|
DelightMachine -> RE: Dick Waving Turns to Ash (3/22/2006 3:16:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JohnWarren
[Sad smile] I was thinking about this today. A while back I asked someone on here why Bush wasn't doing an Iraq on dictator-led countries like North Korea or Pakistan who already have atomic weapons and that answer on the order of was "well they have atomic weapons."
What a wonderful message to send: the best way to avoid being muscled by the new Imperial America is to have fusion warheads.
This is going to cut down of poliferation?
I've said before. The world has changed. Possession of weapons of mass destruction in the information age doesn't increase our safety. It does just the opposite. It's like having hand grenades to defend one's house. A shotgun or a rifle is much much more effective and then one can argue for others to give up grenades themselves.
Ah, if they have nukes and we attack them, isn't that a little dangerous for us? Granted it's dangerous all around, but that's why it's so important to do something NOW about Iran.
Lemme see if I understand this right, we get rid of our nukes and North Korea says, "My, what an inspiring example for us -- let's give up our nuke program." Is that the way it works, John? You haven't quite made that clear.
We could nuke 'em all, of course, but perhaps what might be more humane is diplomatic pressure and, if that doesn't work, conventional war. Oh, was it you who suggested we just assassinate the leaders? Fine by me if we can do it. Think we can find the North Korean dictator? Think his successor will be easier to deal with? Can we find that guy? What if assassination just works like hitting a hornets nest? That was an image someone here brought up -- oh yeah, it was you.
Iranian militants aren't a dictator or a few oligarchs, they're a whole movement of people. Let's say we kill the top 50 in a massive attack. It might actually be worth doing. But what happens then is we enrage the rest -- stir up the hornet's nest within Iran. So we make the attack smaller? Same hornet's nest, essentially, and we haven't gotten as many of their top people. Widen the attack? Probably that would work best, but there sure as hell would be a huge hornet's nest. If we get their nuke program at the same time (some of which is well underground and impervious to nearly all attacks) then it might be worth doing, but there'll be an enormous hornet's nest, maybe even supported by the population at large -- the nuclear program is popular among the people of Iraq, even the majority that doesn't like the mullahs.
Whatever we do is going to cost a lot -- lightening attack, war, sanctions (against an oil exporting country). It's a lousy situation to be in. But I'm sure that no matter what Bush does in the future, you'll oppose it. Or do you propose that we just lay down our arms and invite the mullahs to do the same?
If the mullahs pass on nukes or other WMDs to terrorists, we're in a bit more trouble than we would be from stirring up hornet's nests or creating blowback. Just a tiny bit.
What frustrates me about you John is that you'll start to debate, I or someone else will make reasonable points, and you won't follow through. Then you make another statement as if reasonable objections haven't already been made to what you say.
|
|
|
|
