Tuesday, September 13, 2005

The Pentagon learns important lessons from Iraq -- "Gee, we shoulda used nukes!"

The Washington Post article by Walter Pincus from Sunday, "Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan:Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons", should be read by everyone. When I read the way the Pentagon is cold-bloodedly reviewing cases in which nuclear weapons may actually be used, it makes me a little nostalgic for the era of Mutually Assured Destruction in which the unthinkable was still unthinkable.
[...] A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations. [...]
Certain war criminals in the current administration are probably kicking themselves that they didn't just nuke a few "WMD bunkers" in and around Baghdad in March 2003. They would still be crowing about the way they prevented Saddam Hussein's imminent nuclear attacks on Jerusalem and London with their quick bold decisive action. With dangerously high levels of radiation in the glowing remains of the "Iraqi WMD bunkers," there would be no way to disprove their lies. A vast majority of the flag-waving American public would believe them, and though the rest of the world wouldn't, every other government would be scared to death to say anything to such proven madmen.

(this entry started its life as a comment on the subject over at Shakespeare's Sister, but I thought it deserved a post of its own here).

1 comment:

Stupid Country said...

Look, no one's more cynical than I about the intellectual capacity of this electorate. But even the average boob now knows that the Administration's assessment of "intent to use WMDs" might be suspect and would respond to the inevitable second-guessing of a nuclear strike.

We're dangerous, but not that dangerous.