Spengler argues for war............................

I confess to liking David Goldman.  I like his thought process and I like his writing.  He opens his case like this:

Most of the great wars of the past would have been far less bloody had they begun sooner. That emphatically is true of the First World War: if Germany had launched a preemptive assault on France during the First Morocco Crisis of 1905, before Britain had signed the Entente Cordiale with France and while Russia was busy with an internal rebellion, the result would have been a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 rather than the ghastly war of attrition that all but ruined Western civilization.

The war Spengler wants is against Iran's nuclear program.  His thought is that if Iran develops their own nuclear weapons, some day they will use them.  Others would then retaliate accordingly, creating unimaginable carnage.  He writes an interesting essay.  

However...Color me doubtful.  The hubris behind the 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq, and its "unintended consequences",  has well and truly soured me on military adventurism.  What the United States and the old USSR, as well as all the other "nuclear" states,  have found is that it is easier to possess a nuclear weapon than it is to actually use one.  Why should we not believe that Iran will discover the same thing?   Please, no "preemptive wars."