Discouraging proliferation
Sep. 12th, 2005 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenThe problem with invading other countries on the grounds that they've got WMDs is that afterwards, people start asking awkward questions like "if they had WMDs, why can't you find them, more than two years after you invaded?"
So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Pentagon have come up with a way to answer those objections: pre-emptive nuclear strikes. How much easier it would've been to explain the failure to find WMDs in Iraq if we'd dropped a few nukes - just small ones - on the sites where ourIranian stooges Terribly Reliable Intelligence Sources told us Saddam had his WMDs? The ones ready to be used against our troops within 45 minutes, remember those?
"Of *course* Saddam had WMDs... and we destroyed them all!"
It's just as bad an idea, but for different reasons, when applied to states with a confirmed WMD capability - let's say China, since we're not *quite* up to nuking the French yet. These states tend to be run by people who aren't in a hurry to throw their lives or leadership positions away, which makes retaliation a sufficient deterrent against their initiating a nuclear exchange - "hit the enemy at the cost of your own life" isn't an appealing proposition to such people. But if they believe you *do* intend to strike first, well, they might as well make the best of a bad lot and beat you to the punch.
So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Pentagon have come up with a way to answer those objections: pre-emptive nuclear strikes. How much easier it would've been to explain the failure to find WMDs in Iraq if we'd dropped a few nukes - just small ones - on the sites where our
"Of *course* Saddam had WMDs... and we destroyed them all!"
It's just as bad an idea, but for different reasons, when applied to states with a confirmed WMD capability - let's say China, since we're not *quite* up to nuking the French yet. These states tend to be run by people who aren't in a hurry to throw their lives or leadership positions away, which makes retaliation a sufficient deterrent against their initiating a nuclear exchange - "hit the enemy at the cost of your own life" isn't an appealing proposition to such people. But if they believe you *do* intend to strike first, well, they might as well make the best of a bad lot and beat you to the punch.
