Hillary: Nuke the bastards
By
It got interesting after the CNN/YouTube debate when Hillary went after Obama for wanting to meet with countries not currently on our Christmas card list. Sen. Clinton (D-NY) seemed to grab onto the yokes of the presidency with her sullen wisdom on what not to do, what not to want. And now an Obama-Clinton dust up on nuclear weapons. From said same sullen senator: “Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”
Thank you, Mrs. Clinton for the Cold War history lesson! And since you had those eight years in the White House (happening after the Cold War), of course you’re right! If the Pashtoons or Taliban give us enough trouble, we can nuke the bastards if we want to. I mean, they won’t all be in one place, but why else do we have such a big ass nuclear arsenal?
Rest of the field: stop the tough ass non-sense talk. You know you don’t have a chance in hell of setting off a nuclear weapon in Afganistan or Pakistan without setting off World War X. You can’t do it for the very reason you decry George Bush’s nuclear strategy: there is such a thing as mutually assured destruction. You can’t deter madmen with madness. That requires them to be sane in order to work. Haven’t you already thrown in the towel on that one?
1 Comments
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I can’t believe we’re even having a “debate” about this.
Nuclear weapons only work – if at all – as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons by other organized states.
Against an “asymmetric” threat (i.e. terrorism), you could a) explode one or a series of very low-yield tactical weapons in an effort to destroy the limited infrastructure terrorists rely on – inciting hatred against America and a worldwide backlash against our citizens and our vital interests.
Or you could b) launch an all-out attack against a country or set of countries that harbor or sponsor terrorists – causing all the adverse effects of (a), and probably also creating a worldwide ecological disaster on the scale of what killed the dinosaurs.
At this point, scientists predict that even countries with as small an arsenal as India and Pakistan used their weapons on each other, the resulting clouds of dust and smoke would cause worldwide famine due to the “mild” nuclear winter that would result.
Rate this comment:
0 
0