Somehow this one just doesn’t jell for me. In a one-source story, Ha’aretz is reporting that Hope ‘n Change has agreed to extend the U.S. nuclear umbrella to Israel. This is supposed to deter an Iranian attack. Like Allahpundit, I don’t know what Krauthammer and Hillary see in this strategy. If deterrence based on mutually-assured destruction is the strategy, then I’m very doubtful. Three points:
First, I think the Israelis are more than capable of taking care of themselves. We’d do far better to supply them with early warning, ABM and second-strike capability.
Second, I don’t think the Israelis will outsource their survival to anyone, even the U.S. I sure wouldn’t.
Third – and perhaps most important – MAD won’t work against Islamic apocalypticists. They want to die and the Big Fire suits them just fine. Burning down the entire house was always the point.
Wretchard at Belmont Club thinks endorsement of this idea is an indication that our policy-makers have accepted the idea of the Iranian bomb and view it as inevitable. Proposing the use of our nuclear arsenal (assuming it still works) is meant to preempt an Israeli retaliation that would supposedly create more problems than a U.S. retaliation.
Again, I am doubtful on three points: first, that Obama (or any other president) is going to nuke anyone in lieu of an attack on the U.S. I’ve always been doubtful that we’d use our nukes to defend Europe, Japan or Taiwan unless we were also attacked.
Second, any retaliatory strike – even with rich justification – is going to incur the enmity of the Muslim world if done in defense of Israel. There is simply no way to avoid that enmity – if it’s really a genuine concern.
Third, what form would U.S. retaliation take? Facilities destruction using penetrator weapons? Destruction of military or civilan infrastructure using air or ground-burst tactical weapons? Or a full retaliatory response in which Iran’s cities disappear? Has anyone thought this out?
One final question. What shape is our arsenal really in? We’ve had no testing for years and weapons design has pretty much come to a standstill. And I have serious questions about the maintenance of our current weapons. A decade ago, the Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise delivered a report to Congress that warned of a disappearing reservoir of human expertise needed to maintain and develop weapons. What’s changed since then?
Cause to ponder.
