RT @iaincorby: If a foreign power explodes a dirty nuclear bomb in the UK what are LibDems going to do? A strongly worded letter to the UN?
This attitude presupposes that the appropriate response to having an instant genocide visited upon you, is to commit your own genocide in return. We have largely banished the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ philosophy from our political debates, with regards to both justice and strategic military matters, but when it comes to the biggest and most despicable act of mass-murder one can imagine, we are perfectly happy to imagine ourselves returning the favour. Killing a million innocents and making sure that the earth’s atmosphere, already crippled from one nuclear bomb, is truly buggered by the detonation of a second… all perfectly acceptable, because “they started it”? I think a very good case could be made which says that the one time when you definitely do not want to be using nuclear weapons, is right after you have been nuked yourself. A military policy based on revenge is not what we should be aiming for, surely?
As an aside, I’ll note that the protracted military response from the USA to the September 11 attacks managed to be incredibly violent and punative without resorting to nuclear bombs. Now Mohammed Atta and his terrorist friends weren’t using dirty bombs, of course, so its not a like-for-like comparison. But the attacks were unexpected, spectacular, and traumatic, as a dirty bomb would be. I mention this only to show that a President or a Prime Minister has other military options after suffering such an attack. “Writing a strongly worded letter” on the one hand, and pressing the Big Red Button on the other, are never the only options. It is wrong to ridicule Nick Clegg or anyone else who points this out.