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

unless you live in California. Then… not so much.

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.

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.

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.

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.

we won’t do that again without a smoking gun city.

fossten on January 22, 2008 at 3:37 PM

How it’ll likely happen.

You wearing pink? That’s the way they argue.

a capella on January 22, 2008 at 11:48 AM

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 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

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.

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.

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

When did Bin Laden and the Iranian ayatollahs become “people”?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Nope.

Nope.

Gone with the Wind.

Baron Munchausen: What’s this?

Vulcan: Oh, this is our prototype. RX Intercontinental, radar-sneaky, multi-warheaded nuclear missile.

Baron Munchausen: Ah! What does it do?

Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.

Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?

Vulcan: Aye, all of them. All their wives, and all their children, and all their sheep, and all their cattle, and all their cats and dogs. All of them: all of them gone for good.

Sally: That’s horrible.

Vulcan: Ahh. Well, you see, the advantage is you don’t have to see one single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.

Berthold: Well, where’s the fun in that?

Well, that’s why we invented it. Let the fun begin.

Nuking any country would be a bad move…regular bombs would work just fine.

Christine on January 22, 2008 at 12:12 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.

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,