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!"