More of the Beste
Another corking Den Beste post (I know this wastes your time and mine, and I promise this is the last time -- but note that most UK right-wing weblogs link to this guy so I assume they agree with something he is saying). He argues that those who point out that the USA has about 90% of the world's WMD are confusing 'capabilities' and 'intention'. All true and good, except he then says 'It's true that the US has the capability to use WMDs in extraordinarily devastating attacks at very short notice. But for more than fifty years the US has not done so, and would still rather not if it can be avoided.'This still rather not if it can be avoided is probably not particularly reassuring for most people, particularly given the next 10,000 words are spent saying how the US might use its WMD (In passing he says the US is the only country to have acknowledged using WMD in wartime -- so who is the other? India? Israel?)
As he is describing ways in which the US might use WMD to destroy bunkers(!), he comes over all shy, ' I don't care to go into details (why help our enemy with his plans?) but even a crude nuclear weapon is not very large,'..
He then starts to speculate over what would happen in the US in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. He says the US would issue a four-point directive, of which point three would be,
'3. All nations will fully answer any significant questions we ask'
which is fascinating, though one wonders whether other countries would get reciprocal questioning rights. Perhaps Tony could use some of his celebrated 'influence'. But what question would be ask? I'd like to know finally who shot JFK, for instance, but I'm sure others would have more cerebral ones, such as 'what happens in the next episode of 24'.
Blimey. I hadn't read point 4.
"4. Any nation whose cooperation is not considered adequate will be assumed to be an enemy, and may be the target of a saturation nuclear strike at a time of our choosing, without any warning. There will be no negotiations, no second chances, no obfuscation, no delay, no deception".
That's a little heavy. Oh, hang on, 'Would we actually obliterate the first nation which didn't fully cooperate? I don't think so; I think that we'd fire one warning shot, by setting off a nuke in their territory, close enough to a major city so it could be seen and felt and heard but far enough away to not destroy it. That might require one or more small towns to be destroyed, but we wouldn't target a major city or metropolitan area the first time.' Phew...
Oh my goodness. I've kept reading and found an even wackier blog. THis guy has got his Excel spreadsheet out and worked out that the US can't defeat Islamic terorrism without murdering all Muslims in one go and quickly (in the event of a nuclear strike on the US)
posted by Matthew @ 11/26/2003 11:04:00 AM
Comments: 0
