i think the issue with clinton’s statement was the fact that she was talking about the u.s. deterring iran from attacking israel, when israel already has its own nuclear arsenal (with second strike capability) and thus its own deterrant ability. at best the statement was superfluous, at worst is was a really reckless pander.

but that’s not why i hit the “comment” button on this thread. i was hoping to see that people thought about lebanon. i’m afraid that people like steveeboy can’t put the primary aside, even for a moment in an unrelated thread.

so… how ’bout that beirut?

I was in the air force for four years and worked in target intelligence, I never knew how deterrence works and I have no clue about nuclear weapons. I have never plotted out every bomb target in russia for my bomb wing and I certainly have never, EVER been on a fully-loaded B-52.

anyone that knows anything about deterrence realizes that the first rule of nuclear obliteration is that you never flat out state that you are for nuclear obliteration or promise nuclear obliteration. that limits your options and you are supposed to keep the enemy guessing.

another rule is that you do not ever state that you are extending the nuclear obliteration umbrella to others if that is not actual US policy. you certainly don’t extend it to an entire region.

another one is that countries that have their own nukes–like Israel–don’t need additional help from those that also have nukes–such as the US.

but of course, many of these rules get thrown out by desperate, losing candidates that are pandering to potential voting blocs.

then their supporters, unable to face reality, become desperate as well, and toss around phrases like “liar” when faced with their losing candidate’s own words.

so, spare me the lectures on deterrence theory as well as my “delicate sensibilities” –wow, what an interesting phrase! I will add that to my acceptable use list right next to where I crossed out “periodically.”

can we use “hysterical” too?

Guess what? Nuclear deterrance is all about implied return obliteration. Sorry if the ugly reality offends your delicate sensibilities. I know your guy likes the concept, he just wants it prettied up so he can pretend it’s just another option on the table.

Oh, and he doesn’t think we voters have any need to worry our pretty little heads about the idea during the campaign. ‘Cause that’s the he-man president’s business. Sounds like someone else’s attitude, if only I can remember who it is…

at least that is what hillary said she will do…