tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post7147377726479985297..comments2023-10-19T12:25:15.143+01:00Comments on The Osterley Times: Krauthammer Times It Very Badly.Kelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14466059072530968330noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post-33821421364635022482009-10-04T07:15:43.877+01:002009-10-04T07:15:43.877+01:00Dave I couldn't agree more. These insane bugge...Dave I couldn't agree more. These insane buggers were the ones who used to tell us that Mutually Assured Destruction was what kept the world safe. By the logic they employed in the eighties they should be demanding that Iran have even more of the bloody things so we'd all be safer.<br /><br />But, as you say, somewhere along the line the neo-cons - remember Bush's promise of "bunker busting nuclear weapons"? - have started talking as if this is a weapon of choice rather than a final option of no return. That's what Reagan's silly Star Wars option is all about; it introduces the stupid notion that nuclear wars can be fought and won, which is utter madness.Kelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14466059072530968330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24005214.post-76464534720108681442009-10-03T22:57:54.456+01:002009-10-03T22:57:54.456+01:00The stupid thing about the whole nuclear debate is...The stupid thing about the whole nuclear debate is that NeoCons treat nukes like they were tactical weaponry, when the truth is that they are (for any small or civilized nation) an endgame option only. No one but maybe a neocon-led U.S. would chance using a nuke because it would invite a similar response, and who is <i>really</i> that crazy? Certainly not Iran.<br />It was a weapon of deterrence then, and it's still a weapon of deterrence, not one of attack.daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.com