Preemptive Nukes

Mark jumps in to yesterday's post on this subject with this:

I must disagree with Matt on this one. Having this option on the table should give rogue nations and leaders pause.
...
[T]he option of having pre-emptive nuclear strike is a precaution, and it tells nations to be on notice, that we are no longer going to respond with potshots at Camel tents.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think the threat preemptive nuclear strikes would give rogue leaders pause...but I don't think it is a particularly effective threat. That's all it is: a threat. I don't seriously envision a scenario where the President of the United States is going to authorize a preemptive nuclear strike against another soverign nation. Why? Because we would have already done so to North Korea if we were serious about it...

For someone who advocated nuking the desert and making it glass, I find it strange that Matt would come out against this one.

As with the Tancredo "bomb Mecca" business, there is a time and place for hyperbole. I'm some know-nothing blogger mouthing off in a fit of rage...this is the Department of Defense we're talking about. There really is a difference, Mark...

Ronald Reagan used the policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes as a tool to hold off the Soviets and force them into submission.

We're talking apples and oranges...granted both are still fruit, but let's not get carried away.

Reagan's threat was against a nation that was engaged in an arms race with us. No doubt that the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. This policy is about rogue nations developing weapons of mass destruction. I don't see President Bush looking at his options for Iraq and saying, "You know what fellers, I think rather than going in with surgical airstrikes and a lighting-quick invasion, we'll just drop that effer. Twice for effect." Sorry, I just don't see it. Especially since we still haven't found significant evidence that Saddam possessed the weapons we're talking about at the time of the invasion (I think we can all agree that Saddam was fully prepared to resume WMD programs once he got the UN sanctions lifted.).

11:45AM Update

Mark's comments in the discussion section are pretty good, so I'm going to promote them in to the permenant record and respond. Here are Mark's comments in the blockquote:

Matt,

I think the option there would scare some of these rogue nations, much the same way the notion of preemption scared both sides not to initiate a strike or attempt one. Of course, I am just a crazy person, a hypocrite, I guess.

And it is not apples and oranges. Iran and North Korea have the weapons. That is what I am talking about. Whatever....

I know it scares me... Look, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is one thing, preemptive nuclear strikes are another. The whole point to MAD was that both sides would be destroyed, in a preemptive strike, the point is to drop the Big One BEFORE the other guy gets his built. Related strategies, maybe, but not the same thing.

I don't think you're crazy or a hypocrite on this issue. I think you want America to be in as strong of a position as it can be...I'm not sure that if this plan were ever executed, we'd find ourselves in a position where we were actually better off.

Iran DOESN'T have the weapons yet...that's the whole point. What makes Iran different from Saddam? I adressed Little Kim in my earlier bit, so I'll let that do my talking on this point.

[A]nd I do not recall the defense department saying it should be a first option. Do you? Am I missing that? It is added as a list of options. We have to trust that there is leadership in place not to take some options. Of course, you would advocate assassinating, in some cases, legally elected heads of state. Interesting.

I would hope this wouldn't be considered as an option at all. Nukes are weapons of last resort. If the rogue nation doesn't have the weapon yet, there are plenty of other options left on the table...an invasion, for example.

The assassination solution makes more sense to me than dropping nukes because the target can be discriminated specifically. You can't nuke one guy and have nobody else effected... My boy Jason Bourne can put a bullet in somebody and nobody else would know he was there.

I'm not advocating assasination, but I prefer it over firing off nuclear missiles by a LONG shot.

And while I find nailing one leader preferable to thousands of innocents, sometimes the bomb must be used. Unless, of course, you are condemning Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

We aren't talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was a declared war and the choice was made to end the war sooner and save more lives. Now we're comparing apples to pears...