to their own ends, I would murder them in their sleep. I would wait until they moved in and set fire to their homes. And if they ran out the front door I would shoot them as they tried to escape.

Is that distinction clear? I cherish my freedom.

I would murder them in their sleep.
Three cheers for democracy.

Why am I not surprised to find out that roy declares he has a right to kill those who disagree with
roy beleives that only he has freedom, that the only freedom others have, is to live as roy commands them to live.

Imagine the horror, people allowed to not only have opinions that roy disagrees with, but actually being allowed to act on those opinions.

no wonder roy loves stalin and fidel, they all have the same attitude towards dissidents. Kill them.

Twisting the message
You persist in misconstruing what I have to say. In every comment I've made in this thread I've been at pains to say I have no problem with diversity of opinion. It's not people I disagree with, but people who would want to take over what is mine and then throw me out. And in this I am confident that you feel the same way I do. And would do the same thing I would do. Any of us would.

The Palestinians certainly would.

roy duck, dodges and weaves
roy, you said you have no problem with them having different opinions, so long as they have no political power to enact those opinions.

As soon as they get political power, you declared your right, even obligation, to kill them.

That you support the "right" of Palestinians to kill jews, has been made obvious, over and over again.

TCS Daily Archives