Danger Will Robinson, danger!

The last person who diaried about this was last seen jumping on cars while wearing a tutu in downtown Manhattan, before police took him over to the Loony Tunes Psychiatric Center for observation.

all she said is that if Iran uses nukes on israel, we'd have the option open. obama hasn't ruled that out yet.

I don't necessarily see this as a big deal, considering that it's just a hypothetical about a nuclear-armed Iran.  However, I really don't like it when our politicians start rattling sabers against other countries like this, when it serves no purpose.  The "axis of evil" speech certainly hasn't done us any good in our talks with North Korea.    

Praise Ronald Reagan's inspiring version of political rhetoric = treason in the party.

Adopt his foreign policy = toughness and clear-minded thinking?

The deterance argument might be pramatically effective, but it is by all means unethical.  I am horrified by this notion.

We do in fact have an extremely expensive nuclear arsenal.  I, for one, do not favor unilaterally disposing of it.

Multilateral disposal by treaty would be great, but we're not very close to that point.  So long as we must maintain this expensive nuclear arsenal (or at least a substatial fraction of it), why not make the only conceivable use of the arsenal that may be made?  The threat value of nuclear weapons can come pretty close to completely eliminating certain unacceptable outcomes, such as nuclear attack on Israel.

In most cases, saber-rattling is bad.  However, nuclear deterrence against unacceptable eventualities is an exception to that rule with proven effectiveness.  I'm not sure what you mean by "unethical,"--in fact, I don't have a clue what  you mean--but I personally am too outcomes-based to regard something that prevents things like nuclear aggression as that.  

Nuclear deterrence simply doesn't work unless, of course, you anounce it in advance.

Are you of the opinion that she should not " warn " Iran that "their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States." ?

- I would think any rational president would warn Iran of such consequences to serve as a deterrent.

Seems like a reasonable position to me.

I am sorry, but suggesting the nuclear option is a option just goes beyond the pale of rational thinking. I think there are probably more than a few real foreign policy experts, not to mention some military ones absolutely scratching their head wondering what in God's name is she thinking.

I know many in the Hillary camp will disagree, but this verges on neocon saber rattling.

This of course doesn't even take into account the latest  NIE which has Iran much further away from a nuclear capability than previously thought. However since she choose to vote on Iraq without reading the Iraq NIE why should she have read this one.

were you born during the cold war? do you understand the concept of viable nuclear deterrence? Here is something for your education:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/0 4/iran_and_extended_deterrence/

Finally before writing a diary worthy of the loony tunes, ask yourself what would Obama do if Israel was nuked? How will he deter Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Hoping that he will not play politics (like he always does and did when the same question was asked off him and he gave a avgue non-specific answer...either that or he is just does not have a middle east Iran policy) and give an honest and detailed answer worthy of someone running for president if USA and not president of his high school class.

Rec'd for an important subject.

Yeah,

Cheney is a whole lot better than Hillary Clinton.
If that's your closing argument, you need to be over at RedState.

   I said nothing that wasn't true. Hillary has mentioned the possibility of bombing Iran...she did vote for the Iraq war and in my opinion that robs her of credibility on these issues.

  TR me if you like...but it's not me that isn't objective...it's you!