The article didn’t go into any details of how we would do it again, let alone be ready to do it again. Dropping it on Teheran or a couple cities in Iran won’t do it to stop Islamic fanatics. They’re like an infestation everywhere in the Middle East and elsewhere. The analogy of using nuclear bombs doesn’t fit against Islamic terror.
The Japanese fanatics infested every inch of the pacific and the Japanese islands. You have to go to the Islamic world and utterly break their hearts.
It can be done. But they correctly perceive that we do not have the will.
It is an easy couple of sentences to overlook but I think they are the most profound in the article.
The result of nations agreeing to actually abide by a ban-the-bomb treaty would lead to no nuclear weapons in the hands of any but rogue nations, such as North Korea. It’s unnecessary to spell out what that would mean. The law is a great instrument to use against the law-abiding. Using it against the lawless works only in conjunction with force, which is what you give up when you disarm yourself hoping that the lawless will follow suit.
He is saying if we want the lawless states to follow the law we have to be ready to use force (the Bomb).
He is also saying that if we unilaterally disarm (nuclear) we give up that ability to persuade states like Iran that we will use the bomb against them if they acquire nuclear weapons.
I wish Obama could spend a little time with the author. But even if he did this fellow would have work really hard I think to come down to Obama’s intellectual level.
Dropping it on the Holy City of Mecca would probably be the most effective way to bring them to leash.