Larry Johnson at TruthOut.Org argues that we shouldn't have an inordinate fear of terrorism because, as bad as it is, the threat from the Islamo-fascists is not nearly as serious as the nuclear threat we were under at the height of the cold war. Back then we didn't "eavesdrop" or threaten other freedoms so we have no cause to be doing it now when the threat is so much less.
Even if we grant that what the government is doing today to defend us from terrorists curtails our freedom to some extent, Johnson's argument is misbegotten. He's correct, of course, that the threat of nuclear war during the sixties and seventies was serious, but he ignores the crucial fact that it was manageable because neither we nor the Soviets wanted to use nuclear weapons. Deterrrence worked because neither side wanted to initiate and die in a nuclear exchange.
The Islamo-fascists, on the other hand, look forward to dying and don't care how many people they take with them. Unlike the Soviets, if the jihadis can get their hands on a nuke they can be counted upon to use it against someone, probably Israel or the U.S.
Nor are they particularly impressed by the concept of deterrence or mutually assured destruction. After all, who would we retaliate against if a bomb were detonated in one of our cities?
So Johnson may be on safe ground in insisting that the threat today isn't as severe as it was on any given day thirty years ago, but his claim is misleading. As soon as the Islamo-terrorists succeed in obtaining a nuclear weapon the threat analysis changes completely. Al Qaeda with nukes is an inestimably greater danger than the Soviets ever were, and we must do everything we can to keep them from procuring a nuclear weapon and from getting into position to use one. That means that they must be treated as the most serious threat to the people of the United States in our 230 year history, because, in fact, they are.
