Part Two: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke

Intimations of Destiny Part Two: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke

Please see “Intimations of Destiny Part One: The Paper Tiger Surrenders in Pieces,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1121. That article focused on America’s inexorable slide into history’s dustbin due not to any fundamental systemic flaws or weaknesses but to an absence of resolve and to a widespread gut fear of winning our wars at all costs. Our fate, our future as a nation, is inextricably joined to the question of whether we are committed to winning our wars. We cannot expect to continue as the last super power unless we do.

………………………………………………………………………………….

The “War is Hell” observation of Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman provided no great insight into the nature of war since it merely stated the obvious. Any student of warfare and, more so, anyone who has endured the horrors of war could attest to its hellishness.

Far more hellish for nations and their inhabitants are the consequences of losing a war, especially when losing is a direct result of a failure of commitment to victory and when the opposing force has no regard for human life and the “civilities” of modern warfare.

That is precisely the road America is travelling today, with a savage foe waiting at the dead end, eager to wreak a grisly vengeance.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur said, “In war, there is no substitute for victory.” Put another way, if victory in war is not the goal, why even bother? And, if all-out, Sherman-esque scorched-Earth execution of war is considered beneath a nation’s dignity, why participate in the first place?

It would be simpler and far less bloody to surrender to an enemy at the outset of hostilities.

For America, all-out war today obviously relates to the question of using or not using the most fearsome weapons ever designed by human beings, nuclear weapons.

We employed our only two such devices in Japan to end World War Two in the Pacific. We won. We refused to use them in Korea and Viet Nam, and we lost. The idea of using nukes in the War on Terror, in the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, is apparently not even on the table.

We will lose those wars as well when President Obama shamelessly retreats when the going gets even tougher than it already is.

America should have learned from the 54,000 soldiers killed in Korea and from the 58,000 killed in Viet Nam. We should have learned but did not learn that when we must go to war, we should try to win. Mostly, we should have learned that when we go to war, to fight the enemy’s brand of war is foolhardy and deadly.

We may be fighting on that enemy’s turf but to play his games, as in fighting ground battles on that turf, fighting with our most potent weaponry sitting on the shelf, should be an impeachable offense for any commander in chief.

The best war, if there is such a thing, is one concluded as quickly as possible. In our case, that would mean using our weaponry to our best advantage and not being suckered into fighting the enemy’s kind of war.

We’re doing just that once again, which is the reason we will lose once again.

The question of whether or not to use tactical nuclear weapons is much less a military decision than it is a diplomatic, a humanitarian, and an emotional call.

Contemporary thought seems to be that being vaporized by a nuke is more unpleasant than other forms of warfare. Was being incinerated in the Dresden firestorm, dying slowly from an excruciating belly wound inflicted by a blast from an AK47, being ripped apart by an IED or a car bomb any less horrific than dying in a nuclear attack?

What a bunch of hogwash!

Does America, the only nation ever to use nukes, dare to detonate even tactical nukes again? We will not. Rather, our leaders are content in the notion of losing wars if the alternative is victory as the result of repeating our alleged iniquities committed over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At least the United Nations will smile kindly on us for accepting gracious and bitter defeat. However, losing the War on Terror would mean far more than bitter defeat. It would mean the end of the United States as we know and love it.

I humbly suggest that America cease sucking up to misguided and self-serving world opinion and opt to win our current wars, by any means possible including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

As ugly as that option is, the alternatives for America are much uglier.

Just as today it is thought obscene and merciless to deploy nukes, centuries ago during the Crusades the medieval Church considered the crossbow . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)