Subject: Fw: The Washington Post, Saturday, February 10, 1018
From: "fariborz fatemi" <[email-masked]>
To: "fariborz fatemi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:20:14 +0000 (UTC)

TheWashington Post                   
Saturday, February 10, 2018  Regarding the Feb. 5 editorial “The dangers of a ‘bloody nose’ ”:    What exactly would constitute a preventive strike on North Korea? If the“bloody nose” is to strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities, as described byVictor Cha in his Jan. 31 op-ed, “A ‘bloody nose’ risks hurting the U.S.,” whyis there no debate and discussion about the release of nuclear radiation andnuclear fallout that would be unleashed on the populations of South Korea,North Korea, Japan and wherever the prevailing winds would carry it?    I am sure the Pentagon has conducted simulation studies that show thehuman carnage from such a strike. Maybe for President Trump, who knows nothingand does not know he knows nothing and does not care, it is better for peopleto die “over there” than “over here.” The massive deaths and sickness fromnuclear radiation and nuclear fallout should be everyone’s concern. Yet thesilence from editorials, think tanks and TV talking heads is deafening. Why?    Fariborz S. Fatemi, McLean    The writer is a former staff memberof the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.