God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen - Jars of Clay - listen now

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

If Tactical Nukes Are Called For, Tactical Nukes Should Be Used

The Wall Street Journal brings some common sense to the Seymour Hershian Hysteria sweeping Moonbat Land.
Also a priority should be developing the so-called bunker buster bomb, a low-yield nuclear weapon capable of destroying deeply buried targets. Much of Iran's nuclear program is thought to be buried, and while the U.S. has conventionally armed bunker busters, they might not be as capable as low-yield nukes.

Theologians of arms control have tried to portray bunker busters as uniquely frightening weapons. And Congress, led by Ohio Republican David Hobson, has cut off funding even for more research. The idea seems to be that if we develop such weapons we might actually be more likely to use them. But in fact, such weapons are more likely to be credible against a potential enemy than are giant 200-kiloton nuclear weapons that would kill thousands of innocent civilians as well as any military target. The entire point of low-yield bunker busters is to do less damage, not more.

We suspect that much of this Iranian bomb scare has less to do with actual war plans than with an attempt to portray Mr. Bush as war-happy in an election year and when we are already in a hard slog in Iraq. But if it also has the added effect of persuading Tehran's mullahs that the U.S. is serious about not letting them get the bomb, then maybe this "speculation" will have done some good.
I say we show the Mad Mullahs that we're very good at enriching uranium ourselves. And we can make it go "boom!"


Anonymous 4/12/2006 04:02:00 PM  

Queer Conservative,

It's me, Mark from the Malcontent.

Do you think it is wrong for a conservative to think the Iraq qar was a mistake? I sort of think it was.

I think so for a few reasons:

1) A pre-emptive strike is only morally justified if you have sure and certain evidence that you are in imminent danger from the country you attack.

2) Free elections in Iraq are going to produce governments we don't support, therefore they are not worth losing American loives to defend. Quote: "What did the spate of elections in 2005 produce? The Muslim Brotherhood swept 60 percent of the races it contested in Egypt; Hamas won an astonishing victory on the West Bank; Hezbollah and the Amal Militia triumphed in southern Lebanon; the Shia of Ayatollah Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr emerged as the big winners in Iraq; and Ahmadinejad, who thinks Israel should be wiped off the map, won the presidency of Iran." - Pat Buchanan

3) The Iraq war has cost the U.S. three years of war, 2,300 dead, 17,000 wounded and $300 billion to $400 billion dollars.

I agree a great deal with Pat Buchanan. I am afraid you probably don't like him all that much. I hope you'd at least admit that he's intelligent, and knows what he is talking about.

I'm curios about what you think of Mr. Buchanan. Please be gentle.

I strogly agreed whith this article: "What is 'democracy'?": http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49466

Kevin 4/12/2006 04:13:00 PM  

Hi Marky Mark,

1) I agree, it should not be undertaken lightly. But if it comes down to them or us, I choose us.

2) We should have done in Iraq and Afghanistan what we did in Japan after WWII; written their constitution for them and said "this is how it's going to be. Got it?"

3a) War is hell, and it's an expensive hell at that. I still believe we did the right thing at the right time. And so do the soldiers on the ground who are fighting. There's only one way to handle the bullies of the world. Knock them on their asses. If America doesn't accept the challenge, who will?

3b) I think Pat B. will make an excellent Fuhrer someday; I just hope it isn't in the United States.


Anonymous 4/12/2006 04:38:00 PM  

You are hard core!

I like your spunk, and I am pro-military, but I'm not convinced that the Iraq war was worth it because of what it has cost us in lives, wounded and money. In a cost vs. benefit analysis, it comes up wanting.

Could we get away with writing a country's Constitution for them today?

It seems you don't like Scalia or Buchanan.

What about Clarnce Thomas?

Are you pro-abortion?

I want to know more about you and what you think. I know where we differ on one major moral issue, which we won't get into now, but I am trying to find common political and moral ground.

I'd also like to know about your Christian values. I'd like to see where we are similar in that area too.

I think building on similarities would be more productive that squabbling over differences.

I suspect that it might be easier to have a free for all communication via e-mail.

But I don't want to put my e-mail up for the world to see.

Is there a safe way to contact you?

~ Mark

Kevin 4/12/2006 04:51:00 PM  

In a cost vs. benefit analysis, it comes up wanting. That's not why you fight a war. You fight to defend your freedom or to stop a wrong - and you don't get "wronger" than Saddam and Islamofascism.

Could we get away with writing a country's Constitution for them today? I'm not sure anyone would try and stop us. Japan seems to love theirs, so we must be good at it.

It seems you don't like Scalia or Buchanan. What about Clarnce Thomas? Who said I don't like Scalia? I generally agree with him and Thomas. Buchanan, though, is a special kind of nutz.

Are you pro-abortion? I would have to say that I fall into the anti-abortion camp. Though rape and incest or danger to the mother's life do present moral quandries.

You can always email me at cyberkevinblogs at comcast dot net

Or IM me at cyberkevinblogs on MSN.

DCMASSHOLE 4/12/2006 08:48:00 PM  


Likes to go for the sensational story. One, I'm sure the United States has plans to invade Iran. We have plans to invade most countries, so, that is really not a story. Second, the United States and the World can not let Iran have nuclear weapons because of Islamofacists. They will be more than willing to use terrorist organizations as a proxy to attack the United States.

Further, Al Qedea is not the main threat it is Hezbolla. Who sponsors Hezbolla, you quessed it Iran. However, todays geopolitical world it will be difficult to get China and Russia to go along with any use of force. These nations especially, Russia should realize that although it thinks secular, Iran's leaders think spirtual. Even though Russia might by some time, Iran will help it Muslim Brothern against Russia's former southern spheres of influence the Stans and Checynea.

Was the Iraqi War right, yes. Were there mistakes, yes, many. Could the war been prosecuted better again yes. Does that mean ivading Iraq was wrong, no. We have lost men and that it a tragedy, but they served their country honorably to protect this nation over where that hatred originates and not allow it to come home. We need to stay over there to ensure stable democratic institutions in Iraq and not abadon them. For some reason liberals always want to abandon instead of help, we have an obligation to the Iraqi and American people and we must fulfill it.

dcmasshole 4/12/2006 08:52:00 PM  

Pat Buchanan is not a really bad guy. Honestly, he is a nice guy. I don't agree with his some of views, but he is a decent man. I know a lot of his family members. Hey, if you go to DC and really hate go to Gonzaga High School and piss on the football field named after him.

Will wng 4/13/2006 11:38:00 AM  

Interesting discussion, guys. I wish these blogs could somehow be threaded.

"You are hard core!" No he isn't; I am!

Be that as it may, Pat B. is (I agree with Mark) a good man and so reviled by the libmedia (new word?) that they have managed to stain his reputation even among regular conservatives.

I go further than you two in this regard: Much of what we call politics is stage-managed to keep the audience entertained -- and distracted. The War on Terror? I really don't think it's about terror, or about oil, or about anything clearly. 9/11? I've become convinced (here I have some professional expertise) that at least two of the crashes were faked. That view goes over like... well, I'm used to the calumny, heap it on, guys!

But blame it on Bush? No way! These things take more than a few months of planning, which if true would implicate, well... all sorts of people...

Not a pleasant thought I know, but I encourage you to consider it, along with my charge that the WoT is a charade.

Cheers, friends!

Will wng

Simon9 4/13/2006 12:01:00 PM  

I've got a issues with the way the towers fell (like a controlled demolition) and the Pentagon being hit (isn't it protected air space? Where were the intercept jets from Andrews? Why did it loop around and hit a mostly unoccupied area of the Pentagon?, etc).

But be that as it may, the core issue is crystal clear for me: we are at war with islamofascism. And if it's them or us, I choose us. There's a lot of loonies in the world, some more dangerous than others.

We have to pick our fights with care.

As detestable as Saddam Hussein's regime was, I think it was a fight we shouldn't have picked. But we did and we prevailed.

I do not believe we "owe it" to the Iraqi people to organize their govt for them or write a constitution for them (I think the structure of their society so different from that of the West that it would be pointless to try to change them from outside).

We should get the hell out and deal with that volatile region with great thought first. They are not worth it.

Will wng 4/14/2006 01:20:00 PM  

Simon9 wrote:

I've got a issues with the way the towers fell (like a controlled demolition) and the Pentagon being hit.

All very suspicious. And how about WTC #7? They admittedly demolished it that very day! How long do those things take to set up? Just several hours, apparently. And most people fall for that!

(Isn't it protected air space? Where were the intercept jets from Andrews? Why did it loop around and hit a mostly unoccupied area of the Pentagon?, etc).

Good questions, all. Hope you're not expecting answers.

But be that as it may, the core issue is crystal clear for me: we are at war with islamofascism.

Absolootly! And possibly that was the reason for the whole 9/11: to build up steam for a very necessary war.

Unlike many (most?) I am able to conceive honorable reasons for what would otherwise have been a useless tragedy.

With the rest of your statement I also pretty much agree; good thinking, m'boy.

Will wng

Recent Comments

Contact Me



Google Chat:

Label Cloud


. . .

. . .

. . .


Blog Archive


All opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author. The author’s opinions do not represent those of his employers. All original material is copyrighted and property of the author. If you use it at least have the decency to give me credit for it. Don’t steal it or I reserve the right to sue you to heck and back, or worse. Other info may have been copyrighted by someone else; the author believes that such work as is quoted here does not exceed reasonable “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the United States Copyright Law as I understand it. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Opinions in comments or trackbacks are not mine, so if you have a problem with those, sorry, I can’t help you. Comments on this blog become the sole property of the blog, and may be reused or quoted on the blog or in any other media. Anyone mentioned in relation to a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Contact: writetokevinp@gmail.com. All e-mails are presumed to be for publication on the site unless I am specifically and politely told otherwise - if you’re rude I’ll publish them just to hack you off. All comments are subject to deletion or revision should the author find them offensive or just simply not like you. Trolling will not be tolerated.

  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP