by kamanda, Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:33:11 PM EST
There's been a lot of discussion about the US response to Iran's nuclear weapons development program. President Ahmadinejad is one crazy dude, and Dick Cheney would love to invite him on a quail-hunting trip. As I understand it, when folks in the administration discuss using "military options" against Iran, they basically mean nukes. This is primarily because the majority of the suspected nuclear enrichment facilities are deep underground and can't be destroyed with conventional military weapons, thus the need for a nuclear bomb to ensure these strategic targets have been decimated.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this. I would like to say that it is a bad idea partially because it is loosely based on an antiquated "first-strike" policy of the Cold War military strategy, the assumptions of which (threats from communist Soviet Union) are no longer valid. And perhaps more importantly, the policy is inconsistent with the Nonproliferation Treaty. But how else do you ameliorate a situation in which a very angry man who would like to blow up your country, is developing the capability to do so?