Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Thinking Nuclear

Juan Cole attracted some attention by the clever title of his post on the Iranian nuclear program: Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches 04/12/06. In the post itself, he explains why the current Iranian nuclear capability is far from being on the point of making a bomb.

But this comment is worth noticing, also:

Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.
Obviously, nuclear nonproliferation is too important for other countries to rely on professions of benign intent. But with the Bush administration considering preventive nuclear war against Iran, these things should be thoroughly discussed in the American debate. To the extent there is a debate over attacking Iran.

Meanwhile, in BushWorld, Stephen Rademaker, the US Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, is putting out an alarming message: Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says Bloomberg 04/12/06. I'm getting a bad feeling about this.

Billmon has also put some thought into what the world might look like after the nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs explode in Iran: Mutually Assured Dementia 04/11/06. How would other nations react? Our so-called press corps? What would the partisan Republican spin be? Could the Democrats keep it together to protest against it? Would the public support it?

On the matter of public opinion, I'm afraid Billmon gets a little too far into H.L. Mencken mode for my way of thinking. I could picture an intial reaction of majority approval. But I would expect shock and fear would quickly come to predominate.

This following part of Billmon's exercise in imagination unfortunately sounds all too probable.

One can assume (or at least hope) that first use of nuclear weapons would turn America into an international pariah, at least in the eyes of global public opinion.
And also this one:

For most Americans, then, the initial impact of war with Iran could play out in the same theatre of the absurd as the first Gulf War and the opening phases of the Iraq invasion – that is to say, on their living room TVs. And if there's one place where a nuclear first strike could be made to appear almost normal, or even a good thing, it's on the boob tube.

After all, the corporate media complex has already shown a remarkable willingness to ignore or rationalize conduct that once would have been considered grossly illegal, if not outright war crimes. And the right-wing propaganda machine is happy to paint any atrocity as another glorious success in the battle for democracy (that is, when it's not trying to deny it ever happened.) Why should we expect something as transitory as a nuclear strike to change the pattern?

Let's be honest about it: For both the corporate and the conservative media, as well as for their audiences, an air campaign against Iran would make for great TV – a welcome return to the good old days of Desert Storm and Shock and Awe. All those jets soaring off into the desert twilight; the overexposed glare of cruise missiles streaking from their launch ships; the video game shots of exploding aircraft hangers and government buildings, the anti-aircraft tracers arcing into the night sky over Tehran – it would be war just the way we like it, far removed from the dull brown dust, raw sewage and multiple amputees of the Iraqi quagmire.

And to keep things interesting, we’d have the added frisson of nuclear weapons – a plot twist that would allow blow-dried correspondents to pose in borrowed radiation suits, give Pentagon flacks the opportunity to try out new euphemisms for killing people, and encourage retired generals to spice up their on-air military patter with knowing references to blast effects, kilotons, roentgens and fallout patterns.
And when God is on our side, as the Christian Right leaders assume that he is when it comes to killing Muslims, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Republicans defend it right down the line.

Billmon also links to this new article from Foreign Affairs Mar/Apr 2006: The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press.

| +Save/Share | |




FEATURED QUOTE

"It is the logic of our times
No subject for immortal verse
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."


-- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?


ABOUT US

  • What is the Blue Voice?
  • Bruce Miller
  • Fdtate
  • Marcia Ellen (on hiatus)
  • Marigolds2
  • Neil
  • Tankwoman
  • Wonky Muse

  • RECENT POSTS

  • Grand Terrace News...With Slight Correction
  • Nuclear Weapons and the Bush Doctrine
  • Would the Bush Administration Nuke Iran? Si Se Puede
  • La zorra Estadounidense Nos Avierta de la Amenaza ...
  • Keeping Our Eyes on the Ball in the Immigration De...
  • Carnival of the Green #22
  • Nuking Iran, Or Just Bombing: Will They Or Won't T...
  • Michael Pollan on Becoming Responsible Eaters
  • Contemporary Mythology Debunked
  • The Real Problem

  • ARCHIVES




    RECENT COMMENTS

    [Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
    SEARCH THIS SITE
    Google
    www TBV

    BLUE'S NEWS





    ACT BLUE











    BLUE LINKS

    Environmental Links
    Gay/Lesbian Links
    News & Media Links
    Organization Links
    Political Links
    Religious Links
    Watchdog Links

    BLUE ROLL


    MISCELLANEOUS

    Atom/XML Feed
    Blogarama - Blog Directory
    Blogwise - blog directory

    Blogstreet
    Haloscan


    Blogger

    hits since 06-13-2005

    site design: wonky muse
    image: fpsoftlab.com