Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Just a reminder as we enter the last lap of the Bush administration

I've pulled this from an earlier post:

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:

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.


"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.

Rumsfeld is gone and I've heard the drum beat to attack Iran fade from the news, but it doesn't mean the Bush/Cheney threat has gone.


May we survive these next five months without Bush and Cheney starting WWIII until the swearing in of President Obama.

Update 8/28: Lukery at Against All Enemies reports that Judith Miller is helping keep the war drums going by reporting only on the dangers of nukes in Iran, cherry-picking facts and ignoring every other country involved in trying to get a nuclear bomb.

No comments: