America's Case for Packing Heat

In our next conflict, the coming war against Iraq, we are more likely to nuke something than we have been since the Wall fell. The truly caffeinated might take it a hair further: Nuclear weapons are closer to actual use than they have been since the Cuban missile crisis.

Peaceniks all over the world have cried, horrified, that nuclear weapons are designed for deterrence, not use. This is understandable coming from liberals, who authored that brilliant policy of awarding cash to farmers for not growing crops.

Not me, though. I heartily applaud our Commander in Chief for having his head screwed on straight. By bringing nukes to the battlefield, Bush is doing the very best he can do with what he's got to defend our country against terrorism.

Consider Bush's predicament.

Bush is all ready to start handing the world to Enron when September 11th hits. Suddenly, he has to defend the homeland. As Commander in Chief, he has two options: our nuclear forces and our conventional ones.

All of our nukes (and the sum total of our conventional forces) are not, currently, a deterrent to anything. The architects of the September 11th attacks, whatever their other ideas were, knew enough about America to realize that plane-bombing the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House was pretty likely to provoke a nuclear attack.

Plus, if Bush wants to drop one, he can't. Even our tactical nukes are country-busters; a small one, dropped on Afghanistan, would kill in Pakistan, Russia, and India. The bombs were designed to be too big to drop. Like our nuclear arsenal, our conventional force was built (again, by the above-mentioned liberals) for a war between the Soviet Union and the United States - a war which was designed not to happen.

Our conventional army, navy, marines, and air force have the same problem. As they are currently deployed, our armed forces have not subdued terrorist organizations or activity. They have not caught particular big-shot terrorists.

In fact, our armed forces haven't been able to do much at all in modern warfare. Starting with Vietnam, the U.S. has specialized in spectacular washes, invasions of tiny islands, and wary truces called victory by each side back at home.

This argument is usually followed by a pitch for a new gadget, such as smart-armor or an unmanned plane. This strategy has never worked in the history of modern warfare. No matter what sort of gizmoes he uses, today's soldier is no match for a bunch of low-tech, local marauders that live in the woods, cities and villages. He never will be.

Bush has done two things right. He has upped the intelligence budget and freed the spying community to do the grueling work necessary to get better information on terrorist warfare. And, he's come up with a plan to use our huge military-industrial apparatus for something useful - tiny nukes which reliably kill terrorists dead.

Of course we don't know what these nukes will look like. There are some existing examples. Nukes already go as small as an 8 inch cylinder which can be fired from a shoulder-launched RPG rocket launcher. They range in size from a half-kiloton to two kilotons, a firepower more closely resembling the fuel-air or thermobaric bombs, which were used in Afghanistan.

To look at it another way, the power of the explosion that took down the World Trade Center is roughly equivalent to that of a small nuclear bomb.

Analysts speculate that a miniature nuclear blast would have more punching power than a "conventional" fuel-air bomb. This would help us with governmental targets.

Saddam Hussein is a good example. He sleeps in a different spot every night. He has hundreds of hidden bunkers all over the country, and he can easily flee to safety wherever he is in the country. What's more, his weapons of mass destruction are as easily concealed as he is.

With an enemy as hardened and skilled as Saddam, only a massive ground force or the nuclear option would even justify the risk of undertaking such an attack. There's no point in risking the destabilization of the Middle East unless we have a truly good chance of killing him. A miniature nuke, combined with a general intelligence about Saddam's whereabouts, gives us the best chance of taking him - and his weapons facilities - out.

	Are you insane? (3.50 / 2) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 16th, 2002 at 10:33:59 PM PST

	I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that we deploy nuclear weapons. That's a sure recipe for the extinction of the human race. Once one nation deploys nuclear weapons, it's all over. --T. Paine

	Are you 'trolling' ? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by dmg on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:44:21 AM PST

	I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that we deploy nuclear weapons. That's a sure recipe for the extinction of the human race. Once one nation deploys nuclear weapons, it's all over. It wasn't over in 1945. Nuclear weapons proved highly effective in bringing about peace. I suggest you stop trolling, or if you are truly ignorant about modern nuclear weaponary, I suggest you go read up on it. Nuclear weapons, like handguns are perfectly safe if used correctly. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Nukes are like lawyers. (none / 0) (#9)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 12:21:20 PM PST

	Because They have them, We need them too.

	Re: Are you 'trolling?' (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:11:50 PM PST

	It wasn't over in 1945. Nuclear weapons proved highly effective in bringing about peace. I suggest you stop trolling, or if you are truly ignorant about modern nuclear weaponary, I suggest you go read up on it. Please elaborate on your twisted view of history. Remember, we were the only ones with 'the bomb,' if anything, all it did was show that we had 'the bomb' and that we'd use 'the bomb.' There was absolutely no risk of the whole world blowing itself up since we were the only ones who had the capablity. (And then, our capablity was small compared to now.) Nuclear weapons, like handguns are perfectly safe if used correctly. Nuclear weapons are as safe as a two dozen people holding guns on each other. One thing you truely overlook is that the USA will be the biggest target. We'd be considered the world threat in such a situation.

	Well (5.00 / 1) (#19)
	by Right Hand Man on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:01:44 AM PST

	That seems pretty safe to me. A lot better than being in a room with two dozen leftist homosexual pedophiles anyway. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Re: Well (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 07:17:29 AM PST

	I don't really see why you'd feel unsafe in a room with leftist homosexual pedophiles. Unless you're like, a six year old boy. Which may actually explain the mentality of most here at Adequacy.org. :)

	Letr me explain something (none / 0) (#48)
	by Stardragon on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 02:44:13 AM PST

	A small modern nuke is about 100 times more powerfull than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are trying to wage war in such a way as to not kill innocent people. Maybe you should se the pictures of the nanies and childern burned alive of scared for life and those that will simply die slowly and painfully of radiation poisoning before saying how safe nukes are.

	Re: Are you insane (none / 0) (#63)
	by DanMaggs on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 02:45:00 PM PST

	I'm glad there is at least one American with his/her head screwed on! The rest of you are crazy! Get over yourselves. You can't just go nuking everyone else. You'd be taking innocent lives unneccesarily, and whats more you'd instantly become the most dangerous terrorists in the world! YOUR NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY YOU KNOW

	Actually a good idea (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 16th, 2002 at 11:26:51 PM PST

	I know the liberals scream and cry when using nukes is suggested, but they are reacting to the word 'nuke' and the hollywood images of slaughter from above rather than considering the actual pros and cons of the deployment of modern, advanced tactical nuclear weaponry for its own sake. We already use 'bunker buster' fuel-air bombs to attack fortified positions, but these weapons have their own limitations and often a negative effect on the environment. Modern, clean nuclear weapons can provide much more focused, shaped charges that can destroy fortified positions with no concomitant loss of life outide the target area, as one would expect from the large fuel-air bombs, which cannot shape the charge nearly as effectively. The US war aims always involve killing as few civilians as possible, whilst disabling the capacity for belligerance and minimising collateral damage. Modern, clean tactical nuclear weaponry can achieve these aims on large fortified positions, whilst saving lifes that would otherwise be lost to oxygen starvation. Although many think that nuclear weapons are dirty, radioactive, etc, and involve large amounts of fallout and great human misery, with modern nuclear weapons such charges are completely false. The modern nuke has no long term damage. It is really a flash in the pan. Politically, too, there are advantages. The will to use such weapons politically will send the (nuclear) wind up those nation states that are still uncooperative with US war aims, such as the Saudis, Iran, etc. Recently the Saudis refused to provide passenger lists to US authorities of planes departing its soil for the US. This is the kind of minimal cooperation the US has had across the Arab world, where the common man, and the middle classes, expressed public 'sympathies' for 9/11 whilst privately gloating. If the US wishes to stamp out global terrorism and halt those states, such as Iraq, which back it and are developing nuclear and biological capabilities of their own, then the US must be prepared to do whatever it takes in the teeth of opposition.

	Of course.. (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 09:41:13 AM PST

	..all that scientific research about radiation is a crock of shit as well, no? Now that our technology is great enough to have a 'shaped charge' for nuclear explosions, we can have them use their destructive capabilities to take out areas and somehow not irradiate them? Haven't you heard of a half life? Yes, I suppose the nuclear warhead composite will have been 'pre-programmed to dissipate after the explosion'. Ooh, or maybe the theory about your shaped 'nucular' charges is entirely based on your limited knowledge of how nuclear power plants work: "humm, nucular weapons are gud, arent they, cletus? we got a nuclear plant just down yonder, and it hasnt killed anyone yet! HAw haw haw!" Just because something is nuclear and there are certain connotations of 'cleanliness' trying to be pushed onto people (and connotations work really well, believe me), there is still fact and, should you ever be nuked, no matter what I say here, you will know the truth. Sometimes I wonder why I bother replying to such idiocy.

	Neato! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 03:03:46 AM PST

	Hey, I just noticed that if you follow the link from "amazing washes" to the well known soft-core porn flick, The Bikini Car Wash Company, and look at Amazon's "related items," you'll see the uber-geek film Antitrust, which has nothing to do with bikinis or car washes. If it weren't so late, I think I'd make that the start of a bit of ad-hoc demographics research. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Whatever works (none / 0) (#4)
	by lowapproach on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 04:09:32 AM PST

	I don't think that any sort of conventional military approach will work, as you also believe. However, there will not be a swift increase in the standard of living of the average Middle Easterner, so long as their leaders deliberately create opportunities for violence to bolster the public need for them [e.g., Sharon and Arafat both] and beat their own populace into submission where it doesn't agree with the need for a fortieth presidential palace or armored division [e.g., Hussein and Assad]. It doesn't matter what we blow up, if we're unwilling to build something better in its place. The military force is the underwriting for the business proposals that comprise diplomacy. The United States [I would say the United Nations, but there are only a few in that body who count for anything whatsoever other than Kofi Annan] needs to find competing leadership within these spaces, and try to build them up to a point where they can compete with the existing power structure. The U.S., for its part, can spend, spend and spend some more on building the necessary utilities, sanitation and roads that will make living standards rise in these areas where the warriors of future jihads live. If you're secure enough in the normal dreams of family and steady work, then chances are good that you won't volunteer yourself to wear a vest of plastique and drywall screws [always exceptions to this rule; Osama bin Laden had the best of everything and great wealth by any standard, and still chose his present course - this is meant to reduce his power to recruit]. Lastly, I wouldn't underestimate what these strikes do. It takes time and effort to set up the training facilities and pools of recruits that al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan and several smaller areas throughout Asia, and now that every country in the world knows what we will do once we find out where they are, al-Qaeda won't have the support it would want from local authority to fulfill their training mission.

	"Standards of living". (none / 0) (#5)
	by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 05:34:18 AM PST

	Honestly, I think you should improve the "quality of life" of, for example, North Carolina black sharecropers before you start making arrogant statements about "Middle Easterners". Seriously, do you have even a passing idea about the conditions some people in North Carolina live in? I'm not even talking about the urban disintegration that occured in America -- the "Third World" takes a royal smack-down in this case. -- Peace and much love...

	Yes (none / 0) (#11)
	by lowapproach on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 02:07:25 PM PST

	I spent my childhood on the edge of Appalachia in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, so yes, I do understand the conditions in which the rural poor live. It was not intended as arrogance to say that living conditions for the Middle Eastern poor are terrible, just a recognition of the fact that allows suicide agents to be recruited weekly by terrorists. In general, access to potable water, electricity, refrigeration, heat, medical care, education and a myriad of other things is possible at the very least, and usually likely. No one in North Carolina can say that he will never have the chance to see a doctor because there are too few in the country, or because medical facilities don't accept people of a certain ethnicity or income class. Above all, the State of North Carolina does not conduct military raids on homesteads in the pine clutches, nor do black sharecroppers feel so downtrodden by the State that they engage in daily gun battles with riot police. There's an enormous difference between the Middle East and North Carolina, and the line between a satirist and an idiot grows more blurred every day.

	Modern Nukes can be very clean (none / 0) (#58)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 10:38:59 AM PST

	Hydrogen bombs, of course, were sepcifically developed to create large explosions with little in the way of long term radiation. This is the 'clean' form of nuclear energy the sun uses. I suggest you study a little bit about nuclear weaponry before blabbing on about outdated Plutonium bombs and their radiation problems.

	hmmmm (none / 0) (#12)
	by nathan on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 02:37:58 PM PST

	While I respect the Palestinian people, I am nonplussed by your elision of Arab hostility toward Israel. Now, I'm quite aware of the numerous historical sins that accompanied Israel's foundation, and to an extent even its imagining. Still, the Arabs hate the Jews plenty. It's not just Palestinians - after all, it wasn't the Palestinians who invaded in 1948, 1967, and 1976. There is so much hatred for Israel and Jews that it's prevented the Palestinians from being treated humanely by their own cousins. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I think... (none / 0) (#15)
	by tkatchev on Sun Mar 17th, 2002 at 10:30:53 PM PST

	...that you misunderstand the living conditions in the Middle East. Just because you saw something on CNN doesn't make it true; the suicide terrorists are usually from stable middle-class families, who do what they do out of geopolitical reasons. (I doubt that anyone who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from is going to be a good terrorist -- have you ever known somebody who is starving? These are not the sorts of people who are contemplating ending their lives, believe me!) Also, access to water, electricity, etc. is mostly a matter of climate, not a matter of infrastructure development; for example, thoughout most of Central Asia, fresh water is a fairly rare commodity that local governments fight over very fiercely. There just isn't enough of it for everyone. (Understandable when you live in a desert, after all.) -- Peace and much love...

	Geopolitical? (none / 0) (#17)
	by Ben Reid on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 02:21:31 AM PST

	When are we going to face the truth about these suicide bombers. They were not fanatics or people following some political agenda, they were following the very tenets of the violent Islam faith. But who would dare make the connection between the declaration of war on America and the declaration of war on the entire world by Islam? The suicide bombers did not act out of some humanitarian cause, no, they were simply getting the quick way to their reward. The only sure way of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Know what a jihad martyr is promised? A palace of pearls in which are 70 mansions. Inside each of these mansion are 70 houses and in each each house is a bed on which are 70 sheets. On each sheet a beautiful virgin. A martyr is assured that he will have the appetite and strength of 100 men for food and sex. Muslim boys are fed this dream from earliest childhood. Over 100 verses in the Qur'an advocate the use of violence to spread Islam. Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends....Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them.... " (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). This is official Islam and cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer.

	Total bollocks (nt) (none / 0) (#20)
	by walwyn on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 05:39:27 AM PST

	Care to ... (none / 0) (#27)
	by Ben Reid on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 02:13:13 PM PST

	... elaborate on your insightful comment or provide any contrary evidence?

	Evidence would be wasted... (none / 0) (#28)
	by walwyn on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 04:25:08 PM PST

	... as you need to extract yourself first: [2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. [4:90] ........ Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them. [8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient. [2:256] "There shall be no compulsion in religion...". [60:8] "GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable." Now lets take a look at your bollocks: Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends....Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them.... " (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). This crap is a stringing together of out of context phrases, such that it devoid of meaning. The first part (5:51) is an injunction not to rely on other religions for protection as you may be betrayed. 9:5 deals with allies that betray you. Perhaps I should take a scan through the bible, extract out of context passages, and then, with a sense of schadenfreude, conclude that Christianity advocates child sex. However, I doubt your hypocrisy would appreciate the irony.

	Hmmmm (none / 0) (#33)
	by Ben Reid on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 09:28:40 PM PST

	I'm not going to get into a Qur'an quoting game with you, for every text/interpretation promoting non-violence that you can come up with, I can come up with at least one promoting violence. The Qu'ran contradicts itself, and is highly inconsistent, so it is kinda pointless in any case. If you disagree with me then that's fine, we won't convince each other either way via a weblog. I'm not referring to "mainstream Islam" as the press have conveniently defined it, if you consider yourself a mainstream Muslim then my post was not directed at your set of beliefs. Sorry. I still believe that you are trapped in your religious system but again, you will probably disagree. I am referring to the Islam of non-western countries, so called primitive Islam - the type that Hasan and Bin Laden follow. The point stands, to become a jihad martyr is the only way to ensure your entry into paradise. And out of the 30 or more nations in which Islam is in the majority and in control of the government, there is zero religious liberty. That speaks for itself.

	I feel nervous. (none / 0) (#34)
	by nathan on Mon Mar 18th, 2002 at 10:01:51 PM PST

	Can somebody please hand me an eLuddite? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Back for more? (none / 0) (#36)
	by walwyn on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:23:54 AM PST

	I'm not going to get into a Qur'an quoting game with you Just as well as what quotes you have given don't support your position. Current score 5-0. It is a shame though because I'm sure your ignorance would provide no end of amusement. The Qu'ran contradicts itself, and is highly inconsistent Priceless, Xtians complaining about contractions in a religious book. I am referring to the Islam of non-western countries, so called primitive Islam The term your look for is Wahhabism, similar to Southern Baptist. However, 'Wahhabism' is a minor sect amongst Muslims whether in western countries or not. Now what was that about being 'trapped in your religious system'? The point stands, to become a jihad martyr is the only way to ensure your entry into paradise. Wrong yet again. I suspect you are confused about the concept of Jihad, suffice to say that it is a defensive doctrine. You probably don't know that it is not even included in the five pillars of Islam. And out of the 30 or more nations in which Islam is in the majority and in control of the government, there is zero religious liberty. Wrong again. You are comparing a theocracy to a secular state and drawing a conclusion on one particular religion. Try a modern Christian theocratic blueprint, you too can enjoy a stoning, or look back at some history.

	Re: (none / 0) (#39)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 03:15:25 PM PST

	I'm happy to let you think you've won, the quotes you dragged out were atypical and oft quoted in articles defending Islam after 9/11. I could have gone through each one of your quotes, examined some of your translations (e.g. aggressors vs transgressors in [2:190]), and then given my reasoning but I have done this before and seen how pointless it is. Usually the other person gets aggressive and abusive after the first post - I don't talk to these people. You being a good example. I am no expert on Islam that's for sure, but I do read and listen to people who are experts (Christian and Muslim) and I base my comments on them. You're points on primitive Islam, jihad and theocracy were expected. In fact, I have serveral good and honest Muslim friends who give the same viewpoint and I understand - it's just that the roots and doctrine of your religion don't agree, at least IMO.

	Measure for measure (none / 0) (#40)
	by walwyn on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 04:57:52 PM PST

	We've got your measure: Despite the fact that Muslim acquantances tell me otherwise. I'll post abusive bigotry 'This is official Islam and cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer' across the internet, because my pastor says Islam is a crock of shit. I'll misquote and distort Islamic passages to bolster my position, whilst maintaining that extensive study of the bible is need to understand its meaning. Then when called to account, I'll bleat about people getting abusive and aggressive whilst reiterating my slanders. I'm going down the pub.

	whatever (none / 0) (#41)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 05:36:26 PM PST

	Just keep convincing yourself that Christians are ignorant, know nothing about Islam, are bigots and get all their information from pastors. Much easier for you that way.

	p.s. (none / 0) (#43)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 19th, 2002 at 07:35:34 PM PST

	And if you are willing to read the words of a former Muslim: 1 2

	READ ALLL ABOWT 'T (none / 0) (#47)
	by walwyn on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 01:12:22 AM PST

	Pat Robertson finds some one to trash Islam.

	one question (none / 0) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 12:20:40 AM PST

	Let's assume you're right and pretend it is Muslim nations committing war against Christian nations in the modern world instead of the other way around. What is the "Christian" geo-political response to this, and since when was God interested in the contingent facts of the balance of political power in your material existence? Islam is just another Caesar, right? In other words, why are you motivated to make the point you're trying to make about Islam? I think we need to demarcate the line between your understanding of spiritualism and everyone else's understanding of power.

	re: (none / 0) (#49)
	by Ben Reid on Wed Mar 20th, 2002 at 04:55:52 AM PST

	Your tone is appreciated, I am happy to answer people who speak in a civilised fashion. I don't believe it is Muslim nations against Christians as such, although they are a primary target, I believe that it is Muslims vs non-Muslims in general (including atheists/agnostics etc). Let me also re-iterate, acts of terrorism in the name of any religion, including Christianity are simply wrong and unjustifiable, make no mistake about it. However, I believe that the 9/11 attacks were not simply the acts of Muslim "fanatics" as many have stated but the acts of devout fundamentalist Muslims who were earnestly following their religion. It is true that many Muslims are peaceful, loving people, especially those in western countries. It's just that, at least in my opinion, they are following a sort of quasi-Islam and not the teachings of Muhammed. Militia acts by Christians are carried out in spite of the teachings of Christ. Militia acts by a Muslim are done because of the teachings of Muhammad. I pray that we can open the Islamic Curtain in arabic countries and allow freedom to enter. I pray for a world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart. I pray that Muslims may find the Grace and Mercy of God, not the hopelessness of salvation by works.

	To be serious, (none / 0) (#60)
	by derek3000 on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 01:32:27 PM PST

	there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Muslim fundamentalism is the result of socio-economic-political conditions in the Middle East. Take, for instance, Afghanistan in the 70s, which was a pretty 'progressive' and tolerant place before the Russians came calling. Uniting people against a common enemy can sometimes have dangerous side effects. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	A bright future (none / 0) (#61)
	by walwyn on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 02:06:24 PM PST

	There is nothing in my Britanica of 1980 that mentions Islamic fundamentalism in Afganistan. It talks mainly of a burgeoning democracy and the hopes for a brighter future, despite economic problems.

	Yes. (none / 0) (#62)
	by derek3000 on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 05:45:47 PM PST

	To be fair to Ben, I like him. But I just don't agree with him this time. First of all, both religions have people who manipulate the text to fit their own needs. Second, as tkatchev said, religious wars are about politics, not religion. Maybe the exception was Stalin, who seemed to flip the two. But you can't expect much more from someone so involved in circular reasoning[1]. Lastly, as I said before, the rise in fundamentalism in the Islamic community can be misleading for two reasons: 1. There are more Muslims than Christians. I would be interested to see what percentage of both groups would be considered militant/fundamenalist/etc. This is not to say that I assume the results would be similiar--I would be truly interested to see the results. 2. The political, economical and social climates where Islam flourishes are vastly different from the US. If you don't take these into account, you are not doing the situation any justice. [1]"Man is what is to be crushed, stamped on, mercilessly worked over, in order to produce a new man." ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie