Using Nuclear Weapons to Force Political Change in the Islamic World

David Henderson makes some interesting points in regards to dissecting the cautious modus operandi of economist Walter Williams, author of the article,

“Will the U.S. Defend Itself?" http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9612

Williams hesitantly argues in this article for the utility of nuclear strikes against Iran and Syria. However, the issue is not really clarified by comparing, as Henderson does, a potential nuclear strike on Iran or Iraq with the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki half a century ago. The clarifying notion of using proactive military force to prevent future civilian losses on US soil with nuclear weapons is worth considering in the light of current radical Islamic military tactics.

Only a fool would argue that if Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons that they would not use them. The main issue to determine is who the enemy really is and then to take aggressive action on those elements regardless of which country they may reside in. During war, some human rights get suspended. By declaring nuclear war on Irhabists (terrorists), no matter what country they reside in, (including our own and those of our “friends”) we might force the Islamic world to break up into declared factions of self-preservation based on religious tolerance and force the issue politically. Malyasia and Turkey come to mind as examples of Islamic Republics that would not hesitate to declare their nations as opposed to terrorism despite any sympathies they might feel with the downtrodden Palestinians or other groups of Muslims “oppressed” by the West. Those countries that would fail to declare tolerance for the existence of other religions or countries such as Israel that they do not like could be selectively nuked until the leadership says, “uncle”.

In my opinion, the enemy is a certain brand of Islamic fundamentalism that is not represented by Syria but may well be represented by Iran or Hizbollah in Lebannon. Given that hindsight is 20/20, we would have been far better off leaving Saddam in power and nuking North Korea, which would have reduced, once and for all, the chances of radical elements within the Muslim community obtaining nuclear weapons.

Do we have, as the Spanish say, the cojones to do this? Not likely. Better though to do it now than wait until a US city goes up in a flash of light.