Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Clowns protesting nukes?

I found this over at HateTaxes' blog.

These peaceniks actually thought they could do something to the 110-ton door of a nuclear missile silo? I mean, it's 110-fucking-tons of hardened composite steel.

This is what bothers me about the whole story:

These people were actually able to get near one of our nuke silos. I'm not worried that they'd be able the damage one. They wouldn't have been able to penetrate the underground launch facility, and they certainly wouldn't have been able to break through the aforementioned blast door, provided they were properly secured. What I'm worried about is the foolish maintenance guy, making $10 an hour, forgetting to lock the doors behind him. I'm sure there are layers and layers of security interlocks, but let's just, for one second, assume that there is a lock, and that's it. Could one of these peaceniks, or better yet, an islamic jihadist be able to get in, and set off the weapon? I know they couldn't launch one, since it takes multiple code confirmations, and an order directly from the President, but think of the Hunt for Red October. If someone knew what they were doing, they'd be able to blow a missile up in the silo, theoretically, right?

The bigger question is...how did they even get near the silo? I've seen documentaries on the Minot base, and there are miles between silos. MILES. I wouldn't make the assumption that there would be a fence that runs around the entire Minot base, because it's simply HUGE. But, I would make an assumption that there would be multiple layers of fences around each silo and around each underground launch center. Further, I would make the assumption that it wouldn't take minutes for security personnel to get there. I figure that they must have cameras out the ass up there. If they saw these yahoos driving up an access road, why weren't they being tailed the entire way?

Maybe we need a congressional probe into our nation's nuclear security. Or not.

Anyway, HateTaxes took the high road on nukes. He doesn't believe that any rational person would, or ever should seriously contemplate using them in a role other than as a deterrent. The problem with that rationale is that when your enemy knows you are unwilling to do what is necessary, they will go one step further than you are willing to go. Knowing that we were unable, in Vietnam, to send the necessary number of troops and lay waste to the countryside, Biblical-like, the Vietcong did what was necessary on their end to fight us. In the end, they won because politicians in the US swayed from public opinion, and withdrew their support, keeping their tails between their legs. We SHOULD have decimated the Vietcong. Sure, they had Soviet support, but if US politicians had done what was NECESSARY, ie- send in the appropriate number of troops and support them with money and materiel, we'd have whooped some major ass.

Back to nukes...although nuking a nation would be pretty devastating to the entire world, it may become necessary at some point. When WWII got really out of hand, and we were fighting the Japanese on EACH AND EVERY PACIFIC island, losing Marines left and right, plus dealing with the kamikazes, what did we do? Doolittle firebombed Tokyo. When that didn't work, what did we do? What was necessary. We dropped two bombs, tiny by today's standards, and decimated two entire cities. One of them was even mis-dropped, and it still had the intended effect. So what I'm saying, is that at some point islamofacists are going to get out of hand. Iran and North Korea are going to get out of hand. They're going to start testing nukes of their own. Then what do we do? Sit by and let "diplomacy" take care of business? I don't think so. We fight fire with fire, and teach them a damn lesson. Let God sort out who was right and who was wrong. But, I don't want 10 million US citizens dying because that crazy motherfucker, Kim Jong Il, decides that he wants to show the world what a petulant little boy with a magnifying glass can do to a few million ants.