Anyone see the movie Deterrence?

I like browsing through the discount section of Hollywood Video and bringing home movies that have faded into the background. 'Deterrence' was one such video. Looked cool: 'Every president has a defining moment. Walter Emerson is about to have his.' Okay! West Wing kinda thing, circa 1999.

No.

Besides the 'snowstorm makes everyone hole up in diner' idea, the writing for the movie was lame, the acting uninspired.

Without following any diplomatic processes or the usual conventional steps, from the snowed-in diner outpost, the president demands that Iraq's president Uday stop his sudden invasion of Kuwait by threatening to drop a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. People in diner shocked! Short order cook shoots someone! President nukes Baghdad. Iraq sets off missiles with nukes! Nukes are duds...muhahaha we sold them shit! President wins! Oh, and by the way, so sorry about radioactive people in toxic city of Baghdad! Cue credits and happy music!!

I usually just sell back crappy movies but something about this movie got to me. The rush in the plot to get to nuclear warfare.

Then I remembered. Talking about nuclear weapons, watching them being used in movies, reading about them breaks the strong taboo of actually using them. The PNAC supports this view.
From Jorge Hirsch's article of October 16, 2006: (my bold)

Nuclear Strike on Iran Is Still on the Agenda

"The U.S. is closer than it has been since Nagasaki to using nuclear weapons again. This year, for the first time in its history, the American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement of deep concern on this matter: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for preemptive counter-proliferation purposes."

In the case of Iraq, our adversary was so weak that there was no way the use of nuclear weapons could have been justified in the eyes of the world. Iran is different: it possesses missiles that could strike U.S. forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, as well as Israeli cities. Iran also has a large conventional army. The 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq will be at great risk if there is a war with Iran, and Americans will support a nuclear strike on Iran once the administration creates a situation where it can argue that such action will save a large number of American lives."

[snip]

"There have been many voices across the political spectrum calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for the botched Iraq war [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], yet he "retains the full confidence" of Bush. Why? Because Rumsfeld cannot be fired until he demolishes the "nuclear taboo," by detonating a small tactical nuclear weapon against an enemy. The U.S. military is reluctant to even consider the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, because it would provoke "an outcry over what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since Nagasaki." Only after a small tactical nuclear weapons strike against Natanz or another Iranian facility will this barrier fall, and Rumsfeld's transformation will be a fait accompli.

Why is "downsizing" the military so important to the PNAC crowd? Because the American public has no stomach for a draft nor large losses of American military personnel. If it becomes possible to wage war "on the cheap," without the loss of American life, and in the process we can lower the price of oil and spread "liberty" across the world, opposition will be muted. Public opinion on the Iraq war was not turned by the enormous number of Iraqi lives lost (of which there isn't even an effort to keep a count); it is only affected by the number of American lives lost."

Which brings me to reference my earlier post.