Under the nuclear hybrid of this policy, we state, very clearly and in advance, that if there is a nuclear strike in the US or on a participating ally the countries on the list will be retaliated against. Targets will include selected commercial centers, strategic locations, weapons development sites, ports, airbases, military units, etc. The response would be out of proportion to the strike upon us and include both conventional and unconventional weapons. Effort will be made to avoid unnecessarily wiping out non-strategic populations, but civilian casualties will be secondary to the strategic and economic value of the targets.

That is the policy. It's strong medicine and I doubt all of it could be implemented, but I do think the situation we are in will require a something like this whether we like it or not. I say we don't wait for the first strike before announcing what we will do afterwards.

Now I obviously haven't gone through all of the ramifications of implementing the above, but here are some random thoughts:

- One positive is that it comes as close as possible to solving the non-state actor problem. We simply say, “I do not care whether Osama or Hezbollah delivered this or not, those states that were capable of doing this and had shown a motive (i.e. those on the list) will be punished.” End of story.

- One negative is moral. Because we will inevitably killing tens/hundreds of thousands of innocents, can we as a nation accept this? My answer is that we will be responding to a first use in our own country (or an ally) and therefore it is necessary. In fact, by announcing what we will do in advance and publishing the list, nations on the list knew the implications of pursuing these weapons.

- I think one of the best points in its favor would be that it could evolve over time. If Iran gave in, they could simply be taken off the list (I think Libya presents a great example of how it would work – cooperate and you are off). In addition, the system could have a retirement clause. Once there is no one on the list, we will mothball the policy.

- Deterrence - North Korea may be too far gone to stop developing their own deterrent arsenal now, but I’m not sure they would be willing to auction them on the world market if, in the wrong hands, they could cause a holocaust not just in the US but in North Korea as well. I bet many potential Irans of the world would probably be pretty quick to stop their programs when they figure out they can’t get away with a direct strike or an al Qaeda handoff without committing national suicide.

- Non-proliferation - Keep in mind that this policy doesn't say anything about whether a country can possess nukes, non-proliferation can be left to the UN. It only addresses what will happen if an anonymous nuke goes off in the US or a US ally. However it would have a strong incentive in favor of non-proliferation. If a Syria wants nukes, Assad better be darn sure Ahmadinejad isn't going to use his.

- Cooperation - Spreading nukes could potentially be grounds for inclusion on the list. Would Pakistan have turned a blind eye to the AQ Khan network if it could have landed them on the list?

- Ally Participation - Participation in the program would be voluntary. Simply say to our European friends and other countries: “If you want to trust Iran, North Korea et al, that’s absolutely fine with us, we won’t guarantee your safety. Have fun.” This also helps solve the moral issue of participants, if a country didn’t want our protection in this manner, if they truly believe the UN will disarm these rogue nations or if they think it's immoral, let them opt out. Because, again, we are not insisting the nations on the list disarm, all we are doing is insisting that they do not use them on us. This also helps us judge the moral issue. If no countries opted in, we would probably have to reassess the program. However, if most of our allies opted in then it could potentially dispel many of the moral complaints. If it were truly immoral to do this, would Europe go along with us? I would be curious to see who opted in our out. One related point is that the public relations impact of this is greatly eased if we announce 20 participating countries rather than just the U.S. Collectivizing WMD defense goes a long way to deflect the inevitable uproar this would cause.

One further point, if the US were to be nuked in say LA, DC and NYC, what will the American people demand? Retaliation. And I doubt they are going to be too worried about an investigation into which uranium mine the fissile material came from. I understand this is very harsh and one could vary the details, but I sincerely believe it serves everyone’s interest that those contemplating harming us know what the ramifications of their actions will be beforehand.

Two other related posts on the same topic are Westhawk's "Deterrence for Rogues" and Belmont Club's "Does Ted Koppel read the blogs?"