Duck and Cover

Philip Giraldi writing in the new issue of "The American Conservative":

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."


---

It's not online yet, I'm afraid; My boss has it delivered here (a brazilian Pat Buchanan groupie. Life is too damn weird), and he showed it to me.

Now, part of the issue is just plain alarmism. Strategy agencies do exactly that: spend time thinking up plans of attack and defense against every enemy or potential enemy that might pop up. Quite often, several plans for each situation. Detailed plans for the methodical destruction of Russia, China and Belize are probably sitting on some Pentagon shelf, and of course, every nuclear power has its own little Brain Trust of Doom.

The scary issue her eis the conditional: in case any large-scale attack happens, the -default- answer will be to pounce on Iran. Even if the attack originate somewhere else. In plain speak: any further attack on the continental United States will be immediately used as an excuse for nuclear strikes against Iran.

I'm not really that freaked by the "nuclear" epithet. I know it's a buzzword, but nuclear energy and weapons have a worse rep than they actually deserve. The fact is, there is only so much chemical explosive punch you can pack on bombs and missiles. The proof of this is the MOAB, the biggest ordnance of the US (dubbed Mother of All Bombs), which is basically a truck-sized pile of high-density explosive. Beyond that, the power curve winds down, and you're better off with a small nuke. Nuclear weapons are just more efficient. In World War 2, the fire-bombing of Tokyo actually killed more people than either of the atomic bombings. But it took hundreds (thousands?) of airplanes and many, many hours to turn the city into a firestorm. That was achieved in Hiroshima with a single little bomb.

To the people below getting blown apart, the point is moot. I don't think anyone ever screamed "Whew! it's just an old fashioned high-explosive bomb falling on my hou----!"

On the issue of nuclear proliferation...well, that's complicated. The fact is, nukes are the perfect insurance. Look at Indian and Pakistan; everyone pouted at them during the 80s and 90s, but as soon as both developed their nukes and paraded them on the streets like homecoming floats, we kissed and made up. Even North Korea, the single most lunatic regime on the planet, gets preferential treatment because of atomic weaponry. More and more, nuclear capability is seen as the best vaccine against foreign invasion. Besides, it's a lot cheaper to maintain a dozen warheads and their silos than keep large standing armies (which would probably jut get air-bombed to oblivion in any significant engagement).

I don't know if the nuclear genie can ever be put back into the bottle. But I'm pretty confident we're doing a lame, lame job of trying.