Back to Main
June 29, 2005
WB: Buck Turgidson Rides Again
Comments
I’ve said before that there was (INHO) frighteningly real chances that the next 5 year or so would see a tactical nuclear strike either against or by the US, or both.
The variables are: (i) will anti-US forces manage to score another 9/11-type strike? and (ii) the degree of desperation of the neo-fascists.
There’s no doubt in my mind al all that there is NOTHING that is beneath Bush, the most craven and therefore dangerous president in US history, or beyond his doing.
Given the “right” set of circumstances, they’ll inflict damage that will make the present circumstances look like The Andy Griffith Show.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 29 2005 18:02 utc | 1
@Lupin – a “tactical nuclear strike” on the U.S. would be a states act and no state is crazy enough to try to pull that off.
A non-state actor igniting a dirty or nuclear device in the U.S. is possible, but the chances that this would be a U.S. device is much higher than that it would be a foreign device.
A U.S. tactical nuclear device on, say Iran, is a real possibility. It would be very dumb, but then …
@b. You’re right of course and I oversimplified; I do realize that a full blown nuke attack on US soil (despite 24 and other paranoid shows) has little probability of happening, though I suppose it can’t be completely discounted (second hand nuke?).
I meant only to equate a 9/11-type attack (dirty bomb, even suicide bombers on Time Square at midnight on New Year’s Eve) with US reprisal using tactical nukes. They have them, they’re itching to use them…
In any event, there’s too much desive for revenge on one side, and too much need-for-fear-to-cling-to-power on the other side to not magnify these probabilities.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 29 2005 18:24 utc | 3
Ahhh, Purity of Essence …
Military Options for Dealing with North Korea’s Nuclear Program
Phillip C. Saunders[1]
As the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program continues, an obvious question is whether the United States might use military force to resolve the crisis. This report explores some of the tactical issues that would be involved in military strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities and explains why an anonymous senior Bush administration official concluded that although the United States has military options, “we don’t have good ones.” [2]
Three key issues would be involved in successful military strikes against North Korean nuclear facilities:
1) locating all facilities and fissile material stocks that could be used in a nuclear weapons program;
2) possessing the capability to destroy these targets; and
3) preventing North Korea from retaliating with artillery fire, missile strikes, chemical or biological weapons use, escalation to a full-scale conventional war, or nuclear weapons …
– snip –
Given the high risks and limited ability of military strikes to destroy North Korean nuclear capabilities, it is easy to see why Bush administration officials, like the Clinton administration officials before them, have decided that military means are an unattractive way to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 19:01 utc | 5
Outraged — re: the essence.
Does this mean that the Twignoramous, like Manuel in Fawlty Towers, really has…learned?
“General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
Or is it just that your precious leader is actually from Barcelona?
General Jack D. Ripper tells Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake about his ideas concerning “purity of essence:”
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I– no, no. I don’t, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.
… It’s a variation on Peace on Earth or Purity of Essence. EOP. – Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 19:36 utc | 8
And when did they introduce the ‘Internet’s’ to the masses?
Was that late 1992?
And we know who temporarily took over the Free (Willy) World then don’t we?
And that Mosaic thing…..
Is that French?
I was fighting for that quote when I read the news piece earlier. Couldn’t quite drag the details out of the back of my mind.
Foiled again. Drat you Billmon.
Great job Billmon. That picture of Slim Pickens riding that bomb out of the cargo bay is classic.
I always liked his westerns better. There was something about his voice that always made me laugh.
I do believe we are in danger of a nukular strick. But not from North Korea. I believe China is a much more dangerous country over the long run to world stability. Well, maybe not world stability, but to US stability. If we got to cocky, I do believe they would f— us up if they had the chance.
Posted by: jdp | Jun 30 2005 1:20 utc | 11
I’m a bigger believer in cock ups than conspiracies but I can’t shake the feeling that the repugs are gonna pull some stroke or another if the numbers look too bad after next winter.
It could be a mean one for proles in the US. Oil at $80.barrel unemployment at an all time high. Iraq news getting even worse. Now on the surface none of that is bad if you’re a repug except the prospect of having to slow down a bit for the Demopublicans.
So we still haven’t really learnt what that antrax bizzo in november 2001 was really about so whoever dreamt that one up is still available for another ‘action’.
If nukular action does happen what better place than downtown LA or NY with a ‘dirty bomb’ so simple that tracking it’s source would be nigh impossible?
Think of the options available to a good ol repug then. The draft, Iran, plus victory in the mid terms!
Is there anyone out there that thinks they wouldn’t do it if it appeared possible to get away with?
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 30 2005 2:42 utc | 12
It’s tempting to project the following scenario.
Shit happens.
Fear Grips America – Part Two. America kicks Darkies ass somewhere.
Bush tired (made a few mistakes, see, we’re not bad).
Bush II (new improved stronger) steps to the podium.
Repeat cycle.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 30 2005 6:32 utc | 13
Atlantic Monthly war gamed the North Korea crisis with a bunch of former administration officials (both Clinton and Bush):
Director of National Intelligence Mathews disagreed that Seoul could be shielded: “My understanding is that we cannot protect Seoul, at least for the first twenty-four hours of a war, and maybe for the first forty-eight.” McInerney disputed this, and Mathews asked him to explain.
McInerney: “There’s a difference between ‘protecting’ Seoul and [limiting] the amount of damage Seoul may take.”
Mathews: “There are a hundred thousand Americans in Seoul, not to mention ten million South Koreans.”
McInerney: “A lot of people are going to die, Jessica. But you still prevail… I believe that we have the capability—whether from pre-emption or response—to minimize the casualties in Seoul.”
Mathews: “‘Minimize’ to roughly what level? A hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand?”
McInerney: “I think a hundred thousand or less.”
Posted by: Vin Carreo | Jun 30 2005 11:54 utc | 14