Limited use of Nuclear Weapons
Rogue states need to be policed somehow. One decries the use of limited strikes using nuclear weapons, but there is no disputing their effectiveness. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were regrettable in the loss of life to innocent people, but there is little doubting the effect they had in bringing a quick end to the war in the Pacific. Today, Japan is the second strongest economy in the world after the US. Their trading relationship with Japan is a strong bilateral tie that binds the two nations. The use of nuclear weapons there did not affect the future potential for economic and cultural ties.
North Korea is a country that is holding the rest of the world hostage with their on-again, off-again goal of producing nuclear weapons. Indeed, the state of war between North Korea and the Alliance that fought against them is still in effect. Should North Korea persist in developing a nuclear capability while their people starve, then their military and atomic infrastructure should be eliminated with a requisite number of low-yield nuclear strikes.
And can there be any doubt that nuclear weapons produced by Iran would not find themselves in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic factions that are in a state of war against Israel and the West? In the case of Iran the decision to use nuclear weapons is strategically easier. No doubt their case-hardened manufacturing and processing facilities are located in the desert, away from population centers. With a reported 3,000 centrifuges producing fissionable isotopes this should be a watershed moment for the argument of diplomacy over force as a way to solve disputes. I believe talks should be held and serious efforts to sway the Iranians from developing a nuclear capability. No effort should be spared: However, if talks should not bear fruit, then their capability to produce weapons should be stopped with nuclear strikes on production sites. The residual radiation alone would ensure they could never be used again. This would also serve to l'encourage les outres'.
North Korea is a country that is holding the rest of the world hostage with their on-again, off-again goal of producing nuclear weapons. Indeed, the state of war between North Korea and the Alliance that fought against them is still in effect. Should North Korea persist in developing a nuclear capability while their people starve, then their military and atomic infrastructure should be eliminated with a requisite number of low-yield nuclear strikes.
And can there be any doubt that nuclear weapons produced by Iran would not find themselves in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic factions that are in a state of war against Israel and the West? In the case of Iran the decision to use nuclear weapons is strategically easier. No doubt their case-hardened manufacturing and processing facilities are located in the desert, away from population centers. With a reported 3,000 centrifuges producing fissionable isotopes this should be a watershed moment for the argument of diplomacy over force as a way to solve disputes. I believe talks should be held and serious efforts to sway the Iranians from developing a nuclear capability. No effort should be spared: However, if talks should not bear fruit, then their capability to produce weapons should be stopped with nuclear strikes on production sites. The residual radiation alone would ensure they could never be used again. This would also serve to l'encourage les outres'.
