Regarding Iran, we have of course been here before. People start running around talking about how "serious people" all understand the "dire" threat posed by some country or other, headed up by the latest incarnation of Hitler. What should be done isn't quite clear, but serious people understand that something has to be done. Pretty soon all "serious people" understand that we must have the "courage" to "face the threat" with the appropriate degree of seriousness, and all proposals of "what we must do" which don't involve the blowing up of nontrivial numbers of people are quickly relegated to the "unserious" camp.Now, if you still feel the need to "deal" with the "threat" of Iran, I give you a two word strategy: assured destruction. In dealing with the Soviet Union, who some might say was a slightly more formidible threat than Iran, we had MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. MAD was us telling the USSR, Yeah, you may strike us, but fo' sho' we will strike you, and we both have enough weapons to make sure the other is utterly destroyed, so, really, what's the point? Now, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that as a kid I wasn't scared as hell, thinking every roar of the jet engines out at Lemoore Naval Air Station was the beginining of WWIII. Because I was scared. But I'm here typing this, so I guess it all worked out.
Iran has no nuclear weapons. We are obsessed with not letting them get one. That's fine. More nuclear countries makes me uncomfortable. But war to prevent it? After the Iraq debacle? I don't think so. Just let Iran know, "Hey dudes, if you do manage to cobble together a nuke, I highly suggest you keep it holstered, because if you ever use it, you're X'd". So we start now to get other coutries, including Russia and CHina, on board with my AD strategy. And holy shit that will be hard. But once they are, well, we no longer have a problem, right? Yay, us.
No comments:
Post a Comment