Wednesday, April 12, 2006

The Nucular Option

Go read Billmon. Now, dammit.

14 comments:

Thrillhous said...

Very depressing stuff, and all too possible.

InanimateCarbonRod said...

Yeah, and the economy sucks too.

Mr Furious said...

[sigh]

Pooh said...

Uhmmm...EEEEEK?

sideshow bob said...

Holy shit...

Lemme get this straight...

I can download Lost? For free?

Well, I'm placated!

Otto Man said...

The island on Lost is looking less and less like a bad place to be. Once the rest of the globe is irradiated and full of terrorist blowback, an isolated tropical paradise will be a prized locale.

Tokyo Joe said...

Puh-leese. A nuclear first strike is so far from the realm of possibility that it's pretty ludicrous to get so worked up over it. Why would we risk such severe reprocussions when we have so much standard munitions that could easily get the job done? Just because the Pentagon makes a plan for it doesn't mean that it is very likely. Did you know that the Pentagon once made a plan to nuke the moon? That's actually true. check it out

teh l4m3 said...

I heard a refrain similar to Tokyo Joe's sometime around... Oh, when was it? Yeah, back in late 2002 I believe. "Oh, war is a last resort. Bush would never invade Iraq unless there was no alternative. Boy are all you liberals marching in the street gonna have red faces when it turns out just to have been sabre-rattling..." Blahdiblahdiblah...

Anyway, yeah, so now Bloomberg's pushing this State Dept. factotum's quote that Iran could have the bomb in 16 days. You know, in a parallel universe where they have tens of thousands more centrifuges and the capacity to refine a higher grade of fissionable material.

Tokyo Joe said...

Even if Iran does get the bomb, I really doubt it's going to be the US who starts anything. Not with Israel only a stone throw away. They taken out nuclear facilities before and they don't give a damn what anyone thinks of them. I think it is far more likely that we will let Israel start the fight and then go in to mop things up later.

I hear what you are saying l4m3, but there is a big difference between doubting that a "last resort" will be used and starting a nuclear war.

Thrillhous said...

Sorry TJ, I've got to go with l4m3 (man is that hard to type!) on this one. You're absolutely right that there's no sane reason why we should bomb Iran, but time and again the admin has proven that they aren't bound by what we call sanity. And so far, this Iran thing is playing out a lot like the Iraq buildup. Leaks to the press about how dangerous Iran is, crazy headlines about Iran bombing us in 16 days, admin officials "on background" telling all sorts of scarry stories about Iran, etc.

I can't find the link right now, but there was a recent article in the NY Times quoting Israeli officials who thought the US saber rattling was a really bad idea. Israel, unlike us, has an extensive human intelligence operation in Iran, and they don't seem nearly as worried about Iran as our gov't is trying to make us.

You're right, Israel would likely launch an attack if they felt it necessary. The same held true for Iraq, but we see how little Israel's inaction mattered.

Otto Man said...

Not to gang up on you TJ, but I've got to agree with the others. You simply can't use sanity as a guideline for what this crowd will or will not do.

Tokyo Joe said...

I agree with you all that an attack on Iran is probably going to happen soon. However, there is no way I can believe anyone would authorize a first strike with nuclear weapons. With all of the extrememly large munitions we already have and all the flack we catch over colateral damage, I just can't even begin to comprehend anyone in the govt (let alone the military) that would think it was a good idea. We didn't use it in Korea or Vietnam, so it doesn't even approach reality to say that one would knowingly put oneself up for an almost certain war crime tribunal (if not in actuality, then at least by historians for centuries to come) by not using conventional weapns.

Otto Man said...

Good points, Joe, but given that this is the first administration in history to approve the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, I think they feel everything is on the table.

And they might take the opposite lesson from the collateral damage in Iraq -- drop a bigger bomb and you don't have any maimed or wounded, just dead. And the dead don't complain on CNN.

Sure, there's the danger of fallout and radiation, but remember these people don't believe in science. They'll find some hack who insists a "tactical" nuclear strike is possible and surgical. They'll probably use a chemo metaphor, and argue it's needed to drive the cancer out and save the region. See? We're the good guys then!

Pooh said...

I just bounce back and forth between TJ and being smacked upside the head by teh l4m3's: heard a refrain similar to Tokyo Joe's sometime around... Oh, when was it? Yeah, back in late 2002 I believe.