Price of freedom

I have no problem with vigilance, nor with continuing international pressure. But, seriously, it's a warning sign that Iran suspended its nuclear program? You'd think Duhbya was the first one ever to recognize that proliferation is a bad thing. I suppose I should stop complaining and just be glad he has finally come to understand that.

So, Iran has/has no nuclear weapons program, and "nothing's changed". Yep, that's about right. No facts could ever make a dent. Of course, Condi still justifies going into Iraq because of decades-old behavior. Any day now, I'm expecting Duhbya to rescue the Tutsis in Rwanda.

Of course, Iran, like Iraq before it, wanted its adversaries (including us) to think it has WMD, especially nukes. They're trying to take on protective coloration so the price of attacking appears too high. Then again, even without their having WMD, attacking Iraq proved too expensive in blood and treasure. Hey, how about Sudan! Ha.

One percent doctrine

Under Darth Cheney's one percent doctrine, America should invade any country that has a 1% chance of conveying nuclear weapons to terrorists. So why aren't we in Pakistan? Good question.

A sane one percent doctrine would prepare for 1% chances, war game them, create mitigation plans and scenarios, build infrastructure, keep some resources ready for rapid deployment, etc. The war gaming at least appears to be what the Pentagon is doing without any White House sponsorship (though it is possible the White House just couldn't acknowledge it), and I say good for the Pentagon.

One of the bonuses of being in Afghanistan is that we're right next door to the single most likely source of nuclear weapons for Islamic terrorists. I hope that we have a go team standing by at all times for possible interdiction or rescue. That would be a hell of a thing to try to put together on the fly. I'd rotate the duty, too. No team can stay sharp if it's sitting around the base yawning about alerts that always stand down.

Further, if we're not directing all the best of our satellite and electronic intel into Pakistan, we're idiots. Which is yet another reason to fear the results of having such incompetent morons in the White House.

Good news on nukes

Sounds like an oxymoron - and still could be - but helping Pakistan's military government guard its nuclear weapons is a good idea. Of course, the protective effects of our dollars is not nearly as great as if our people were on site. Basically, we're spending on promises, but it's still short money.

I expect this of my government: We have programs that track every single nuclear weapon at every single site in Pakistan and that we are prepared to respond immediately with force to any breach of their facilities by our enemies.

Sunday comics blogging

Depends what the meaning of strike is.

Four colonels

The U.S. military takes the security of nuclear weapons more seriously than prohibitions of torture, and it should. But couldn't it take both seriously?

By the way, if you thought the problem with the handling of these nukes was immediate risk to American citizens, please! This was about security of the weapons. While they were mistakenly flying around, their security was too light and lax.