Roughly a week ago, Armed Liberal posted a scary scenario and some interesting questions. Essentially, he posits the possibility of "small" nuclear weapons going off in two or three U.S. harbors on the East and West coasts, from the belly of ships that have recently docked from different points of origin.
I find the scenario plausible. I also note that this could plausibly happen in a Great Lakes harbor.
He then asks two questions:
For the hawks: How strong is the temptation to nuke somebody…anybody…who might have had anything to do with this, regardless of whether it gets the people who really planned it?For the doves: How long after this happens does the first column come out in the New York Times that suggests that nuking Iraq won’t bring back our dead or rebuild our economy, and that we should pull in, buckle down, and take care of our own?
The first question, to me, points out to a consistent stereotype people of the Left have about the Right. I honestly think sometimes that George C. Scott, Stanley Kubrick, and the folks who made M*A*S*H* are almost solely responsible for this. While there are slobbering fanatics on all sides of the political spectrum, almost no one in elected office, or serving in the military, would favor this kind of action. I daresay there might even be some mutinies if the President tried to order it.
Almost no one on the American right would propose indiscriminate nuking of anyone. This wouldn't happen. That is not the kind of place America is. Period.
To the second point: I have no doubt that the big fight would be between Americans on both the Left and Right who wanted us to pull out almost all our military forces around the world and become isolationists, and those on both the Left and Right who argued that doing so would mean surrender and that what we must do instead is become even more aggressive toward terror regimes.
Such a tragedy would change a lot of things. But one thing I am certain of:
America is not the kind of country that lobs nukes indiscriminately. We don't do that. I am horrified by people who think otherwise, I really am.
I want to know why Dean Esmay did not comment on that site. All of those people are dorks and you'd have a laugh riot baiting them Doves...
In a country of 300 million people, there are always going to be people who disagree.
I generally like Armed Liberal, and would even trade links with him if I could find his email address so I could propose it to him. %-)
Most of AL's pals seem to think going after Iraq is a mistake, a distraction, whatever. I think they're wrong. As anyone who reads here knows, I fully believe that victory on terror is going to be almost completely impossible if we don't invade Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein.
But history will tell who's right. It always does.
me too.
but the thing that bothers me is that the administration's objectives keep changing.
first it's "regime change" then it is "disarmament." You can't even nail colin powell down on what HE wants.
rush thinks that "disarmament" achieves "regime change." but a case hasn't been made for that.
I want the administration to show clear leadership here: what are we being asked to do to lessen the risk that Saddam will unload WMD on us?
will disarmament do it? or is regime change necessary? And how much will this cost?
in other words: what are we getting and what are we being asked to give up to get it?
Dean...? can you tell me that?
This is an entirely plausible scenario. We must first topple regimes backing terrorist groups. Saddam Hussein has terrorism as his only option.
Terrorist groups cannot exist without support of foreign governments. Hussein cannot confront us in battle without annihilating his forces. If he wishes to strike the U.S., he must do so using terrorist surrogates.
Therefore, Hussein must go. I believe other terrorist sponsoring governments in the region will reconsider their support of terrorists after he is gone.
Bush has said from Day 1 that he wants Regime Change. Disarmament is what the UN has strived for. The fact that Bush reminded them of their objectives was not an indication that he is wavering. Just pointing out that Saddam will never comply and the UN looks pretty useless.
Regime change is the only way to insure our safety.
I'm sick of demands for proof that he has WMD. We know he is trying and the Dems are seriously mistaken to think he isn't a threat right now.
Osama Bin Laden wasn't thought to be a major threat to America's National Security on Sept 10, 2001 but that changed soon enough.
The day we get proof countless Americans will become very DEAD. As soon as that bastard has the capability to kill - he WILL use it.
How many more people have to die before America & the rest of the world is safe?
Just one...(and maybe his sons and a few of his friends)
Rosemary Esmay:
Ask Colin Powell if he believes the objective is disarmament or regime change. If he can give you straight answer, he'll probably be for disarmament. Weasel.
I think the only good answer is "extreme disarmament backed by overwhelming threat of extinction."
What do you think?
Powell's problem is a simple one he disagrees with out and out murder - even of Saddam.
I like the fact that the administration allows those within to disagree. Bush is not surrounded by yes-men. But any good soldier knows that once the decision is made - you do your job.
I don't think that makes him a weasel. It makes him human.
I think I like extreme disarmament and "selective extinction"
Saddam and his cronies have to either die or be sent to Antartica.
That's what I think...
i agree we do need to invade Iraq, but nuking is something we really need to think about. Who's going to be pissed at us if we nuke?