NATO strategists: We must summon the political will to preemptively nuke people
posted at 9:53 am on January 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m guessing this is aimed more at Iran than Pakistan, although a confirmed report of nukes loose in the tribal areas would naturally warrant a “strong” response. It’s not clear if they’re referring to pinpoint nuclear bunker busters to destroy underground weapons facilities or some sort of larger, make-an-example decapitating strike (the ambiguity is probably intentional), but the fact that they’re willing to rattle this particular saber publicly shows how helpless they feel re: other deterrent options. The west can roll back proliferation, they say, but it had better be prepared to make some hard choices to do so.
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists…
The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:
· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
· The “dark side” of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental” migration on a mass scale.
· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU…
[German Gen. Klaus] Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. “Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don’t know how to deal with this.”
Exit question: Anyone see a western political consensus authorizing preemptive nuke strikes developing anytime soon, especially after the Iraq WMD debacle? More to the point, does anyone think Iran or Pakistan sees that consensus developing soon? If not, where’s the deterrence? For god’s sake, we’re willing to tolerate mosques in western cities that are more radical than Iraq is comfortable with.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
It’ll never happen. Not pre-emptively, anyway.
Leonidas Hoplite on January 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM
No way that the sissies in power in Europe would do this. They’re all too concerned with appearances, and getting along with people. And the people in our government are lame ducks and cowed by the media as well, though I wouldn’t call them sissies.
RWLA on January 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Climate change, huh. Doesn’t affect me. I turn the thermostat up or down. Works out pretty well.
JiangxiDad on January 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM
someone will always have to take the lead, resulting in them taking the blame when/if something goes wrong.
Also, if a majority of those that could take action, would it not then end up just being 3 nations out of nato making the decision?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Puhleeze. NATO can’t even muster the intestinal fortitude to stay with us in Afghanistan now that it’s getting tough.
funky chicken on January 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Pretty scary stuff… there is no force in the world that will prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of every 3rd world dictator on the planet.
THAT’s encouraging!
AlexB on January 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Sounds more like a Daily KOS headline.
“,,,Pre-emptively Nuke People“.
When did Bin Laden and the Iranian ayatollahs become “people”?
Makes them sound like helpless little old ladies at a bus stop being mugged by big, bad NATO.
Without the will to vaporize those getting ready to strike you, you cede power to the lunatics.
Well-armed lunatics.
Who will not hestitate, as they have declared (and done countless times) to “strike first”.
NATO is re-awakening to the age-old reality that Heraclitus understood:
“War is the king of All.”
Pretending otherwise is to pre-defeat yourself.
Peace is only won by strength, not passivity.
profitsbeard on January 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Since the dawn of time, the western civilization has been the most blood thirsty oppressive dominating world wide killing machine, can’t we muster some of that good old blood lust just one more time?
tommylotto on January 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM
It’s like trying to scare a linebacker with a wiffle bat.
NeoconNews.com on January 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I think it’s really easy to chastise the Leaders of the West for laking the will to act. I will point out however what happened to the one leader who did act and ask how you can expect others, in the absence of enormous tragedy, to do likewise. The media, in concert with well funded and organized Leftist organizations and politicians make America and the Right the problem instead of radical, political Islam. Unless and until all “sides” of the West unify to stop the common existential threat developing, nothing bold will be done. The unification likely will not happen absent major tragedy.
TheBigOldDog on January 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM
PS – we have to face on fact, it’s not the leaders who lake the intestinal fortitude, it’s us, the people. Until we face that reality, nothing will change.
TheBigOldDog on January 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM
the “iraq WMD debacle” and “pre-emption”, needs to be better explained to the public at this point. Like pointing out the other reasons for the war that had nothing to do with pre-emption(like terror connections, financing, harboring, etc), which was in contrast to Saddam’s desire to gain WMD and we worried he would give to terror groups….you can make a case for the Iraq war, which they did though didn’t highlight near as much, completely seperate of the WMD argument.
jp on January 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM
a big part of the political problem is the media(who have first amendment rights) and our PC culture. If the public heard the World News that sites like this and LGF regularly report, the will would be stronger for this war. Instead its largely censored from their daily lives.
jp on January 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Correct. However, that is our fault. We consume their products. We take their direction. We fund their enterprises. We tolerate the culture. We self censor to be acceptable to them. We care what they think. It is our fault. Now, what will wake up the West to the threat and the barriers to recognizing the threat? Tragedy unfortunately…
TheBigOldDog on January 22, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Exactly right. Probably a nuke in one of our cities is the only thing that will wake the sheep.
Leonidas Hoplite on January 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM
The climate change comment is particularly amusing. Two weeks ago it was 60 degrees in Chicago and the GWHysteria crowd was feeling it. Now for the last week it has been 20 to 30 degrees below normal all across the country and global warming jokes are the norm again, and all the while the media swings back and forth from one crisis to the other. Too Hot! Too Cold!
Jaibones on January 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Since when did NATO get a pair?
Mazztek on January 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Seems the context for this statement is lacking a tad of clarity. Are they talking airbursts over Tehran or nuke bunker busters?
The air bursts seem unnecessary and unlikely as preemptive measures so I have to think they are talking about limited nukes to destroy bunkers.
BL@KBIRD on January 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM
This may have relevance as a signal to Russia as well. Here’s a headline from three days ago:
Russia leaves door open for pre-emptive nukes
CP on January 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
They’re all puffed up with Sarkozsy testosterone. Those cowboy Frenchmen!
Jaibones on January 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
That is some red, red meat there.
I think Futurama had it right. Create a nuclear winter to offset the global warming!
thomashton on January 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM
The Belmont Club has a good discussion on how the anti-war pacifists have made this approach necessary.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
a capella on January 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM
You’re right. I’ve got the intestinal fortitude, but then again, I’m also a 30%er. AND you’ll never here the phrase “the Iraq WMD debacle” come out of my mouth.
Texas Gal on January 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
He dose have a point there, but tac-nukes?
liquidflorian on January 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I know what he’s getting at, but that’s still a funny quote.
Dash on January 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM
No. You can’t even get a consensus on what to do after terrorists strike us with a nuke (that might change if it became an actuality).
thirteen28 on January 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM
The US will not pre-empt anything again after Iraq. Unless and until we watch a city go up in a cloud or are hit with a devastating bio-attack, we will never use a nuke on anyone, including Iran.
Geronimo on January 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I’m not sure it would. The left would be screaming “This is our (meaning those on the right) fault because we didn’t engage/talk/appease etc.” while we would be screaming “This is your fault (those on the left) because you aren’t willing to stand and fight for Western Civilization/stick with a course of action/stand up to tyranny etc.”. It might just tear us apart instead of unite us.
Leonidas Hoplite on January 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Wow. Reading the comments on this thread, it’s amazing the number of people who really believe we should nuke Iran. Unbelievable. Those of you advocating this don’t sound like conservatives, you sound like Nazis. “Kill ‘em all! Nuke the bastards!” What a bunch of bloodthirsty savages.
fossten on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
The NATO strategists are right but I simply don’t see the political will that is necessary to utilize the military instrument of power pre-emptively. Hell, Senator Patty Murray was out there lauding the Taliban just weeks after the world saw over 3,000 Americans get incinerated and/or crushed!
Does anybody really think Europe is going to deal with a threat pre-emptively?
highhopes on January 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM
If we didn’t have the balls to nuke Mecca and most of the Middle East after 9/11, we won’t have the balls to do it pre-emptively.
Bush’s failure in taking down the central hub of that evil pedophile murdering religion will have my ever lasting scorn.
Tim Burton on January 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM
We don’t need consensus we have the nuclear bomb. We need to use it because our enemies won’t hesitate. The reason we became a superpower is because we used 2 nuclear bombs on Japan and the world feared that we’d do it again if they didn’t do what we said.
Now the world knows that we won’t ever under any circumstance use a nuclear bomb. Even if the world condemns us roundly, the effect of us detonating a nuclear bomb (even if it did not kill anyone) would be greater than that of 1 million UN sanctions. If we detonated a nuclear bomb on Iran without killing anyone, they would not be harassing our boats, they would not be defying nuclear inspectors, they would be asking us what we will allow them to do.
They only respond to power, killing. They don’t care what we say. A detonated nuclear bomb would send notice that we are still the only superpower in the world and the world had better do what we say. . . it would save American lives just like in Japan.
What good is having a nuclear weapon if everyone (especially your enemy) knows you will never use it? You might as well not be a nuclear power because that’s how the world (especially our enemies) views us. . . ie paper tiger.
ThackerAgency on January 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM
fossten-
Wow.
You forgot the /sarc tag.
Or are you that guy from the Canadian HRC planting a moby?
Wow.
profitsbeard on January 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM
“The bomb Dmitri… the hydrogen bomb….”
Akzed on January 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM
fossten on January 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
You assume that detonating a nuclear weapon would mean ‘kill them all’. You’ve been watching too many movies. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki both are thriving metropolises now so the idea that the area is destroyed for hundreds and hundreds of years is gone.
The problem with your attitude fossten is that when our enemies detonate a nuclear bomb on one of our large cities, you’ll be one of the first ones to say, ‘why didn’t we do this to them first’?
ThackerAgency on January 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I really don’t see a lot of posts here advocating nuking anything. I see mostly opinions on the article, NATO and whether a pre-emptive strike is a good or bad idea.
I notice you didn’t give us your enlightened opinion on anything. Appears to me that all you did was throw out some derogatory comments and offensive labels.
Oldnuke on January 22, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Ditto. Pre-emptive is an irrelevant discussion.
Post-tragic is irrelevant as well.
Truman was very lucky historically, from the standpoint that very few even knew of our ‘new’ nuclear capability and therefore had the benefit of making the decision largely among those few entitled to know at the Pentagon.
Today if such a weapon was ‘new’, it would be leaked to the NYT by someone in either the State Department or CIA, and it would become a circus in congress. Machiavelli said it well……something along the lines that if you fail to act with force in the face of your enemies, then even your friends will desert you because you appear weak……
Starlink on January 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Nuke fossten! Wait no.. what?
Heh yeah I’m not a fan of nuke first options other than rhetoric. We should say we’re willing to do it even if we’re really not.
I’m trying to think of a situation where you would pre-emptively nuke in such a fashion that would kill a lot of civilians (i.e. a city or region, not a bunker buster into a nuke facility). Anyone?
Dash on January 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM
This is nothing but a nanny state defence of nuclear war. Climate change, organised crime, the weakened state etc… the only thing missing is a call to bomb McDonald’s to stop the “obesity epidemic”.
rjjago on January 22, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Notice the Left had nothing to say when the Russian general reminded us of their first-strike policy earlier this week. Now they’ll find something to be angry about. (F)ossten is already reporting in to HuffPoCentCom.
Beagle on January 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Exactly. And consider this, that came from a “supporter.” If supporters think like that, and use words like that, how in the world can anybody expect Western leaders to act? How can we criticize them?
TheBigOldDog on January 22, 2008 at 11:32 AM
We can haz nuke strike?
Ars Moriendi on January 22, 2008 at 11:33 AM
It would only take another Reagan move from a strong conservative leader. Remember…Carter, the pacifist/Iran hostages/Reagan’s swearing in/ Hostages released! Make them BELIEVE you will nuke the sh#% out of them. End Game.
kcd on January 22, 2008 at 11:37 AM
SECOND LOOK AT HICKS/RIPLEY ‘08!
Frozen Tex on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Very perceptive, I was wondering when someone would pick up on the climate change thing. Organized crime may actually have a valid base. The Russian mafia is one of the most likely suppliers of fissile material to terrorists. I wouldn’t go quite this far
but you have to look at the authors. Shalikashvili was once described to me, by someone who knew him and had worked under him as “A Gentleman.” I don’t think anyone who had ever served under Schwartzkopf would have described him that way.
Oldnuke on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM
You wearing pink? That’s the way they argue.
a capella on January 22, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I thought they mentioned climate change simply because, as leaders of the West, they felt they had to play to the Left and the media (and through them, the people) in hopes of blunting some of the criticism that will surely come. It was the sugar to help the medicine go down. It goes back to my central point which is we have made it virtually impossible for Western leaders to effectively deal with the threat.
TheBigOldDog on January 22, 2008 at 11:48 AM
SECOND LOOK AT HICKS/RIPLEY ‘08!
Who? Sorry, did I miss something?
kcd on January 22, 2008 at 11:58 AM
It’s just like that recent NIE that confirmed Iran did in fact have a nuclear weapons program, but shelved it. And why? Because our threats were working. We have to get tough to keep a lid of proliferation, and in the mean time we might look like bullies but we have to do all we can to defend ourselves and keep a lid on proliferation, otherwise not only is our security intensely vulnerable, but so is that of Israel, our allies and the rest of the world. We have to be unified against threats from countries like Iran, we have to demonstrate our seriousness and that their will be consequences. We keep the pressure up and we keep re-iterating the message “We will not allow you to have this technology” and we really must rise to do this because we don’t have a choice.
mattyj86 on January 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM
“ALIENS” (1986)
Corporal Dwayne Hicks, Ellen Ripley.
Hicks (repeating an earlier suggestion of Ripley’s):“I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
Frozen Tex on January 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM
kcd-
Alien(s). (The movie[s].)
profitsbeard on January 22, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Did you noticed that they didn’t mention the alien invasion by Mexico in the ‘dark side of globalism’ category? I’m not surprised about it…BUT, ain’t it interesting that NATO wants us to ‘pre-empt’ whoever so that the world can continue to hate our guts…which, btw, is something our gov’t has little of.
Nuking any country would be a bad move…regular bombs would work just fine.
Christine on January 22, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Frozen Tex on January 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Oh yeah!!! I like it….
kcd on January 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Right Christine, unless the other side has nuclear weapons. It’s time to break out the old Cold War manuals, but turn to the section on religious millenarian disaster scenarios in the appendix, often citing Iran hypothetically.
Beagle on January 22, 2008 at 12:17 PM
These days, I doubt we would have the stones to nuke somebody after they nuked us. We are all pussies, and the rest of the world knows it. We have no hope for survival if we don’t grow a pair. This is especially true if Hillary or Obama move into the White House. At least with Bush in the big chair, the enemy knows that we are willing to kill.
fleiter on January 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM
No f’ing way. I can’t imagine the Great Satan using nukes even if a bomb went off and destroyed a big chunk of Houston. Even if some terrorists group was able to successfully smuggle and detonante a nuke or dirty bomb in a U.S. city, who would we nuke in retaliation? For one thing, we could never establish beyond reasonable doubt that a state was responsible for the actions of a band of terrorists. For another thing, even if we had hard evidence that Iran was responsible for this theoretical attack on an American city, WE WOULD NEVER NUKE IRAN. The chance of massive civilian casualties would be too great.
This talk of pre-emptive nuking is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, if you ask me.
But why would you ask me? :)
Enrique on January 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Because you actually, in a uniquely amusing way, have the right answers. Love Enrique,
Entelechy on January 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Read the Belmont Club link I posted above. Conventional weapons aren’t something our NATO allies have exactly invested a lot in over the last 40 years, and they create just as much hate. This change in strategic thinking is a result of long term deteriation in NATO capabilities and willpower.
a capella on January 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Hmmm, reminds me of….
Well, that’s why we invented it. Let the fun begin.
Kini on January 22, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Nope.
Nope.
Gone with the Wind.
MB4 on January 22, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Short story: there’s about as much chance of NATO authorizing a nuclear first strike on anybody as there is of a sequel being made to Blazing Saddles.
No way. That the Euros would even talk about the prospect of a first-use is frankly amazing. But “talk” is as far as they will ever go.
NATO’s entire policy of how and when to use nukes has always been unrealistic, even during the Cold War. Back then, the war-fighting scenarios centered on the question of, “At what point of a Warsaw Pact breakthrough do we introduce nuclear weapons?” Unknown – until former East German intelligence files became available for inspection – was that the Soviets were thinking along radically different lines: they were going to hit us with everything they had – nukes, bio weapons, chemicals – from the word “go”. Their plans envisioned the Red Army standing at the English Channel and the Pyrenees Mountains within six weeks, and to get there by driving across a lifeless wasteland formerly known as “Western Europe.”
If NATO ever uses nukes, it’s going to be in reaction to something. And even then I’m not really convinced they’d have what it takes.
Spurius Ligustinus on January 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM
a capella
That’s a good read. I especially like the description of the suicidally delusional as “frivolous.” I guess that’s what I keep noticing over and over again, frivolity.
Beagle on January 22, 2008 at 1:19 PM
NATO is only comfortable with bombing Serbians, who had the unmitigated gall of never having invaded a NATO country. But, what the hell, they were an easy kill.
OhEssYouCowboys on January 22, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Sometime between their conception and their birth — opinions differ.
But seriously… we’re talking about a nuke here. Nukes necessarily cause extensive collateral damage. Surely you regard innocent civilians as people.
Mark Jaquith on January 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM
No, I do not. And don’t call me Shirley.
/sorry
Akzed on January 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I love it when someone shows up and notices nuclear weapons might be terrible to use on our enemies, but they never have any comment about our enemies threatening to use them on us. Just one recent example:
http://publiuspundit.com/2008/01/theres_no_fool_like_a_russian.php
Willing to be nuked over Kosovo? Did you know that maybe isn’t an academic question? I actually predicted this attitude from the Russians, over Kosovo even.
Beagle on January 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Wrong.
First, don’t tell me what I assume. You’re assuming you know what I meant.
Second, I know more about World War II than you’ll ever know. So don’t raise phony straw men by putting words in my mouth. I never said nukes would destroy areas for hundreds of years. That must have been somebody else you’re referring to on a different blog. Please stay on topic.
Third, your “idea” about “thriving metropolises” was never disputed by me. It was never even stated. You conjured it up out of thin air.
Fourth, it is interesting how you try to twist everything. You say that it’s not such a big deal to nuke a city because 60+ years later everything will be back to normal? And that’s your justification? OH, WELL let’s go nuke ‘em then! What are we waiting for?
Fifth, I was appalled at the level of willingness (bloodthirstiness) of so many people to drop nukes on Iran. I certainly don’t think that just because the city could be rebuilt someday is a good reason to drop a bomb. Sheesh.
Finally, you don’t know what my attitude is. I will tell you that I do not like the idea of Iran having nukes. But rumors are not good enough justification to start popping caps in the arses of small countries. There must be a justification of war, especially nuclear war, and somebody saying somebody else has a weapon (which cannot be definitively verified by our intel, by the way) is not enough to start nuking whole cities.
fossten on January 22, 2008 at 3:28 PM
You obviously know ZERO about correct military doctrine, especially when it comes to nukes. Proper doctrine dictates that you do NOT go nuclear first strike unless you are CERTAIN the enemy is going to strike you. Moreover, you do not use nukes except as a last resort when conventional weapons will not do the job. Furthermore, there is no justification for using nukes on a small country like Iran when Israel itself could probably accomplish the task conventionally. People on this blog need to stop playing so many video games.
There are better ways to remove Ahmadinejad than by nuking Tehran. Now if they nuke us, yeah, they’re toast. But just based on rumors? Not a chance. Look what happened with WMDs in Iraq – we won’t do that again without a smoking gun.
fossten on January 22, 2008 at 3:37 PM
How it’ll likely happen.
Frozen Tex on January 22, 2008 at 3:50 PM
NATO is dedicated to the security of its’ members, but also the peaceful resolution of disputes. I just don’t see a pre-emptive strike at this time. Not until all the cards are on the table for all to see. That ain’t gonna happen.
oakpack on January 22, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Of course, Iran will not launch a missile-borne or aircraft-borne nuclear weapon against us or our allies. It will be trucked in by Hezbollah or brought in a Piggyback-type shipping container. That way we can never hold Iran responsible.
And if any history is left to be written after the great Muslim caliphate rules the world, it will laugh at us for not hitting them when we had the chance.
Make no mistake about it, the day Iran has nukes is the day that all of our allies succumb to nuclear blackmail and we are left standing alone and impotent as the sole non-Muslim power.
You have no power if you are unwilling to use it. You have no freedom if you are unwilling to defend it. You have no rights if you surrender them to Islam.
fleiter on January 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM
This is the most important question of our times–even more important than Global Warming (and let’s assume the environmentalist are correct about it for the purpose of my statement). Are we in the West willing to summon the strength to survive? Or are we going to let the savages take over out planet? And let’s not just forget it’s not just us. It’s also the Japanese, Chinese, the Botswanans and so forth who are threatened by this. The savages will turn their cultures also into hell worlds. It may the measure of our decadance that even after 9/11 so many of us are unwilling to understand that the savages really will do whatever they can to destroy us, to kill us.
thuja on January 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Now you’re talkin! Nuke OPEC!
HaraldHardrada on January 22, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Since it’ll be Muslims writing the history, they’ll claim it was their reward from Allah for piety.
As I see it, the reason you have to preemptively nuke these people is that they will not stop trying to nuke you first.
venividivici on January 22, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Let me explain this.
The NATO generals don’t give a damn about anything other than their own cities getting nuked. Because the Pope said something, or a cartoon got published in a local paper, or a statue made, or a local politician tore pages out of the Koran on TV or the Internet.
ONCE nukes proliferate, ANYONE can nuke Copenhagen, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, etc. Over something like a cartoon, book, whatever. Retaliation becomes impossible because it’s maybe Iran, maybe Pakistan, maybe Syria, maybe Egypt, maybe YEMEN. Who knows? Deterrence fails, not the least of which is that any faction can grab nukes, ship in a container, and poof there goes Rotterdam. Over a cartoon.
Even if all social spending went out right away, there’s no way Denmark or the Netherlands or Norway can do what they have to in order to prevent proliferation. Because once you have proliferation it’s only a matter of time before a cartoon or something sets Muslims off and a Western city dies. And mass forced conversion to Islam is not in the cards.
Thus their solution: nuke a proliferator to stop the proliferation. Don’t bother about “proof” or anything. Because otherwise you’ll see cities like Rome or Amsterdam vanish in a nuclear mushroom.
The “nuking” would be not to kill everyone, but eliminate all transport, electrical power generation, and transmission. So the aim is to prevent any nuclear weapons from being made. Nuclear material does no good if it just sits there, unable to be milled, shaped, etc. which requires electricity and transport. Denmark and Norway and the Netherlands can’t build 20 Aircraft Carrier battle groups. But they can build nukes and ICBMs FAST.
Shrug. Europeans will decide if they want to remain free and are willing to kill to remain free or would rather die and remain PC. That is their choice. As was their choice to hamstring Bush in his pre-emption.
whiskey_199 on January 23, 2008 at 12:40 AM
unless you live in California. Then… not so much.
BadBrad on January 23, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Ha! We don’t have the guts to take care of our enemies, like Iran, in a conventional manner. How on earth does anyone believe that we would nuke them. If we had real leadership in this country Iran would be being taken care of now in a convetional manner then we would not have to worry about the nuke option.
boomer on January 23, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Comment pages: