THE BIG QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT A JIHADIST NUKE?

A jihadist nuke might come about in a number of different ways:

• It could be bought by them - from Russia or North Korea or Pakistan.
• It could be made by them - in Iran.
• Or it could "fall into their hands" should they lead a successful coup in Pakistan.

ALL of these are real VERY REAL possibilities.

What should we do about this? DO we have contingency plans in place?

PROBABLY.

Here's what I think THE PUBLIC has got to come to grips with:

• THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW ANY JIHADISTS OR JIHADIST STATE TO ACQUIRE - IN ANY MANNER - ANY NUKES.
• AND THAT TO PREVENT THIS, WE MUST BE WILLING TO PREEMPTIVELY ATTACK AND DESTROY THE NUKES AND/OR NUKE ASSETS OF THE JIHADIST STATES.

Which means that we have to be ready, willing and able to attack Iran - sooner rather than later.

And it means we must make it VERY clear to Pakistan that a jihadist coup there will AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER a "thorough" kinetic counter-response from us.

AND... we have to account for all of North Korea's and Russia's nukes.

I think this is an existential issue.

I'd like to know EXACTLY where each and every candidate stands on this:

• Are they willing to accept a nuclear Iran or a jihadist Pakistan?
• And, what are they willing to do to stop either from happening?

Any candidate who takes preemptive action off the table is unfit for command.

UPDATE: It now appears CERTAIN that Bush will do what needs to be done so that the next president will only have to deal with the aftermath - and s/he can: "BLAME BUSH!"

(More here on the timing of an attack on Iran.)