Wampum

Is there such a thing as a tactical nuclear weapon? Can nuclear weapons be used "tactically" in a "theater limited" war, with acceptable risk of the conflict not escalating into unrestricted warfare with civilian population centers immediately becoming the primary elements of the opposing sides' targeteers?

One of the hallmarks of the Bush Regime's ascendency has been first-use and theater limited use, that complete inventory expenditure is not the most likely outcome of scenarios involving weapons states, whether directly or indirectly.

Would you want to turn over the launch codes to anyone who thinks he or she can "just use a few" to advance American interests?

I'm perplexed by Juan Cole's take on the ABC's Good Morning America show the morning of the Pennsylvania election. Someone set up the question -- Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. This presupposes Iran's uranium enrichment program is not so that Iran can enter the commercial fuel market, and there is no evidence that Iran has produced highly enriched uranium, and become a vendor of nuclear fuel rods, and it presumes that Iran then weaponizes some stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and it presumes that Iran mates the weapons package(s) with some delivery platforms, and with or without testing, enages some targets in Israel with these nuclear weapons.

One line of analysis is that the candidate accepted the premise of the question, and should not have.

Another line of analysis is that the candidate accepted the premise of the question for reasons that may be more complex than the assumption that the premise is likely to be true.

But what is the better answer to the question "what will happen if one weapons state attacks another weapons state?" Which is the reasonable answer "effect without counter-effect" or "effect and counter-effect"?

Finally, the shared knowledge of the authors of the question, ABC's cast of political talent, and the campaign's political talent which includes the candidate, and of the passive audience, is that three weapons states, Israel, the United States and even France have threatened first-use, specifically against Iran, and the house of cards includes the disposition of more than two nuclear weapons states arsenals, there's Pakistan's to consider, and it may not end there.

Does the question asked "if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons" become meaningless if the sequence of "Iran", "Israel" is reversed? If other weapons states names are used instead of one, or the other, or both? And what about the answer? Is there ever effect without counter-effect?

The worst reading of the intent of the answer I've seen came from Juan Cole who wrote:
"Senator Clinton is by now just flailing around fantasizing about incinerating children in playgrounds in Isfahan.

I do not hope for a candidate who does not use the language of deterrence, and if there is a transfer of power from the Bush Regime to an elected administration of a different political party, I hope that administration will decrement a weapons inventory without adding weapons marketed as "capable of producing effect without counter-effect". I also hope, in that hypothetical and uncertain future, that administration will encourage the administrations of other weapons states to decrement inventories, without without adding weapons marketed as "capable of producing effect without counter-effect."