Have you heard? Iran has a nuclear program and rumor has it they are trying to develop nuclear weapons so they can rid the world of Jews and anyone else who megalomaniac Mahmoud Ahmadinejad deems worthy of eradication from this planet.

There is conflicting information as to whether any of the activities within Iran with regards to nuclear research and development mean that activity has as its end game a weapon or weapons.

Even credible news sources disagree as to the conclusions stemming from a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last November that noted some actions may have dual peaceful and weapons purposes but others seem to have only weapons applications, suggesting Iran IS developing a bomb.

The first report here, from November, concludes that is the case, while the latter, from less than a month ago, does not assert that with certainty.

There are currently economic sanctions against Iran in an attempt to force it to abandon its nuclear program and some politicians call for more. Some hawkish Senators tried to forge a bipartisan approach with tougher language that some characterize as almost an authorization to use military force. It failed.

But it is noted that the IAEA and U.S. intelligence are still not convinced on Iran’s nuclear weapons intent.

Republican candidate Rick Santorum has even explicitly stated that if Iran did not open its facilities for inspection and dismantle any weapons program, he would initiate air strikes…you know…bombing…you know…war.

For some reason too many people in charge believe we have the right to dictate to a sovereign nation, Iran, as to how it arms itself. I question why this is.

Did we bomb Israel while it was developing nuclear weapons? No

Were India and Pakistan, two neighbors who frequently appear to be on the brink of war with each other, bombed while each was developing nuclear weapons? No

Did North Korea face air strikes as it developed its nuclear weapons? No

In these days when so many complain that the federal government does things that are not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, I looked to that magnificent document and see no language authorizing our government to act as the Sheriff of The World.

Wyatt Earp and his brothers became embroiled in the Gunfight at The OK Corral with the Clantons because the town of Tombstone had an ordinance forbidding the carrying of firearms in town. (Hear that NRA?) So Wyatt and his deputies moved to enforce that ordinance.

In the present day we have no law forbidding the building of nuclear weapons that applies to other sovereign nations. There has been no effort by such foreign nations to introduce those weapons within the boundaries of the United States.

Frankly any miscreant nation that irresponsibly and stupidly unleashes such a weapon upon the U.S. faces retaliation on a scale too horrific to contemplate. Even if such a weapon is unleashed in the Middle East, chances are retaliation will be swift and catastrophic.

No matter how unbalanced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears at times, most assessments consider him far more calculating than crazy. So his nuclear efforts seem more motivated by wanting his nation to grow a huge set of balls than to wanting to eradicate whole populations.

We do NOT have the right to dictate who gets the bomb.We are not Wyatt Earp, accompanied by Virgil and Morgan Earp and Doc Holliday, empowered to disarm Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Clanton Clan.

We do need to stand ready to defend ourselves, but even Wyatt, Virgil, Morgan and Doc would have time now to relax, play a little poker or faro, and drink some whiskey.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Richard Russell Wood  On March 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM

    Hi UMOC.

    thescarletpumpernickel here.

    You stated:

    Frankly any miscreant nation that irresponsibly and stupidly unleashes such a weapon upon the U.S. faces retaliation on a scale too horrific to contemplate.

    I have to wonder if we in fact *do* have any plan in place in such an eventuality, and if so what it is, given that we didn’t seem to have a plan when a horrorific act of terrorism tookplace on our soil (9-11).

    How *would* we retaliate, and in what measure?


    • umoc193  On March 8, 2012 at 2:56 AM

      The easy answer is that if a nuke is dropped on us we would respond in kind. That certainly was the “plan” in the Cold War. Dropping a nuke in return may not even be necessary. Since the U.S. has wielded the most destructive and efficient forces known to man, the threat should be a deterrent but if less cataclysmic action would bring the desired results, if we did restrain ourselves that may be a PR coup in the eyes of the world, while achieving the same ends.

      As to 9/11, I would dispute that we didn’t have a plan in place. That plan was the regular criminal justice system which had dealt just fine with the previous WTC bombing and Oklahoma City and hundreds of other cases of terrorism.

  • Richard Russell Wood  On March 8, 2012 at 7:42 AM

    Well, in the case of international acts of terrorism, it appears that the criminal justice system as solution and deterrant was/is naive.

    Come to think of it, were there such a thing as a system of enforceable global justice, wars would probably be avoided.

    As this doesn’t seem to be the case, the U.S., by default, in its own often twisted way, attempts to do the very thing that you are writing about, i.e., enforce some form of peace and order in the world.

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: