Iranian Bunker Buster Nukes are a Mistake

A trial balloon was floated (leak?) about the proposed use of tactical nuclear explosives in bunker buster guise as a solution to eliminate the deep, hardened facilities constructed by Iran to protect and conceal its nuclear (weapons) program. It's a good idea on it's face, but falls short of dealing effectively with the problem of nutcase moslems seeking to acquire the ultimate power of mass destruction for the following reasons:

1) you take a chance on missing one you didn't know about.

2) you let the enemy know just how deep you can really reach to get them so they can dig a little deeper next time.

3) You piss the others off really good without displaying obvious destruction to create fear of further reprisal.

Rather than using tactical nuclear weapons I propose the limited use of strategic nuclear weapons to deal with the Iranian problem. As muslim history shows by the slaughter of 20,000 unprotected Jewish troops outside the Golden Gate, they are not swayed by shows of mercy, offers of peaceful co-existence, or the application of reason, but do deal readily in the application of mass slaughter. In 619 this was equivalent to WWII's Hiroshima and so got everyone's attention.

Here's the plan: Zap 'em.

I can't decide if Jimmy Carter's neutron bomb, which fries everybody but leaves facilities, or just enough metropolitan nukes dropped every few days (so Al Jazeera can make sure the East understands it has truly met the West) to effectively depopulate the country.

This effectively removes all political will to further irritate the West and eliminates the resource of (supposedly) poor uneducated masses from which homicidal maniacs are recruited to wear bomb vests. And there is no power vacuum created for even crazier moslem nutjobs to fill! Mark my words: The world of Islam would become quite reasonable and many would convert then and there on the rug in front of the television.

Simple. Clean. Elegant. Effective.

If you do the math for 20 years of low intensity widespread combat, it's probably a net savings of human life. OK, msybe not, but it is within 30% of the WWII death toll.

Hat's off to you, Harry Truman.