Un débat qui nous vient de Mars

Ceci semble d’un surréalisme grossier, comme un de ces films des studios hollywoodiens des années 1950 dont la primarité, version Curtiss LeMay, s’accordait en contre-point à la “grande terreur” communiste. Un économiste américain (David R. Henderson) se juge décidément obligé de prendre la plume pour contredire un de ses collègues (Walter Williams), camarade de promotion à UCLA, chercheur comme lui à la vénérable Hoover Institution, — collègue honorable s’il en est. Williams, le collègue en question, vient de se lamenter in fine, cinq jours plus tôt, parce que les USA n’ont pas les tripes (ou bien, les cojones, comme disait LeMay) d’expédier ou d’envisager d’expédier une bordée de missiles Trident (avec huit têtes nucléaires chacun) sur la Syrie et sur l’Iran. Et qu’on n’en parlerait plus…

On peut lire l’article de Williams sur le site de George Mason University, ou une place lui est faite. Libre à chacun de le consulter.

Nous préférons citer quelques paragraphes de la réplique d’Henderson.

« In this recent article, Williams at first seems to be advocating dropping nuclear bombs on Iran and Syria. Later in the article, Williams retreats briefly from this viewpoint, sort of.

» Williams writes:

» “Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism – without risking the life of a single soldier... I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit.”

» If Williams is not suggesting the use of nuclear weapons, then why did he use most of his article to suggest it? And if he thinks “other less drastic military options” might work, why doesn't he tell us what these options are? A reasonable conclusion is that he might actually want the U.S. government to drop nuclear bombs on people, but doesn't dare say so until he sees what the reaction is.

» What is Williams's argument for having the U.S. government drop nuclear bombs on people in the Middle East? He doesn't really give one. Williams doesn't bother to establish in what way terrorists in Syria or Iran are a threat to Americans. The closest he gets is to say that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, was responsible for the 1983 murder of 241 U.S. military members in their barracks in Beirut. That was a horrible act, but it was an action against Americans on Hezbollah's own soil. If a U.S. terrorist group had attacked and killed 241 Iranian military members that had established barracks in, say, New Jersey, would Williams think that, 23 years later, the Iranian government would be justified in dropping nuclear bombs on people in the United States? I think he wouldn't. But why not? As long as I have known him, Walter Williams has argued from principle. What principle would he use to say that it's wrong for the Iranian government to bomb Americans in that hypothetical situation? »

Et ainsi de suite… Le plus déroutant dans cet échange, après tout, est bien qu’il ait lieu. Cela signifie que des esprits de ce calibre, — celui d’un économiste de renom dans le cas de Williams, — conçoivent très simplement et sérieusement qu’il faudrait pouvoir éventuellement faire cette sorte d’action, dans le contexte qu’on connaît. Ces esprits sont sur une autre planète que la nôtre (Mars ferait l’affaire, comme le suggérait le neocon Kagan, du temps où la puissance américaniste faisait encore impression).

Mis en ligne le 28 août 2006 à 12H29