Senator Clinton's Nuke Iran Comment

Hillary Clinton's comment about nuking Iran in retaliation if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons has drawn derision from at least one well known liberal who I greatly admired.

Allow me to present a different prospective.

In the late 1940s, nuclear arsenals held by the USA and the USSR (nee Soviet Union) began their growth towards the enormous death dealing capacity that exists today. The COLD WAR was born. Air force planes flying shotgun in the sky ready to attack, nuclear submarines trying silently as possible to get positions in the ocean to fire nuclear missiles, silos that had more nuclear missiles that could be launch from the USA -- all became the insurance that told the USSR that anything it did to destroy us or our allies would guarantee their own destruction also. It borders on dark humor to call this standstill by the acronym MAD -- Mutual Assured Destruction. AND IT WORKED. War ceased for those countries under each superpower's protective umbrella. With great armies of both sides staring at each other in Europe, no engagements took place that rekindled more war. Vietnam was unlucky, it had no protector. Neither Tibet. Formosa, now Taiwan, was and still exists as an independent entity because there is tacit agreement on how the USA will talk about its future vis-a-vis China, a late bloomer as a nuclear arsenal possessor. South Korea and Japan live free.

Senator Clinton's remark made it clear to Iran's mullahs -- who really control that country -- that destroying Israel by the use of nuclear weapons was unacceptable. Iran should best think of Israel as America's 51rst state, since, if she were president, Iran would not exist after such an attack. Sobering--you might think she was mad, but actually she was invoking MAD!

ADDENDUM: THE FIRST 3 POST TO THIS ARTICLE POINTED OUT A MISTAKE I MADE. THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION PUT TO SENATOR CLINTON WAS ONLY ABOUT A NUCLEAR ATTACK BY IRAN, NOTHING SAID BY ITS PRESIDENT.

Comments

[runswithscissors]

For one, Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons. By answering the question, she gives credibility to the Bush fairy tale that Iran has, and wants to use, these weapons. Furthermore, why is it automatically assumed that Iran would be the aggressor in a conflict between the two? Israel has shown FAR more willingness to attack other nations based on dubious claims about security.

[oldpotsmuggler]

The first use in today"s world of any nuclear device by any country would result in every citizen of that country, wherever found outside of its boundaries, being massacred by their neighbors just for being related to the perpetrators of such a massive crime against humanity. Modern communications being as they are, this travesty would be broadcast in all it's horrific imagery to virtually every inhabitant of Planet Earth. If, for example, the mass murderer were Iran, it can be expected that the outrage would inflame the entire planet to purge society of all Iranian progeny wherever found.

The planetary outrage over 9-11 was astounding, and the most genuine outpouring of human outrage imaginable. Now multiply that by an entire country being vaporized in an instant. Our species does not have it within us to react other than in excess if we are ever brought face to face, en masse, to such a horrendous event.

MAD works because of our commonality.

Sen. Clinton was asked a hypothetical beyond the range of the humanly possible and should have defended our human commonality, instead of adhering to the false construct that there are major bodies of humanity who are simply not equal to the rest of us in their fundamental civility.

If Sen. Clinton had handled this question in a non political manner, she would have scorched the moderator for taking such an offense track, and waited to address her views on Iran until presented with a far less sensationalistic hypothetical.

[RumiSouth]

"Senator Clinton's remark made it clear to Iran's mullahs -- who really control that country -- that its president's statement about destroying Israel by vanquishing it into the sea with the use of nuclear weapons was unacceptable."

That statement contains a necessary truth, then repeats a tired lie. Meanwhile, the entire article is based on a series of Chenyian assumptions.

The truth is that, for all his historical revisionism, Ahmedinejad does not control the armed forces of Iran. The real power in that country belongs to Ayatollah Khamenei, a pragmatic conservative who has declared the development, testing, or use of nuclear weapons to be a violation of Islamic law.

The truth is that Ahmedinejad didn't say anything about using nuclear weapons against Israel, and he didn't even say anything about 'wiping Israel off the map' -- that was a mistranslation.

But the entire basis of this argument is that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. It doesn't.

The reason Iran wants nuclear power is really quite simple: oil is $120 a barrel. At that price, every drop boiled away for electricity is money down the drain. Electricity is one of the few successes of the Revolution and one very much in danger because of an exploding population. And as much as Iran is a nationalist country with a long history of overdependence on Russia, they have every reason to want to control the nuclear fuel cycle.

[bointreau]

Is anybody actually stupid enough to believe Iran is going to attack Israel?

[tompoe]

Obviously, Cressy, but only while drinking the Clinton/Bush Kool-Aid.

[StinkyPete]

"its president's statement about destroying Israel by vanquishing it into the sea with the use of nuclear weapons was unacceptable

as well as non-existent.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

"Iran should best think of Israel as America's 51rst state"

Actually - they regard the USA as a lackey of Israel. And accurately so.

The remarks about destroying Iran was just the Whiskey talkin'. Obamers will pretty well do much the same - although Jews make up ~3% of the population - they are ~10% of the superdelegates.