Charles Krauthammer observes that we have utterly failed to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, as that country announces new centrifuge breakthroughs that are necessary for the production of an atomic bomb. Therefore, he says, we must go back to the cold war policy of deterrence. The prime target for an Iranian nuclear weapon, judging from what Iran’s president keeps saying, would be Israel. Krauthammer urges that the United States make this pledge, based upon what President Kennedy said to the Soviets if they attacked any of our allies:
“It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”
Are we up for that?
14 comments ↓
The U.S. military may not wait, according to a Pat Buchanan column, “Petraeus Points to War With Iran” (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/04/11/petraeus_points_to_war_with_iran?page=full&comments=true).
Yes we are up for that. But so is Israel.
Why fixate on Israel? Israel has its own nuclear deterrent. Perhaps if they didn’t, Iran wouldn’t be so keen on developing its own. I would be up for a statement that said that any nuclear attack on any state would be met by a US “full retaliatory response” (whatever that means).
Israel would be the certain target, so it would be up to us to retaliate.
The Libs would throw a hissy fit.
I thought we were supposed to go to war with North Korea first. They were the first part of the Axis of Evil to demonstrate that they had functional nuclear weapons. Iran will have to wait its turn. I mean, we can’t just go to war at the same time with every country that develops nuclear weapons in spite of our not wanting them to!
No, tODD, we can’t go to North Korea, since now they have a nuclear deterrent themselves. And don’t worry, we won’t be able to go to war with Iran either. And, yes, we tried going to war with Iraq to keep them from going nuclear, and that turned out badly, so we won’t be doing anything like that again. So we’ll have peace in our time. Unless, that is, someone undeterrable wants to ignite the Muslim bomb.
Veith (@7), “peace in our time” … funny. But flirting dangerously with Godwin’s Law, you know.
Myself, I take from your examples that the military makes for poor diplomats, and that refusing to engage with (some) evil countries, while it makes for a good story, doesn’t really achieve the objectives we want. It also points out that treating terrorism only at the state level isn’t terribly effective.
Mind you, I don’t worry too much about “peace in our time” if “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” McCain wins.
Godwin’s law is a fallacy, not a law. It prevents, rather than aids, thinking and discernment. See Gene Veith’s _Modern Fascism_.
Deterrent *will not work* against those very willing indeed to die.
Iran becoming a glassy waste is worth it to them as long as Israel is destroyed and they receive the favor of Allah.
Islam has its sources of deterrence.
If Muslims, or a country run by Muslims, use nuclear weapons anywhere, the United States could simply bomb Mecca. Now, if these came to be, there’d be massive, unstoppable bloodshed to follow, but I daresay its a deterrent, one of the few religiously so readily available in sight of the religious & cultural wars.
We don’t need to nuke Mecca and Medina, all we need to do is use tankers to spray them with bacon grease.
Israel has more atomic weapons than France and Britain combined and if they got nuked, they wouldn’t waste any time consulting with us. I would think that the amount of radioactive fallout circling the globe from that “exchange” would be quite sufficient in and of itself without any further input.
Assuming they had anytime to respond at all.
This may sound like a response from a “fundy” but does anyone think that this may indeed be the way the world ends, since it IS to end in fire?
P.S. I’m not a “fundy”!!
Leave a Comment