Infinite MonkeysJust a note of clarification - let's not forget that our current enemy does not and will not ever have the kind of nuclear capability that the Soviet Union had. In some ways, ANY capability is worse, of course, because we don't have any idea where to retaliate and would (hopefully) be extremely reluctant to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians in order to "make a point" to the minority of terrorists among them. Additionally, it is unlikely to be an actual deterrent to another attack.
So we've got plenty of retaliatory nukes and nowhere to use them, at least in the Islamic world.
The "bunker buster" question is different - this is a TACTICAL nuclear weapon, which is a concept that is extremely ambiguous to the average voter. Hell, I can't claim to know much about the subject myself, and I'm quite a bit more informed than Joe Bagodonuts. But that's to Kerry's advantage - because the uninformed public hears "nuclear" and thinks carnage and radiation. Why would we use nuclear weapons against little groups of terrorists who are intermingled with civilians? The concept is the direct opposite of all of the "smart" bombs we've been seeing and hearing about - the weapon may drop through a specific chimney, but then one assumes that it will proceed to level and irradiate a city block. Whether or not this is true doesn't matter - Bush wants to incinerate kids! Kerry won't stand for it! Etc. Etc. Etc.
Posted by RobbL at October 3, 2004 08:04 PM | TrackBack