Do please wait a minute. . .

These days, I seldom get access to the Web. That is because for the last three years, I have either been unemployed or massively under-employed. As a result, the only time that I am able to get access to the web are when I go to the local library, or when I visit my mother and my brother (who is living with her).

As a secondary result, I seldom post on my weblog here. I would rather use the time to read from the wealth of information which is available on the 'net. I thus seldom see the need to put my oar into the discussion. On those occasions when I do, I will usually infest the comment boxes of other peoples' weblogs.

There is, however, one occasion when I see the need to point out additional ideas to someone who obviously has not thought things through. In this case, alas, such a case has happened to one whom I regularly both read and generally respect, the Reverend Konicki, of the estimable Deacon's Blog.

The reverend Deacon, it seems, has taken great exception to something said by Senator Clinton in a debate with the other contender to the throne of the Eeyore Party. Apparently, Mrs. Evil said to Mr. Inexperienced that in the event that Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel, and if she were President, she would in turn nuke Iran.

The good Reverend has pointed out very reasonable concerns about such an action, such as that there are 70 million people in Iran, and that this would be a great number of people to snuff, and a whole lot of collateral damage. Why, if one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day, just think of what ten to twenty of those little puppies would do. I mean, there'll be fallout everywhere. What a mess.

While I am perhaps making a bit light of the good Reverend Konicki's concerns, my irony, and my ire, is raised a bit by one paragraph in his posting above. That is, where he says:

For my part, let Israel take care of itself. Israel has nuclear weapons, and tons of military hardware provided by this country. Why should we get involved. Are we, as a county, so bent on defending a foreign land that we would initiate a nuclear holocaust on their behalf?

I would suggest, for reasons which I believe may become obvious, that it might not be a wise idea simply to let Israel take care of itself.

You see, Israel has a nice, understated little doctrine called the Samson Option. That Option, briefly stated, is that in the event that an Arab nation or Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel, Israel in turn will use its nuclear arsenal to turn every Arab or Islamic nation, including Iran, into a glow-in-the-dark, over-heated parking lot.

Since it is estimated that Israel currently has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons, and since that nation has a full complement of fighter jets, missiles, and submarines, it would appear obvious that Israel would have the means and opportunity to carry out its threat, er, doctrine. As regards motive, may I suggest that even those, like Ahmadinijad, who appear to deny ha-Shoah, might consider that after 1945, the Israelis are justifiably testy about people who want to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I do not doubt that if Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem were nuked, the Israelis would implement the Samson Option in a New York minute. Mrs. Evil's comments therefore should not be seen as inhuman, but more as a case of "too little, too late."

Of course, the consequences of the Samson Option would be around a billion Muslims dead, about fourteen nations of Africa and Asia shattered, and the sequelae of 200 to 400 nuclear weapons detonated in a four or so thousand mile stretch near the equator. I leave imagining the consequences of such a detonation as an exercise for the student. Needless to say, it would be even less pretty than the one that the good Reverend Konicki sets forth.

The choices that appear to be set before us are these:

1) We can continue to do nothing while Iran and Syria are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, and "leave everything to Israel", as the Reverend Konicki suggests, or to bomb the snot out of the offending country afterwards, as Mrs. Evil suggests. I would offer the thought that for the reasons expressed above, the results would be less than optimal.

2) We can attempt to disarm Israel. As they appear to have had nuclear weapons for the last thirty or so years, and most probably have a great number of them by now, I would suggest that the probabilities of achieving this choice would be a trifle obese. In other words: fat chance. And finally,

3) We can continue our policy of intervention in countries which threaten both to develop nuclear weapons and to use them against Israel.

This last would seem to me to be the most reasonable. Of course, the only one who suggests this policy is Senator Country Club of the Heffalump Party. Which is why, after pinning my nose with a clothespin, I will probably vote for him come November.