Iran and North Korea-- the Nuclear Threats
After writing my previous post--"The New Al Qaeda Legend"-- I had a chilling thought.
There are two countries left in the axis of evil who we haven't attacked, and it is clear the administration would like to deal with them.
The problem is that Iran and North Korea are much more formidable militarily than Iraq. There's basically no way we can invade them like we did Iraq.
However, we could subdue these countries and effect regime change if we were allowed to nuke them. Particularly using tactical nukes-- or the heavy duty bunker busters nuclear weapons the US has developed.
Right now, if we used nukes on these countries without sufficient provocation, we would become a true outlaw or pariah state. The international condemnation would be devastating to us-- at least economically.
So what would provide sufficient provocation for us to use nuclear weapons in attacking Iran or North Korea?
Answer: the US getting hit with a nuclear weapon first-- even if it was from "Al Qaeda". (After all, the conventional wisdom that the 9/11 attacks were from the stateless Al Qaeda terrorist organization were not much of an impediment for going into Iraq.)
Certainly, the US "homeland" getting hit with a nuke would clearly break the taboo of us using nukes against an opponent.
This brings this new Al Qaeda nuclear legend into new and chilling light. Michael Scheuer ("Imperial Hubris"), the former CIA man who used to keep tabs on Osama bin Laden, is conveniently going around now and spreading the new nuclear legend on all the news shows.
Clearly, Washington is starting to ramp up the drums of war for Iran. Realistically, we are tied down in Iraq and don't have the means to take them on. So we need a new provocation for war-- for a pre-emptive nuclear war.
Furthermore, what would support such a war is that the Al Qaeda nuclear legend meshes with the fact that we would be going after Iran or North Korea precisely because we are worried about THEIR nuclear capability. Thus, the US being hit with a nuclear device would give us the PERFECT excuse to strike pre-emptively at the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. (Maybe, we could even hear Condi Rice get to reprise her famous line about we don't want the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud-- and obviously in this context, it would carry much much more weight.)
The truly frightening thing is, if I am right about this, then we are looking at some sort of nuclear attack on the US in one to two years from now. By then, Americans may be catching on to this administration finally and Bush's approval ratings will be tanking-- and the economy will probably be tanking as well. The draconian policies of the radical chrisitan right will also provide further dissatisfaction. A new terror attack will provide a perfect distraction from these domestic worries and give the administration a pefect mandate for more war.
I really, really, really hope I am wrong.
There are two countries left in the axis of evil who we haven't attacked, and it is clear the administration would like to deal with them.
The problem is that Iran and North Korea are much more formidable militarily than Iraq. There's basically no way we can invade them like we did Iraq.
However, we could subdue these countries and effect regime change if we were allowed to nuke them. Particularly using tactical nukes-- or the heavy duty bunker busters nuclear weapons the US has developed.
Right now, if we used nukes on these countries without sufficient provocation, we would become a true outlaw or pariah state. The international condemnation would be devastating to us-- at least economically.
So what would provide sufficient provocation for us to use nuclear weapons in attacking Iran or North Korea?
Answer: the US getting hit with a nuclear weapon first-- even if it was from "Al Qaeda". (After all, the conventional wisdom that the 9/11 attacks were from the stateless Al Qaeda terrorist organization were not much of an impediment for going into Iraq.)
Certainly, the US "homeland" getting hit with a nuke would clearly break the taboo of us using nukes against an opponent.
This brings this new Al Qaeda nuclear legend into new and chilling light. Michael Scheuer ("Imperial Hubris"), the former CIA man who used to keep tabs on Osama bin Laden, is conveniently going around now and spreading the new nuclear legend on all the news shows.
Clearly, Washington is starting to ramp up the drums of war for Iran. Realistically, we are tied down in Iraq and don't have the means to take them on. So we need a new provocation for war-- for a pre-emptive nuclear war.
Furthermore, what would support such a war is that the Al Qaeda nuclear legend meshes with the fact that we would be going after Iran or North Korea precisely because we are worried about THEIR nuclear capability. Thus, the US being hit with a nuclear device would give us the PERFECT excuse to strike pre-emptively at the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. (Maybe, we could even hear Condi Rice get to reprise her famous line about we don't want the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud-- and obviously in this context, it would carry much much more weight.)
The truly frightening thing is, if I am right about this, then we are looking at some sort of nuclear attack on the US in one to two years from now. By then, Americans may be catching on to this administration finally and Bush's approval ratings will be tanking-- and the economy will probably be tanking as well. The draconian policies of the radical chrisitan right will also provide further dissatisfaction. A new terror attack will provide a perfect distraction from these domestic worries and give the administration a pefect mandate for more war.
I really, really, really hope I am wrong.
posted by spooked at 10:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home