How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Mullahs and Embrace The Bomb
by Guest Author on March 24, 2006 06:56 AM

by "Dr. Strangelove," a.k.a. Mark Buehner
Why We Must Nuke Iran; or
How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Mullahs and Embrace The Bomb

American foreign policy is approaching a crisis more catastrophic than any since at least World War 2. According to some sources, the terrorist nation of Iran has already acquired an unknown number of nuclear weapons of at least the Hiroshima variety. Trent Telenko has written about the high likelihood of Iran being in possession of nuclear weapons, and the "certainty of nuclear war" should we attempt to divest them of these weapons via a bombing campaign as some have suggested. Ladies and Gentlemen, this evidence is impossible to ignore. Even if by some unlikely quirk our Intelligence Services prove incorrect about Iran’s current state of nuclear readiness, it is still only a matter of time before the Mullahs retain a full nuclear arsenal, perhaps rivaling our own. Perhaps soon.

As glorious as the halcyon days of the Cold War proved to be, with our shining bombers and prowling submarines on constant standby to shower our enemies with American ingenuity, those days are gone forever. A standoff with Iran will prove to be a messy affair of dirty bombs and irradiated oil wells, hardly worthy of our bravest warriors and finest minds. The Mullahs have shown themselves to be mad religious zealots eager to martyr themselves and as many of their flock as possible, as quickly as possible. We would do well to send them on their way.

Thomas Holsinger provides other underpinnings for why it is intolerable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons in his The Case for Invading Iran, also agreeing that any course short of invasion will be disastrous:

"Half-measures in war only make things worse. If we really want to find out how much Iran’s mullah regime can hurt us, and relearn the lessons of Vietnam, we need only bomb without invading. That will maximize our losses. Those who advocate mere bombing have not considered that Iran might already have some nuclear weapons."

Needless to say, those who advocate invasion would do well to consider that Iran might have nuclear weapons as well. If a bombing campaign will provoke a nuclear retaliation, an invasion would be certain to. Holsinger addresses this point:

"Consider also, that, if small numbers of Iranian nuclear weapons are enough of a threat to seriously menace an American invasion, they are enough of a threat to merit pre-emptive attack with American nuclear weapons. Get real - our nukes are bigger than theirs, and we have lots more than they do. And if Iranian nuclear weapons aren’t enough of a threat to merit pre-emptive use of our own, they’re not a reason to avoid invading."

Some would argue these two arguments seem irreconcilable, but my only quibble is that Holsinger doesn’t take his argument seriously enough. If air strikes will provoke a nuclear response, surely a physical invasion of the Iranian homeland aiming to kill or apprehend the leadership in control of the nuclear weapons will invoke the same response. Either way nuclear war is in the offing.

If we believe these reports (and prudence dictates we must), simple logic leads us to several inevitable conclusions:

Iran must be disarmed. This is imperative to all of our safety from nuclear attack.

Pragmatically, we must assume Iran already has nuclear weapons. To do otherwise is either recklessly naïve or playing into the Mullahs hands (take your pick).

In order to conventionally disarm Iran with effective certainty, we must invade. We know this because we are told so.

Invasion will compel Iran to use their nuclear weapons. We have established that the Mullahs have been dreaming of using their nuclear weapons against the Great Satan. They will not miss their big chance.

We will be forced to retaliate. To do otherwise would expose our entire MAD doctrine as a fraud, and invite China and Russia to launch a first strike against us, destroying the United States. This is unacceptable from a National Security standpoint.

Military theory and International Law are in agreement on this point: when under threat of immanent attack, it is not only legal, but morally imperative to preempt the enemy. It is of critical importance that Iran is brought to heel for this, not only to avenge the future deaths of our brave troops/ civilians/ oil fields, but more importantly to send a clear message to other rogue nations around the globe. It is simply a case of good fortune that this course of action will lead to the victims of Iranian nuclear aggression never dying in the first place. Make of that what you will, but some might call it providence.

As sound as the rationales for attack may be, this campaign will not be without its critics. Moreover, before engaging in any bold course of action it is important to identify potential downsides and attempt to mitigate any negative repercussions where possible.

International Condemnation:
Even our closest allies will find it difficult to applaud a full scale multi-megaton thermo-nuclear bombardment against Iran before diplomacy has ‘run its course’. Yet, this seems to be a given in any force scenario on the table. Since we have already established that international opinion cannot be allowed to dissuade us from the disarming a rogue nation, we can hardly allow it to dissuade us from defending ourselves against impending nuclear attack from same. In other words if we will not cave to international pressure to prevent us from eliminating a potential threat, we can certainly not waver in the face of that which is manifest. In the end, our allies will thank us (and our enemies fear us).

A nuclear strike will incite other dubious nations to pursue their own nuclear deterrent.
In fact, the opposite is true. If Iran’s nuclear arsenal did not protect her from American preemption, why would an arsenal in Syria or Venezuela? Moreover, our only other option at this point (as we have said) is a conventional invasion. This would certainly be a threat rogue nations would be compelled to defend themselves from, and nuclear weapons could provide that security if we were to set an example in Iran by not using our own. It is not using nuclear weapons that will provide incentive to develop nuclear weapons. One could argue that the best way to prevent nuclear weapons from being used in the future is to use ours now.

A nuclear exchange is highly likely in any event. It would be better to invade first and nuke later.
It would be unconscionable to sacrifice our soldiers in a conventional war that we fully know will go nuclear. I see no upside to this scenario. To advocate such a course puts unnecessary blood on our hands.

It is immoral to use strategic nuclear weapons against civilians.
The demonization of thermo-nuclear weapons has been a great triumph for the appeasers and apologists of the Western World. Untold billions of dollars and sweat from the brows of the most brilliant of scientists and engineers have gone into crafting these awe-inspiring weapons. Of course, like any tool the nuclear bomb has its advantages and certain unavoidable drawbacks. Weapons inflict collateral damage, it is in their nature. But we do not blame the hammer when it bends a faulty nail. It was the deliberate choice of the Iranian Mullahs to have brazenly and malevolently chosen to secret their nuclear facilities and leadership posts inside heavily populated areas. This is unfortunate. Ultimately, the Iranian leaders must be held responsible for the impending nuclear fire we must rain down upon their citizens. But what choice do we have? The sad truth is that the best hope we can offer the beset Iranian people for a democratic future is by visiting a comprehensive thermonuclear attack upon their population centers. What children survive will surely thank us for it.

It is immoral to use nuclear weapons in a first strike under any circumstance.
This will be the most prevalent criticism from ‘certain quarters’. But is it valid? No. First we much question why we possess nuclear weapons to begin with. Obviously we must have them to defend ourselves from other nuclear nations, but that is only the first reason. Despite the negative connotations associated with them, nuclear weapons are useful tools in the American arsenal. After all, it is illogical to build weapons not meant to be used. If we have assembled an array of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of avenging ourselves in the event of a nuclear strike, what are we but murderers? Vengeance is not a moral rationale for violence. If we are to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and prudence demands that we should, it is important to provide a role for these weapons. Can anyone think of a more appropriate cause than defending United States interests from the likes of the Islamo-fascist Mullahs? I, for one, cannot.

In conclusion, the evidence is clear that Iran is a clear and present threat to the American way of life, and is now in possession of nuclear weapons. This is an intolerable state that will be addressed in the immediate future. Thousands of American lives now depend on the decisions we make in how to disarm the Iranian regime. At the end of the day, the most effective, direct, and perhaps humane solution is a thorough nuclear first strike against Iran which must be sure to eliminate all WMDs as well as the Iranian leadership responsible for pursuing them.

It may not be the most universally embraced of decisions, but it is the correct one for the American people and for the good of the world. Let us all learn to love The Bomb.


« ok, I'm done now

Direct Link | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (3) | Printer-Friendly | E-mail This

Thanks AZ forums!