posted
Perhaps it is just me, but the news has me awfully worried right now. The ballots have barely begun to cool in the boxes and I think we're hearing the stirrings of war again.
Yesterday, or so I perceived, the US administration started ramping up its case that Iran was pursuing its nuclear weapons program. Colin Powell began speaking of Iran's work on intermediate range ballistic missiles. And there were great rumblings of a second site at which they were enriching uranium. Not a huge site, but one that could turn out enough for a 1 kiloton bomb per year.
And also in the news this morning are more reports of our government making the case that North Korea will sell its nuclear materials to terrorist organizations.
Is it just me or are we making the same sounds we did a couple of years ago before moving against Iraq? Or am I nervous for no good reason?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those who voted Bush: "Of course you're being nervous for no good reason. We won't be getting into another war for its own sake. We will only do so if there is a real threat."
Those who voted Kerry: "You're totally right on. This is what we've been worrying about the whole time. Now we're just waiting for it to happen so we can nod our heads and say we told you so."
The four people who voted Nader: "We told you guys you had it all wrong!"
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been many times in the past few years when Bush critics have said, "Look, the Bush administration issued harsh words towards a foreign government! WE'RE GOING TO WAR AGAIN! HOW HORRIBLE! WE TOLD YOU SO!"
And then it doesn't happen.
This one isn't any more persuasive than the last nine.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but Iran is more feasible since we already have 130,000 troops at their backdoor, and then we just treat the two countries like one big one with two states. I mean, we're already going to be there for like 5 more years. Why not get 2 for 1?
Yes, this is sarcasm.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We couldn't go to war with Iraq for the very reason taht our military is geared to fight one war at a time and be able to handle one other emergency conflict. If we were to be deployed in two seperate places at once more than a few countries could do what they wanted.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is an interesting problem, Let us look at some of the possibilities.
Nukes are not that complex, 1940's tech, and like that. Let us assume that Iran can or will or has developed a nuke.
What is the best way to deliver it? If a missile lifts off it will result in a rapid response and I believe it would be intercepted. If I were the Iranians I would use the missile development program as a smoke screen.
Instead I would conceal the weapon in a truck, a cement truck or panel truck or even an SUV depends on the size of the weapon. Maybe even a Limousine. I would then deliver said vehicle to the Palestinians and wait for them to take the opportunity to drive to Tel Aviv and then blow up Israel. Think how this looks, no evidence, the Palestinians take credit and when the remaining Jews begin to retaliate, Iran bum rushes the Iraq border, where they are staged already to occupy the American forces. The rest of the Arab world attacks the Israelies counting on the weakened state and the Jews predictably committing atrocities against the Palestinians as an excuse.
Israel totters and America struggles, If Israel is defeated the rest of the Arab world throws its weight behind Iran, giving it the supreme moral ascendancy in the region. "We defeated America and destroyed Israel"
If Iran fouls up a missile attack and gives we and Israel the incentive to invade, Europe will be forced to honor NATO alliances against the use of nuclear weapons and NATO will take Iran. So a missile launch is a terrible idea.
If Iran pours across the border with Numbers against us... well let me just say we will get very tired of killing them before we defeat them but we will kill them in a ratio equivalent to Desert Storm something like a thousand to one. Seriously Icky. The instant we have an excuse we will precision strike those weapon sights and every place we have satellite tracks of vehicles moving too. Then it is just maintaining air cover and mowing the them down on the ground attack.
With a second or third nuke Iran might try for an EMP to blind the battlefields in the belief that that will make them a match for us. (come and fight us without your machines!!)
Here is a disturbing thought! If Iran built a Nuke but made it leaky (I am not sure how 'hot' it would be) what if Arafat was exposed to it and that is what killed him, one of the first signs of radiation sickness is loss of blood platelets!) You would have heard it all here first!
posted
The only nukes that are not that complex are the ones requiring rather extreme degrees of military grade uranium for a modern reactor (even a breeder). And those are extremely large. Extremely. And extremely heavy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would then deliver said vehicle to the Palestinians and wait for them to take the opportunity to drive to Tel Aviv and then blow up Israel.
Small problem... you nuke Tel Aviv and then... what? Every one back home 40 miles away is throwing parties?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your scenario, BeanCounter, is that there is a HIGH probability that Israel possesses a minimum of a couple of dozen nukes and a certainty that Israel has delivery capability to every Muslim-majority country from Africa to Pakistan. More to the point, they've had the time and opportunity to make FAR more -- with a high probability that the French co-developed their hydrogen bomb with the Israelis, and a lesser chance that the "Chinese spy" LosAlamos "hydrogen bomb design" security leak was an Israeli operation -- so it is quite possible that they have enough quarter-megaton bombs to flatten every large Muslim-majority city from the Atlantic through the MiddleEast through the former Soviet states to Pakistan.
And considering the Holocaust/Shoah as well as the exemplar of Masada, it would be surprising if Israel didn't stomp on every possible source after a nuclear attack on Israeli soil. Under these circumstances, any Muslim-majority state which possesses a nuclear powerplant has stuck a gun to its own head.
posted
Sorry, added a skipped phrase and corrected that portion to "lesser chance" before seeing your question. I tend to reread my typing only after posting, which is why darn near every one of my posts is edited.
It's personal speculation based on patterns of past proliferation between allies: eg there was chatter in the intelligence community that France stopped its SouthPacific hydrogen bomb tests only because they confirmed that design information "leaked" from the US was correct. In the WenHoLee case, there was one helluva lot of screaming for blood, then a cesssation of investigation -- and more importantly, cessation of calls for investigation -- after a single plea of guilty for the security equivalent of jaywalking. The silence hints that the US knows where the information went, and hints that strong political pressure is being brought to bear to maintain that silence, which leads to... That or there never was a security breech on design information.
posted
aspectre, is there any public link between Wen Ho Lee and the Israelis? Without that, your scenario is not just speculative but imaginary.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true that using a nuke on Israel is suicide for the Arab World, I fully agree, but Iran is behaving so stupidly... I cannot help but look for some scenario where they have some degree of cunning. What do they think they are doing over there? I do not want to have to be part of killing a million Iranians, and that is what will happen if they keep this garbage up. As I said it would be distasteful, are the people over there all like lemmings?
posted
sigh... There is no link between WenHoLee and the Peoples Republic of China, either. According to the judge who presided over the case, there is no evidence that WenHoLee was actually the source of the leak which was being screamed about. So looking for for a tie between WenHoLee and the Israelis is pointless when -- even IF there was an actual serious security breach -- the spy was probably another person altogether.
When looking at intelligence matters from the outside, all is speculation based on imaginative interpretations of officially released versions of what occured in the past.
posted
OK, is their any evidence linked to the Israelis? It's generally accecpted that Israel has been a nuclear power for years, what did they have to gain from this espionage? Smaller bombs? I've seen nothing to support the Israel connection.
This is true, that for private citizens out of intelligence loops speculation is the name of the game. But if you have no evidence at all, you are on thin ice.
posted
As I understand it, Iran isn't exactly on friendly terms with the Arab world. Especially since Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians. And back in the 80s they might well have tried to conquer the Arab world if, well, Saddam Hussein hadn't stopped them.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
