For most people, the use of nuclear weapons is probably not even a matter for debate. But there’s another opinion. Its current champion, in the media at least, is John Bolton, George W. Bush’s former ambassador to the UN.
I would guess that, for most people, the use of nuclear weapons is not even a matter for debate. Indeed, since the last actively deployed nuclear weapon showed its true colours 64 years ago, even the most belligerent of world leaders have yielded to a saner instinct and kept their fingers off the button, to few complaints.
But there’s another opinion. Its current champion, in the media at least, is John Bolton, George W. Bush’s one-time pick as Ambassador to the United Nations. In a conference ironically entitled “Ensuring Peace”, Bolton argued that the only sure way to stopping a nuclear first strike is – to initiate a nuclear first strike.
“So we’re at a very unhappy point — a very unhappy point — where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.”
Quoting the AlJaz article,
Every chorus has a conductor, the pro-nuke-Iran pundits are largely bankrolled by Old Oil.
Any man who could go out in public in that absurd moustache doesn’t care what people think of him. I assume this is part of a right wing strategy to deploy nuclear families against rogue Islamic states.
In an effort to state the obvious – the problem is Iran, not Bolton or the GOP.
There seems to be some confusion.
Balancing this is Iran’s determination to nuke John Bolton.
Sounds like the conference was held at Newcombe Auditorium.
Let’s just assume we’re the Great Satan/Evil Empire.
The ultimate empire thinking would say,”Any nuclear attack on the United States by anyone will result in the following nations being instantly vaporized: …” This would be every nation known to have nuclear weapons, plus Iran, Israel, South Africa, and the other probables/possibles. Leave out Russia/China/UK/France for obvious large arsenals capable of second strike.
Then, you basically transfer the responsibility for preventing a nuke attack on the US to the nations on your list. It would be greatly in their own interest to prevent an attack on us. “We’ve used them before, and we’ll use them again.”
If we’re going to be an empire, we may as well be competent about it. Make your vassal states do the dirty work for you while you carry around the big stick.
Sounds to me like he is stating the obvious. Not sure from the text quoted that he is advocating an Israeli first strike only stating that it is the only thing to stop the Islamic Republic of Iran from becoming nuclear. Bitch about Republicans all you want but it doesn’t change the facts on the ground. I’m sure Obama will talk Iran to a more enlightened position since he is Peace Prize winner now.
Just nuke them FFS, get it over with.
“…where unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons …”
So, he wants Israel to nuke them?
Does he think that somehow that would be not as bad as if the US nuked them?
http://tinyurl.com/ye6mum5
Nuking Israel would be insanity for Iran. What exactly would it accomplish? Do you think they could do a surgical strike and not affect the Palestinians? You glass parking lot morons are just a little bit paranoid, dontcha think?
This is my son with a mustache.
http://tinyurl.com/n98gee
It is not clear to me from the article if Bolton was encouraging Israel to use nukes or if he was just stating the situation. Bolton’s got a big mouth and isn’t afraid to use it. But this appears to be a case of taking things out of context.
McCullough: Why would you think surgical strike? Ahmadinejad and his ilk don’t care about the Palestinian’s or any others in the region. Wiping out Israel is the important thing. Any dead Muslims would just go collect their share of heaven’s endless supply of virgins. Hell, he’d be doing them a favor!
By the way: couldn’t being surrounded by 72 virgins also qualify as a level of hell?
Ok #6 had a point. Now that we’re contemplating the uncontemplatable. I’m betting Bolton was more stating a point, not saying he actively advocated it. But it may be a point to be discussed simply to get it all out in the open and off the collective chest.
It could be a goad to Obama.
@#6, #11: One giant hole in your reasoning – you assume you are dealing with Govt. who is interested in peace, stability or even pragmatism.
Nuking Palestinians (and even Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem)? Yes, when you even in front of religion-uninterested, peace-pretending UN repeat that you are hoping for chaos and disaster that will lead to your victory.
“Holy nuclear war” with USA if you gain nuclear weapons? Yes, when you think that the holy miracle men will rise from the ground as a reward for it.
For that reason Bolton’s statement is important. He does not directly call for nuking the Iran but “unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.” states undeniable truth. No one else (who is able to do it) is interested in stopping Iran by force at this moment. Protection of nuclear sites is such that no other weapon would do much but annoy Iranians. Finally, no amount of sanctions or talking to Govt. whose goals of power and destruction of Israel are “religious obligations” can yield any results (and every single Govt. pretending to do diplomatic talks with Iran knows this for certain).
As a result we are on crossroads: either we will have Iran with nuclear weapons or Israel will nuke them soon. Nothing else remains as an option. That is what Bolton have said and that is pure and simple truth.
How you can defend Iran in a post like this is ridiculous. You know its true and a first strike is logical!!! i say do it!!!! get’er done!!!
Who said the virgins had vaginas? Virgin only that they haven’t been penatrated
Dusanimal, your simplistic view of the world is quite striking. Have you ever considered joining the military to widen your experience?
#19. No, these guys don’t ever join the military. They sit in a recliner watch Fox News and tell us what is right.
#17. says get’er done…how quaint.
Dusanmal…one question..how did the present Iranian regime actually seize power to begin with…and why?
Read a fucking book boy, please.
Although he does favor pre-emptive military strikes against Iran (see his Sept. 2009 article, Iran Outlook: Grim, in the National Review) John Bolton does not advocate pre-emptively attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. I note that the author, nor the article he is quoting, hasn’t actually quoted Mr. Bolton saying anything to that effect.
We can disagree with the man without making him out to be a monster, honeyman.
#21 Derek
While Bolton doesn’t actually say ‘I think Israel should nuke Iran’, the subtext is that this is what he would do to prevent Iran getting the bomb. Its a pretty monstrous idea IMHO, and very much in keeping with his hawkish interventionist philosophy.
#22–Honeyman==Bolton said “we’re at a very unhappy point” and I have to CONGRATULATE Dr Dodd at #3 for keeping his eye on the ball. So, my question to YOU is: What would you do???
I’ve heard several tv experts opine that a conventional strike will only delay, not prevent, Iran from gaining Nukes. Iran can survive a limited Nuke Strike, Israel cannot.
So–intellectually vapid to criticize one choice without offering something better. What would you do?????????
Al Jazeera? Can they be trusted for accurate
reporting? Don’t they like broadcasting pro-
Bin Laden messages?
Anyone want to start a dead/nuke pool for countries in that part of the world? Who gets nuked first? Israel, Iran, Pakistan or India?
If Israel is going to nuke Iran do you think they could stop by Saudi Arabia and nuke Mecca and Medina?
“I’m not posting this to bash Republicans, but….”
Be proud of what you are.
It looks like Bolton is willing to pay any price for peace. If that price has to be the vaporization of Iran, well, by golly!
I think we’ve found the next Nobel Peace Prize winner!
“#27 If it were up to me, I’d give you a Special Olympics gold medal.”
Ah, but you can’t be a judge and a contestant. So it will never be up to you.
The USA will do nothing about Iran.
After all, they solely want nuclear power for peaceful purposes (i.e., to power their country). Clearly they have no ill will towards their neighbors. The fiction that Iran hates Israel is perpetrated from poorly translated (mistranslated on purpose?) words. Clearly all they wish to do is live in peace.
Let me be clear, the US is to blame in all of this for fomenting hatred for purposes of making money and evil profit.
/sarcasm
I wonder why we keep hearing from these Bush formers? We did hear from Clinton formers when during Bush’s first term. Can’t the Republicans get it thru their heads, that they’re not in charge anymore? Retire and SHUT UP! First Cheney, now Bolton. Any more voices of insanity need to be heard?
I wonder what Carbon Credit the US will have to pay for setting off a nuke? Does Israel get a waver if they do this? I doubt Israel will. They’ll get someone else to do their dirty work and get the world’s condemnation. That’s what their lobbying dollars has bought them. John Bolton’s soul.
#32 Dang alfie, I actually agree with you for once! As people should know from seeing the protests after the most recent rigged election in Iran, the country is much more complex than the Republicans would have you believe. Does anyone think this sounds familiar? Remember all the drumbeating about how “dangerous” Iraq was and it turned out to be mostly BS? The wingnuts are so easily scared and manipulated, just puff up one country or another as the big bad boogeyman.
I have to say, though, that I would support nuking John Bolton. 🙂