You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

August 03, 2012

BREAKING: Top Iranian Torturer and Assassin Had Plan to Nuke America

Well, probably. It's the kind of thing those people would do, so I don't think we need to check.

In unrelated news that's barely worth mentioning, a top U.S. torturer and assassin definitely had a plan to use nuclear weapons on Iranian soil. He was Defense Undersecretary "Blowtorch Bob" Komer, who previously ran the Phoenix Program in Vietnam (a giant campaign of political torture and assassination that killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese). This is from the new book The Twilight War by Pentagon historian David Crist:

In December 1980, Undersecretary Komer released a study on the potential use of nuclear weapons to defend the Persian Gulf. … Komer approved three options for employing nuclear weapons against the Soviets in Iran. The first two options used nuclear weapons only within Iran, with the objective to block Soviet forces by destroying the mountain passes on the Iran-Soviet border … If Soviet troops were already in Iran, American bombers would hit Soviet rear echelon units entering Iran, while the U.S. Army's tactical artillery nukes would devastate frontline ground forces … small nukes were to be buried and set with a variable yield, which could create either a relatively small explosion to destroy a large tunnel or a massive detonation to collapse an entire mountain pass.

The one downside, Komer noted, was that this strategy necessitated the first use of nuclear weapons. … No one reflected on how the Iranians might view such a scenario.

This of course was shortly after the Carter administration had given Saddam Hussein a "green light" to invade Iran. More recently, top U.S. officials have spoken of their extensive plans to "completely obliterate Iran," "drill them back to the fourth century" and "crush them" like "ants." Before he retired, Defense Secretary Robert Gates emphasized U.S. willingness to engage in the first use of nuclear weapons against Iran, a policy that was "a decision by the president [Obama]."

However, in fairness to Blowtorch Bob Komer and his fantastic nickname, his plan was not to use nuclear weapons against Iran, merely within Iran. This is a crucial distinction that Americans would certainly understand if some country used nukes within but not against the U.S. "Please, detonate as many nuclear weapons in America as you need," we would say. "Our casa es su casa."

ALSO: Top Iranian generals probably would want to threaten to use nuclear terrorism to prevent a superpower like the U.S. from intervening in the mideast, so there's no reason to notice that top Israeli generals actually did this.

—Jon Schwarz

Posted at August 3, 2012 11:51 AM

I assume that the Pentagon is full of people who are paid to write these "scenarios", which top generals take home at night to use as marital aids. Nothing helps a major general get it up for his wife like a good nuclear war first-use scenario.

Posted by: saurabh at August 3, 2012 03:16 PM

The last part is funny, and true. Britain exploded a pretty large number of nuclear devices at the Nevada Test Site.

Posted by: Aaron Datesman at August 3, 2012 03:32 PM

I don't mind if "they" detonate nuclear bombs here (USA) as long as they have a permit issued by the city, village, state or municipality where "they" do it and "they" are either US citizens or are not illegal aliens. Hey, I'm just trying to be non-partisan. Okay?

Posted by: cemmcs at August 3, 2012 11:55 PM

Putting aside the rhetoric for now, I can figure he makes it a status thing. He notes that even if Russians counter-attack, that we are still fearsome is communicated. When they do it it's a provocation, and invitation to war. When we do it, it's "passive" and resolves a dispute.

But to give this guy his due, I'm trying to recall an example of a country deciding not to attack another country, with no regard to the disrespect, simply because it would make attacking them later more difficult (Russia would attack ports for landing).

As far as rhetoric, inside, invade, close enough. Reason by poetry. More filth along those lines, from Niehbur, Obama's favorite theologian, who observed in 1952 that the US is able to exercise "leadership" by relying on Democrats to be the "symbol and instrument of that responsibility" -- namely not shirking from the horrors of war. The duty of the conquered is to congratulate the "stable nations" for their victory, and further to recognize that democracy involves no minds, just "interest and passion." This all coming from a self-professed Christian!

Anyway, that focus on human nature in terms of justifying power also shows up 4,000 years ago in Weni the Elder. After a successful enslavement and slaughter of one of the earliest peoples revolting in history, he thanked the green-skinned nature and rebirth god, a prototypical Christ, for leading him to such a successful life of slaughter and enslavement. Always good to have the religion of the people on your side.

Posted by: Lewis at August 4, 2012 11:04 PM