I’m Old Enough to Remember When Others Tried to Shame Me for Talking About Nuking a Fool (Updated)

Readability

I'm Old Enough to Remember When Others Tried to Shame Me for Talking About Nuking a Fool (Updated)

by baldilocks

This repost isn’t apro­pos of any­thing in the news at present, but read­ing it brings back some mem­o­ries of those in the main­stream media and even some blog­gers who thought that happy, nice talk toward Islamists would sooth their mur­der­ous intent and that tough talk would inflame them. Ah, the Good Old Days!

Orig­i­nally posted at my old blog on July 25, 2005.

Let me see.

Talk­ing about con­di­tions under which WMD might be used is out; talk­ing about using WMD in the event that one or more is used on us is def­i­nitely out. And talk­ing about poten­tial tar­gets of WMD in the event that one or more is used on us is mega-​out and big­oted to boot.

So why don’t we just dis­man­tle them all right now?

And if a dirty bomb is smug­gled over one of our bor­ders by Islamists and is det­o­nated, sub­ject­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands to mil­lions of Amer­i­cans to one of the most hor­ri­ble deaths imag­in­able, along with ren­der­ing an area of our coun­try unin­hab­it­able for X-​amount of centuries/​millennia, I’ll urge what­ever gov­ern­ment offi­cials that are left to think hard and long before mak­ing the Islamists and their co-​religionists angry/​even angrier — assum­ing that the tar­get city isn’t LA.

After all, I and my fel­low cit­i­zens would still have some­thing left to lose. Possibly.

No, I’m not serious.

I don’t want us to have to use any type of WMD on any­one. Twenty [2016: thirty now] plus years ago when I used to load nuclear mis­siles onto fighter-​bomber air­craft in the Air Force, I used to hope the same thing. But I still went to work every­day and I still reen­listed sev­eral times; and even though I was no longer a weapons loader, I was still most keenly aware of the ulti­mate expres­sion of mil­i­tary might of our Armed Forces. And though I ques­tioned my role in those forces at one time way back then, I had that ques­tion answered by a set of ter­ror­ists, no less: one day it might be necessary.

I didn’t want to bring this par­tic­u­lar part of my back­ground up again. It’s too much like play­ing the “chick­en­hawk” card, as Froggy said in the com­ments to this post. How­ever, when I read some of the posts and columns which exco­ri­ate any­one who even con­sid­ers nam­ing a pos­si­ble WMD tar­get of the US in the wake of a WMD attack on us and I notice the drip­ping con­de­scen­sion from many of the var­i­ous “argu­ments” against, I am reminded that (some) civil­ians for­get the arse­nal of death on which this coun­try is sit­ting and what it is for: deter­rence, either before or after. The pur­pose of the arse­nal is for mak­ing an enemy think twice about attack­ing us either the first or the sec­ond time. Any­thing other pur­pose is sec­ondary – if it exists at all – such as whether a nuk­ing will make a given group hate us more or not.

Oth­er­wise, why bother to main­tain it?

To have some­one say ‘don’t talk about it’ and tell me that I am ‘irre­spon­si­ble’ for doing so makes me won­der what planet they’ve been liv­ing on. Then I remem­ber that I am the one who has spent most of my adult life on “another planet,” a planet on which any­one with func­tion­ing cog­ni­tion knows what our military’s pur­pose is and what it is capa­ble of, secu­rity clear­ance or no.

I think that the nut­cases who would det­o­nate a WMD on our soil should be reminded, not told, but reminded of what we have wait­ing for any enemy that would oblit­er­ate an Amer­i­can city. We can keep argu­ing about whether cer­tain tar­gets are strate­gic or not, but since this enemy isn’t orga­nized in the nation-​state gov­ern­ment struc­ture [2016: yet], that ques­tion is far from answered. And to assume that it’s never talked about in “polite” com­pany out­side of secure infor­ma­tion access facil­i­ties is, as I said before, naïve.

Let’s hope, how­ever, for enemy’s sake – and ours – that the ques­tion at hand is never answered.

Tom Tan­credo was right.

UPDATE: Maybe this post is apro­pos of today’s news. The results of being nice…what dif­fer­ence a decade makes, not to men­tion a pres­i­dent. (ht: Instapun­dit)

Juli­ette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was pub­lished in 2012. Her sec­ond novel will be done in 2016. Fol­low her on Twit­ter.

Please con­tribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB: Her new novel, her blog, her Inter­net to keep the lat­ter going and COF­FEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Inde­pen­dent Journalism — -»»

baldilocks

by baldilocks

This repost isn’t apropos of anything in the news at present, but reading it brings back some memories of those in the mainstream media and even some bloggers who thought that happy, nice talk toward Islamists would sooth their murderous intent and that tough talk would inflame them.  Ah, the Good Old Days!

Originally posted at my old blog on July 25, 2005.

Let me see.

Talking about conditions under which WMD might be used is out; talking about using WMD in the event that one or more is used on us is definitely out. And talking about potential targets of WMD in the event that one or more is used on us is mega-out and bigoted to boot.

So why don’t we just dismantle them all right now?

And if a dirty bomb is smuggled over one of our borders by Islamists and is detonated, subjecting hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans to one of the most horrible deaths imaginable, along with rendering an area of our country uninhabitable for X-amount of centuries/millennia, I’ll urge whatever government officials that are left to think hard and long before making the Islamists and their co-religionists angry/even angrier—assuming that the target city isn’t LA.

After all, I and my fellow citizens would still have something left to lose. Possibly.

No, I’m not serious.

I don’t want us to have to use any type of WMD on anyone. Twenty [2016: thirty now] plus years ago when I used to load nuclear missiles onto fighter-bomber aircraft in the Air Force, I used to hope the same thing. But I still went to work everyday and I still reenlisted several times; and even though I was no longer a weapons loader, I was still most keenly aware of the ultimate expression of military might of our Armed Forces. And though I questioned my role in those forces at one time way back then, I had that question answered by a set of terrorists, no less: one day it might be necessary.

I didn’t want to bring this particular part of my background up again. It’s too much like playing the “chickenhawk” card, as Froggy said in the comments to this post. However, when I read some of the posts and columns which excoriate anyone who even considers naming a possible WMD target of the US in the wake of a WMD attack on us and I notice the dripping condescension from many of the various “arguments” against, I am reminded that (some) civilians forget the arsenal of death on which this country is sitting and what it is for: deterrence, either before or after. The purpose of the arsenal is for making an enemy think twice about attacking us either the first or the second time. Anything other purpose is secondary–if it exists at all–such as whether a nuking will make a given group hate us more or not.

Otherwise, why bother to maintain it?

To have someone say ‘don’t talk about it’ and tell me that I am ‘irresponsible’ for doing so makes me wonder what planet they’ve been living on. Then I remember that I am the one who has spent most of my adult life on “another planet,” a planet on which anyone with functioning cognition knows what our military’s purpose is and what it is capable of, security clearance or no.

I think that the nutcases who would detonate a WMD on our soil should be reminded, not told, but reminded of what we have waiting for any enemy that would obliterate an American city. We can keep arguing about whether certain targets are strategic or not, but since this enemy isn’t organized in the nation-state government structure [2016: yet], that question is far from answered. And to assume that it’s never talked about in “polite” company outside of secure information access facilities is, as I said before, naïve.

Let’s hope, however, for enemy’s sake–and ours–that the question at hand is never answered.

Tom Tancredo was right.

UPDATE: Maybe this post is apropos of today’s news. The results of being nice…what difference a decade makes, not to mention a president.  (ht: Instapundit)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

baldilocks