144 Comments

1. Bob Smith:

I don’t think Obama gets it. A nuke won’t be delivered to Israel by missile. It will be smuggled in.

Dec 11, 2008 - 5:48 am 2. Herb:

Wrong assumption: Iran will not be deterred. They operate off an end of the world mentality. They are going to be with allah and the sooner the better. Even more so if they take a bunch of Jooos with them.

The only thing that will work is prevention. Whatever the cost of prevention (loss of prestige, people, enduring enmity in the muslim world, bad breath) that cost will pale in comparison to the hell unleashed by a nuclear exchange.

Kill this baby in its crib.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:03 am 3. Joshua:

Whatever Obama’s intentions here, Rev. Jesse Jackson (who during the campaign suggested an Obama presidency would mean an end to U.S. support for Israel) must have taken one look at this report and screamed.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:23 am 4. Jeff Burton:

This is the same Obama who promised to cut ballistic missle defense? So now ABM’s are good enough for Israel but not good enough for us?

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:30 am 5. Pajamas Media » Has Obama Come to Terms With a Nuclear Iran?:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:35 am 6. Ruby:

why should an American response, which is by no means certain because it would open the US to retaliation, be preferred to an Israeli one, which will unquestionably be delivered if Israel is attacked?

Because the guarantee comes with a catch. Israel must sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and dismantle their nukes. Uncle Sam promises to avenge them after they are destroyed, honest.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:58 am 7. joe buzz:

If your stated goal is to cause chaos and wipe nations from the map, you will be deterred neither by shields nor threats of retaliation from afar.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:07 am 8. Paul:

This isn’t an umbrella, it’s a towel.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:12 am 9. wildernesscalling:

It is a sham, “0″ is playing a win/win game, If Israel accepts the proposal it gets “0″ off the immediate hook and if anything happens down the road (you know, the old kick the can down the road game, played by all recent Democrat prez) if Israel does not accept it “0″ can say he tried. Israel is now sort of like Tiwain, if the Chinese are already in possession of the Island why fight to take it back? mean while we can sell them weapons and buy their goods, Hate to harp but seems allot of the last chapter of the good book is firming up more and more!

Got halo? I do!

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:17 am 10. dan:

it seems to me that there are two fundamental problems we face re: iran. (1) an emboldened aggressive iran, which is in itself quasi-bizarre since it’s mostly just an ideological police state grafted over an 18th century empire and a sea of liquid energy, and (2) its utility as a forward base for russia and china, a role crystallized not just in russia’s provision of indigenous nuclear capability but also of communist satellites’ (e.g. Nork) provision of ballistic missile technology.

iran really is the tip of the anti-American strategic iceberg, but one enmeshed in so many other political distractions (e.g. Israel, Lebanon, Syria) that it becomes apparently complicated.

but if you notice the relationship between syria and russia (new naval port), and hamas and russia (early diplomatic recognition of Hamas putsch), and fatah and russia (e.g abu mazen educated in patrice lamumba friendship university), you’ll notice that the strategic calculations are essentially the same as in the cold war: russia seeks US withdrawal from the region, and abets and co-opts the natural barbarian/intelligence states in the area to do its bidding.

answer: force the crisis on our terms before they really do have the net so finely woven that we will be in it before we realize it. translation: bomb the everliving crap out of iran, preferably timed with a big indian strike against “lashkar i taiba” in kashmir and pakistan, and even a big israeli strike against hezbollah. my 2 cents, anyway.

if iran gets a nuke, we will be even more on defense than we appear to be now. not good.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:24 am 11. ElMondoHummus:

Two problems with an American guarantee:

1. That doesn’t alleviate the probability of nuclear confrontation. It merely provides another actor for Iran to provoke. Adding degrees of freedom to a system is not the way to reduce the probability of an event to occur.

2. A US response, no matter what the treaty would say, could never truly be guaranteed. If in the future, a very Israel-unsympathetic administration may hem and haw if Israel is attacked. On top of that, given the severe slant in reporting (see the last Hezbollah-Israeli scuffle), all Iran would have to do is stage provocative acts to get Israel to conduct a military response, and Iran would sit secure in the knowledge that the press would portray Israel’s response as initial aggression. At that point, due to the public news portrayal, US hands would be tied, as many would say that Israel brought Iran’s attack upon themselves.

3. Who says Israel itself would buy into this? Having the US guarantee a response to Iranian nuclear adventurism completely violates their sense of trusting only themselves when times are bad. Remember, history has shown people that hte last time Jewish people allowed a different government to care for them, they ended up being the victims of an organized extermination. No, the US would not do that; rather, the point is that Israelis see history as teaching them to be self-sufficient.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:29 am 12. ElMondoHummus:

Whoops… Three problems… that’s what I get for not proofreading my post before submitting. Yes, it’s “Three problems”, not “Two”.

Color me embarrassed…

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:30 am 13. dan:

right – first of all, israel will not ultimately cede responsibility for its existence to the USA. it wouldn’t matter how leftwing the Israeli government is, no concerns of the USA would prevent it from retaliating against an Islamic Bomb. this Obama talking is just nonsense. in the worst case, it’s the beginning of a diplomatic strategy to dissociate the USA from Israel’s pre-emptive strike and deny it legitimacy. which is also nonsense, since Israel doesn’t have the capacity to carry out a strike without our help/permission.

the question ought to be asked constantly: Why is everyone so afraid of Iran that they will allow it to get immeasurably MORE powerful and LESS amenable to non-military options by building nukes? that is a completely self-contradictory point of view.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:45 am 14. Peter Boston:

Deterrence is attractive only under the assumption that all decision makers will make rational decisions, or more specifically, will make decisions that we think are rational. Bueno de Mesquite has pointed out that the mullahs, despite all the fear of apocalyptic visions, have not acted irrationally on the international scene since Khomenini ate dirt. Hope he’s right.

Then again, if we can learn anything from history, there was not a plethora of rational decision makers around for WWI even after Europe was knee deep in carnage.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:59 am 15. Macgawd:

This proposal is meaningless, and only serves as a lame attempt at giving Obama some sort of tough-guy cred. Israel will not sign off on a proposal that promises nothing but a retaliatory strike after Israel has already been laid waste by an Iranian nuke. Furthermore, history shows that Israel, while willing to listen to the US, ultimately will do what is necessary for its own survival; they aren’t going to wait for Iran to become fully nuclear-capable, and they certainly aren’t going to ask Obama’s permission to take that action.

=M=

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:10 am 16. dan:

peter – regarding deterrence and rational acting, i think it must be pointed out that iran actually has a very favorable set of circumstances. it has a grip on a syria, Hezbollah controls Lebanon both militarily and politically by recent agreement, it funds Hamas and probably Fatah, it can fund Taliban operations against US and uncooperative elements in Paksitan, it has a standing Army in Iraq under al-Sadr and directs “special groups,” and it benefits from a massive US anxiety complex that has been certified by Obama’s victory.

it also has the diplomatic and military sponsorship of Russia and at least a very substantial energy contract with China which basically functions as a mutual-defense treaty.

that it pursues nuclear weaponization under such circumstances need not be explained with apocalyptic visions. it is more likely that apocalyptic visions talk is just another part of the strategy.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:18 am 17. cjm:

the israelis should nuke iran now. it would instantly relieve all terrorist attacks against them for several generations, counter to your thesis that it would cause enmity.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:29 am 18. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Maybe there is the belief that an American retaliation to an Iranian strike would be more politically acceptable than an Israeli one. With an American deterrent in play Israel could be cut out of the deterrent process

Perhaps the Obama follows that line of thinking – I wouldn’t put such hubris past him, and his blank-slate record of decisions made under pressure only scares me further.

But this American citizen notes that the Obama made his political bones (on the national stage) by stridently and too-persistently doing his best at ‘antiwar’ posturing, and US defeat in Iraq. Giving him any encouragement to impose such risky – and unguaranteeable – thinking on some other country which is under far more immediate threat of attack by larger enemies is dumber than paying Starbucks $4 for a cup of coffee. The Israelis would be nuts to accept the notion. And the US would, as well described above, simply be sticking its neck out further in invitation for oh-so-righteous nuclear attacks from a whole galaxy of countries.

Pre-emptive attacks on those who promise first-nuclear-use looks better and better.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:34 am 19. 49erDweet:

I’m with #9, wildernesscalling, this is nothing but a sham. The problem is the formerly hawkish and street-smart Israeli’s have been morphed by their inbred liberal wing into a nation of southern Florida Mahjong contestants, with as much courage remaining as a three day old kitten. They are so weak-willed now they will probably buy into the prez-elect’s rhetoric and in a couple of years or less be but memories of yet another failed “American” foreign policy endeavor.

This sounds like it came right out of the Clinton State Department. You’all better put all your family photos in a safe place, cuz stuff is soon gonna happen, I think.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:40 am 20. Indiana Joe:

This is just SO wrong. It may be the worst strategic (and tactical) decision ever made in the nuclear age.

1. It virtually concedes having a nuclear Iran come into being, abandoning the whole concept of non-proliferation.

2. There is NO WAY Israel will sit on their hands when their cities get vaporized. Who would? Why should they play “let’s pretend we never even developed nukes?” Even if the ABMs work, no government would survive NOT retaliating in that situation.

3. As pointed out above, why are ABM’s okay for Israel, but not for us? Why wouldn’t there be the same Russian objections to them as there are to the ones in Poland? Is Obama willing to stare down Russia to defend Israel? I’m not convinced of that.

4. As also pointed out above, Israel (and US, for that matter) is more likely to see a suitcase (or shipping-crate) nuke than an incoming missile. Conceding Iran the bomb in no way guarantees exactly HOW they’d deploy it. What will we say when a smuggled device is detonated in Tel Aviv… OR Times Square? “OOPS?”

There are several options on how to deal with the issue of Iran and nukes. Personally, I favor prevention. But THIS idea shouldn’t be one that’s seriously considered, let alone proposed. It should have been tabled at birth. Just too many “what ifs?”

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:41 am 21. Bob:

The big problem is proliferation. A nuclear Iran means that Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, Poland, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Australia, Indonesian all go nuclear, as they must, out of shear self-defense.

How many of these countries have wack-job cultures and leaders? A regional nuclear war is guaranteed to happen. It might spill over to a world-wide exchange.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:45 am 22. ash:

Israel is small enough, physically, that it can be erased before it could respond. Having the US guaranteeing a response if such an event should occur would provide some deterrence. Enough to induce Israel to sign on to the NPT as Ruby asserts is the price? We shall see.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:46 am 23. jerry:

The offer to protect Israel from Iran is no different from Obama’s propensity to protect the workers from the consequences of the faltering economy. It is no different from his propensity to feel free to deny the reality of his involvement in Chicago politics rather than to explain the rotten mess to those who put their faith in him. It has to due with hubris. Tell people he is doing the right thing, offer to do the right thing, the big thing, and then do what has to be done, the practical thing.

In the case of Israel, maybe he will open the doors of the United States to the glowing survivors. Maybe not. It depends on which way the wind is blowing.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:59 am 24. ash:

You know what is kind of funny? A long time ago I suggested here (well, pre-pajama’s) that we’ll have to get used to a nuclear Iran. There was much derision thrown about at the time and now, well here we are watching the early stages of it becoming official US policy. Another fine Bush legacy.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:07 am 25. Captain Ramen:

How you are able to pin this on Bush I can’t possibly fathom. If this is his fault at all it is because he was not able to confront Iran with a united country behind him. Why, he should have done the right thing and simply hand over the presidency to Algore or Jon Carry!

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:26 am 26. Morton Doodslag:

Just so the night falls.

Obama (and all the “blame America first” crowd) clearly accept the endless litany of pretexts our enemies offer up as justification for their actions and intransigence. According to Him, it is OUR fault that America has enemies; it is OUR actions in the world which force our enemies into that role, certainly not any underlying thread in their philosophy, religion, or world view .

His tacit acceptance of Iranian nukes largely assumes that the only reason Iranians, or any (other fascist Muslim nation such as Pakistan) would wish to develop nukes is because Jews possess them in Israel. This is the never ending blather the Arabs spew — and now it appears that the POTUS will spew it too. Fasten your seat belts — it’s going to be a bumpy (and very dark) night…

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:28 am 27. Bill in NC:

The strategic purpose of this policy, if this is true, is only to excuse/explain why we are not going to do anything to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. That’s all. The interplay with Israel, and being their backstop, is merely noise designed to distract from the actual goal here, which is to cover the surrender of our former policy that “we will not permit…”

Not that Bush had managed to do any better.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:29 am 28. esmoore5:

Herb wrote:

“The only thing that will work is prevention. Whatever the cost of prevention (loss of prestige, people, enduring enmity in the muslim world, bad breath) that cost will pale in comparison to the hell unleashed by a nuclear exchange.”

The prevention option may become more difficult with the Iranian acquisition of the SA-20 SAM system:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SAM12108.xml&headline=U.S. Sources: Iran Buying Russian SA-20s&channel=defense

There’s also a report of Iran moving troops and missiles into Eritrea:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/12/report-iran-deploys-troops-and-missiles.html

Which will doubtless complicate the situation there too.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:29 am 29. Jonesy55:

Over the long-term, containment of nuclear proliferation is doomed I think. We should give it our best shot for sure and delay it for as long as possible but ultimately the technology is out there and will spread.

We can no more stop Iran and other countries acquiring nuclear weapons if they want them than European settlers could stop native Americans acquiring muskets.

Thus we do need a ‘plan B’ but should also keep going with ‘plan A’ for as long as possible.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:31 am 30. Indiana Joe:

#24, I hope you’re being facetious. This is an OBAMA idea, from the get-go. Bush’s policy has been no nukes in Iran, period. He’s gotten virtually no support on it from the likes of Obama and the left. But he didn’t propose anything even remotely resembling this.

Blame Bush for the economy, blame him for failed Iraq strategies, blame him for Detroit, blame him for the weather, even blame him for that whole Garden of Eden thing if you must.

But this, THIS, is Obama’s first major foreign-policy contribution, and it’s ALL his. And it stinks to high Heaven.

Deal with it.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:34 am 31. Michael:

How does this deter other states from developing nuclear weapons? Any states wishing to develop their own nuclear weapons will just follow Iran’s lead.

What happens when Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. all have nuclear weapons and decide to attack Israel? Is the US going to retaliate against all of them?

Naive!

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:35 am 32. Hyram Haram:

This is Cirincione’s view, that Israel should relieve itself of its deterrent capability. I have grave doubts about his motives, and those of like-minded Obama advisers (Brzezinski and Samantha Power, for example).

And yet, here we have a month of Bush left, and Rice (and perhaps Petraeus) has convinced the President to rebuff Israel’s attempt to at least postpone the day of reckoning.

What is Israel to do? How about threatening to share nuclear technology with the Egyptians, the Turks or the Saudis? You might say that, in the long run, that’s self-defeating. However, once Iran is armed, it’s a moot point.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:44 am 33. Indiana Joe:

#27, Bill: So far as is known, Iran does not now have nuclear capabilities. On the other hand, Obama appears to be throwing in the towel before he even assumes office. So, I’d have to say that yes, Bush DID “do better.” Hard as that may be for some to admit.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:45 am 34. Bob Smith:

Bueno de Mesquite has pointed out that the mullahs, despite all the fear of apocalyptic visions, have not acted irrationally on the international scene since Khomenini ate dirt.

Define “irrational”. They’re Muslims. The only guaranteed way for a Muslim to enter heaven is to kill or be killed in the service of Allah. It is entirely rational for a Muslim to provoke a nuclear exchange that will destroy him, since it guarantees entry into heaven. Applying European notions of rationality to these people is foolish and suicidal.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:53 am 35. ash:

29. Indiana Joe:

“#24, I hope you’re being facetious. This is an OBAMA idea, from the get-go. Bush’s policy has been no nukes in Iran, period.”

That is my point Indiana; he failed and we can debate the reasons why but the legacy of Bush II is that Iran has developed the capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:55 am 36. ash:

It happened on his watch.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:55 am 37. dan:

does anyone know what exactly brzenzski’s policy outlook is? having read his Soviet-era writing, he seemed cogent and reasonably insightful, at least through the early 70s and in his plans for the Soviet-Afghan insurgency. but then he became and seems to have remained sort of a blithering Council on Foreign Relations eternal student, overimpressed by claims about technological interconnection and all that vaguely Star Trek, We Are the World crap. in the most recent appearance i saw him in on CSPAN at some Davos-like function he was holding forth, with this superior smirk on his face, talking complete nonsense.

how is it that we seem beset, at the apex of our historical power, by people who think and formulate policy with complete disregard for simple common sense.

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:56 am 38. Wadeusaf:

The trouble with the proposed (?) is that Israel has been using a dirty harry approach to deterrence. You know the one, was that six bullets or only five from the most powerful handgun in the world. Do ya feel lucky punk, well do ya?

Israel has not admitted to owning any nukes, or nuclear capability. So, to Obama, the answer must be what are you talking about? To Iran, do you feel lucky punk, well do ya?

Dec 11, 2008 - 9:59 am 39. Faster, Please! » Obama “Accepts” Iran’s Bomb:

[...] Fernandez has quite properly called attention to the news that Obama seems to be offering Israel an American “nuclear umbrella” against Iran.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:01 am 40. dan:

actually the legacy of Bush II regarding Iran is: to forego military action and implement the EU-style “multilateral” diplomatic strategy his domestic and international political opponents never stopped beating him over the head with before, during, and probably after Operation Iraqi Freedom – to implement such a strategy is to invite aggression and cede crucial initiative to your enemy. also cf. North Korea.

but thanks for playing, ash.

by the way, having spent the last 7 years or so harassing us with your anti-Bush wisdom, are you going to start affirmatively defending Obama’s policies for us or just switch to a generalized anti-USA tac? i ask out of mere curiosity.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:03 am 41. james wilson:

The conclusion of the article is correct. It being the worst possible thing to do, Obama will seek to do it.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:05 am 42. veracious:

A nuclear Iran is Islamic terror with A-bombs, period. Delivery via state is indicated by missile, delivery via proxy indicated by >0 mushroom cloud in USA. Kind’a like Paul Revere, but using much brighter _lights_.

O is a wimp on the whole subject, but then so Bush has been. You either fix a problem before it gets out of control, or you fix it later, at a much higher cost in humans, cash and living standard, duh. This is a refraction of what led to WWII.

I’ll give W some consolation, a multi-front war, risking the whole world energy sources, is a risk for great men. We need great men during these times but have only politicians.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:11 am 43. ash:

I’m more interested in the policies than the person presenting them. I have thought Bush II to be a consistently bad ‘chess’ player. He made bad decisions. We shall see what Obama does. I’m not convinced that offering Israel shelter under our nuclear umbrella is in the US’s best interest though Ruby’s asserted caveat might make it a better offer than carte blanche protection. My concern is the US could be dragged into a nuclear exchange through ceding control of our actions to others. Israel, with such an assurance, may be more inclined to act in ways we think provocative and unjust.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:17 am 44. always right:

Wretchard,

You got it wrong.

This is to pave the way to blame it on Bush (so what else is new?). “Bush dropped the ball.” “Bush could have prevented it but didn’t do a thing, he won’t talk to Iran directly.”

The same argument “9/11 happened under Bush watch” won’t be used ‘under Obama watch’ ever.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:22 am 45. Bad Idea: National survival tied to Obama promise:

[...] Richard Fernandez aptly points out.. all this does is reduce the threat to Iran, which had faced certain response [...]

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:25 am 46. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"Israel doesn’t have the capacity to carry out a strike without our help/permission”"”"”"”"

It doesn’t? Does it also NOT have one of the most capable air forces in the region, and does it NOT have an arsenal of at least scores of nukes? Does it NOT have other means of delivery?

Is Israel pulling a Saddam-like WMD hoax? News to me.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:26 am 47. Mike:

My tea leaves tell me that the offer of an American shield is a fig leaf to allow the USAF to block Israeli air strikes against the Iranian facilities.

Regardless, Israel does have some options. It’s biggest problem that getting to the Iranian facilities requires mid-air refueling, and there is no safe place for the tanker aircraft to do this. There is another option though. Seize either the islands of Masirah or Socotra, and stage from there. Distance from Masirah is much closer, but even Socotra would work. The key issue is that the tankers could orbit out in the Indian Ocean outside of anybodies airspace. Both of these islands have airports, but I’m not sure if they can service jet aircraft. The one on Socotra is bigger.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:27 am 48. buckets:

As much as I support Israel, I really can’t see this working out well for the United States.

During the Cold War days, the U.S. giving retaliation guarantees to allies made a certain sense. In a bi-polar world with two clearly defined sides, an attack on a U.S. ally like Poland was really an attack against NATO and democracy, and thus the United States itself. On top of that, as much enemity as we had against the USSR, we knew they would act carefully, deliberately, and with some measure of rationality.

Now we’re talking about Iran, a country whose current regime was born in blatant violation of arguably the world’s oldest and most respected international principle: the safety and sacrosanct nature of the ambassador/diplomat. There is absolutely no guarantee Iran will act rationally when it contemplates a nuclear strike, making it that much more likely for such a strike to occur. And as much as we admire and support Israel, pledging to initiate a nuclear holocaust half the world away doesn’t sit well even with us neo-con warmongerers.

So if we honor our pledge, we widen a Middle East conflict to a world-wide nuclear conflict. And if we don’t honor our pledge to retaliate, the U.S. looks impotent and dishonest, and we will lose that most treasured coin of international relations: trust and the will to use force to back up our words.

This whole thing strikes me as a tough-talking pose by a weak man, and you can bet I would be saying the same thing were Bush II to have proposed this before he took office in 2000.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:32 am 49. dan:

well everything i read suggests that israel’s airforce isn’t large or long-range enough to effectively strike iran’s nuke facilities. and they would have to go through airspace controlled directly or indirectly by the USA. but if i’m wrong please correct me – i just read stuff online.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:38 am 50. fred:

Any nation that allows another nation to “guarantee” its security does not deserve to survive. Israel must not ever trust the United States to back it up. It must not sign the non-proliferation treaty. A roll of toilet paper is worth more than that abortion of an idea brought to you by the stellar minds of the International Crisis Group.

This truly is the first public window into Obama’s mind. It tells me that he and his people truly do not understand the nature of the threat and the nature of the enemy. They really, really do not understand the religious motivation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Mullahs. The Bush people could do nothing about it because the President’s policy of unilateral action was worn down and beaten to death in the realm of public opinion. He also had no support from the very government that he is the head of. Condi at Foggy Bottom, I am sure, is opposed to a pre-emptive strike against the Mullahs’ new toys. Condi and the President also warned Israel to not strike at Iran. Now the Oobonga people will do nothing about it because they don’t have a clue about the nature of the threat. It is THAT ignorance and miscalculation that worries me more than anything else. And the Mullahs know that Oobonga and Hillary will only rattle their sabres.

Big trouble ahead.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:39 am 51. RWE:

The first requirement of deterrence is that it be credible. You adversary has to believe that you are willing to commit an absolute and irreversible horror, boil a city away down to its bedrock, flash fry unborn children in their mother’s wombs.

Do people who wail about how George Bush as “gone around the world, gathering up people and incarcerating them without trial” as Air America says about every 15 min, have that credibility?

Do people who get the vapors over waterboarding sound like they will vaporize an entire city?

I think not.

And by the way, forget the need to refuel IDF airplanes enroute to Iran or not giving the IDF the IFF codes for our defenses in Iraq to deter them. They have the Jehrico missile that can carry nukes to Iran just fine.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:41 am 52. Citizen70:

Two reactions:
First, isn’t this what Obama’s supporters were apopletic about when Hillary made a similar comment? How do they feel now?
Second, if I were Israel, I wouldn’t trust anything Obama promises. Look at his record.

Another suggestion would be to guarantee a parcel of land the size of Israel right here in the United States in case the existing Israel is nuked. This thought just came to me and is not thought out but I’d be interested in hearing what others think.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:55 am 53. Tom Holsinger:

It helps the U.S. government deny that there is a problem.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:03 am 54. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"48. dan:

well everything i read suggests that israel’s airforce isn’t large or long-range enough to effectively strike iran’s nuke facilities. and they would have to go through airspace controlled directly or indirectly by the USA. but if i’m wrong please correct me – i just read stuff online.”"”"”

It sounded like you were referring to Israel’s nuclear strike capabilities specifically in your first post, and not to the oft-discussed scenario of an Israeli attempt to destroy Iranian nuke capacity. An Israeli large-scale air assault on Iran would be difficult in either case, but doable. They would not ask for American permission, especially in the case of retaliation for a nuclear strike. Ironically, an Isrreali nuke attack would be easier to execute than a “take-out” strike. They may also have sea-born nuke delivery systems as well.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:03 am 55. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”Another suggestion would be to guarantee a parcel of land the size of Israel right here in the United States in case the existing Israel is nuked. This thought just came to me and is not thought out but I’d be interested in hearing what others think.”"”"”"”

It already exists: it’s called New York City. Nyuck, nyuck.

Sorry, I wasn’t going “Mel Gibson” on you, since I don’t think that way, but I couldn’t resist.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:05 am 56. marek:

A little bit of history is called for. In 1967 when Nasser closed the Tiran Straits, a clear casus belli, Israel went to the US, France, UK, UN and the rest of the world that promised to break the blockade. And promised, and promised…
So forgive me that I doubt the worthiness of US’ guaranties to Israel.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:31 am 57. twobyfour:

@ 51. Citizen70

Oh, brother!

The parcel of land idea is really, really… not well thought out.

—
It effing galls me that the damn effing fraud John Titor was likely right.
In any case, I hope that Israelis see through the “umbrella” scenario and don’t fall into that trap, although I wouldn’t bet on it.
As for the aerial trike… sometimes you have to bargain with the devil, especially when the devil seems to have a specific common interest (the question is what would be the price to pay down the road). Look at the map. Can’t say no more.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:31 am 58. Citizen70:

Roderick, no offense taken – we need some humor in these dark times. I’m afraid New York City and Washington, D.C. face the same threat as the state of Israel but at least there are other geographical areas of the U.S. that can respond to a massive attack.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:38 am 59. Lifeofthemind:

This will mean the death of millions. The Jewish people, who taught the world about one just and loving God and righteousness and mercy and restraint and courage and learning, face annihilation. For this to have even a hint of working then Israel would have to become a State in the American Union with full Nato guarantee. Even that could not work since the Israelis can not trust the Democrats not to immediately admit 3 million arabs and flood them out. Everything I predicted in the last thread is beginning to happen. The US military is going to be used, not to shield Israel, but to shield the assault on Israel.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:39 am 60. twobyfour:

@ 58. Lifeofthemind

Yea, it’s like a slo-mo train, edging to the wreck position not because of speed but a sheer momentum, due to it’s mass.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:52 am 61. Stan:

Was I the supreme Ayatollah of Iran I would give a nuke to my proxies such as Hamas or Hezbollah to unleash against Israel, afterwards deny all guilt and watch the UN, the Euros, and the United States wring their hands in anguish at the horror if it all and, as usual, do nothing because there is no definitive intelligence of the nuke’s origins.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:54 am 62. Ryan:

The one missing piece of logic in worrying about an Iranian attack is the inevitable size of the fallout. Considering the size of Israel, would Iran not risk killing millions of its allies that are the current antagonists to Israel?

I can see bunker-buster sized munitions, but in reality how utterly stupid do the Iranian mullahs have to be to kill the people they are trying to aid in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?

Even assuming they are in this struggle just to dominate the region, would they not just put a huge bullseye on their country once such an attack occurs?

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:54 am 63. twobyfour:

@ 61. Ryan

Mullahs effin’ don’t care about fallout. Allah will sort them out. They don’t even care about their own–their goal is to create mayhem to force their Mahdi to show up. That crazy? Yeah, that crazy.

Triggering a nuke in Israel may not do it, in light of the ephemeral umbrella offered by The One. Therefore, they may be looking for a better target first–they can deal with Israel in the aftermath when things get into a motion and no one would care about some sliver of land in ME. Logistics says that the target is due north.

Dec 11, 2008 - 12:08 pm 64. RWE:

Ryan:

As for fallout, consider that Iran will not need to use earth pentrating warheads (which they don’t have) or even groundbursts to take out the missiles Israel has at places like Palchiam AB. Iran will go “counter value” against cities, which means airbursts that are not very productive of fallout.

Admittedly the ability of the Iranians to produce fusing mechanisms that can do this is suspect.

The prevailing winds will carry the fallout west, which means Syria (no doubt a totally expendable ally at best in Iran’s view), Iraq (need I say more), Turkey (need I say more) and Iran itself. And since the populated areas of Iran will be a glass surfaced self-lighting parking lot by that point, the fallout will not be much of a problem.

Once again, don’t think aircraft, think missiles. Israel did not call its nuclear missile the Jehrico for nothing – “and the walls came tumbling down.” Maybe they should have called it the Sampson.

As for accuracy of IDF missiles – U.S. space boosters have used Israeli guidance computers. They can do the job.

Dec 11, 2008 - 12:22 pm 65. Tom Holsinger:

The real problem with Iranian nukes is that the ensuing rampant nuclear proliferation will mean the death of freedom in America. The price of freedom at home is use of military force abroad when necessary.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php

“The chief threat of Iranian nukes, however, is what they will lead to elsewhere – something which will make all of the above trivial by comparison, something which will go on and on long after Iran’s mullah regime is overthrown by the Iranian people.

If the United States does not forcibly prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, every country in the area will know to a moral certainty that they cannot rely on the United States for protection against Iranian nuclear attack, or Iranian nuclear blackmail in support of domestic opposition to the generally shaky regimes of the Middle East. American prestige and influence there will collapse. If we won’t protect ourselves by pre-emption, we can’t be relied on to protect anyone else.

So every country within reach of Iranian nuclear weapons will have enormous strategic pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons to deter Iranian nuclear threats. As a recent strategic survey noted, Syria has many times the per capita and absolute GDP of North Korea, and Egypt several times the per capita and absolute GDP of Pakistan. If North Korea and Pakistan can develop nuclear weapons, so can Syria and Egypt, and also Saudi Arabia, all three of whose regimes are shaky. And they won’t be the only countries to develop nuclear weapons after Iran does – many more will join the nuclear “club” within a few years, some within months.

All of those countries having nuclear weapons will create a security nightmare – at some point terrorists will be able to buy or steal some (assuming that Iran doesn’t first give a few to favored terrorist groups).

… We better than most can economically afford the thoroughly intrusive security measures required to protect against terrorist nukes when the threat can come from anywhere, as opposed to Islamic extremists alone.

But the price of domestic security, when foreign security fails due to a failure of leadership and will by President Bush, will be something much more precious – our freedom.

Freedom everywhere will suffer due to those same security precautions. The greatest loss of freedom will come in those countries which are freest, i.e., especially America. Especially us.

THIS is what is really at stake – the freedom which makes us Americans.”

Gerald Baker’s take on the same issue:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-2011570,00.html

“We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or stop us saying incendiary things in mosques. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our governments fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima.”

Dec 11, 2008 - 12:26 pm 66. ricpic:

A guarantee from antisemite Barry? One more reason for Israel to launch NOW!

Dec 11, 2008 - 12:42 pm 67. Eggplant:

Dan said:

“that [Iran] pursues nuclear weaponization under such circumstances need not be explained with apocalyptic visions. it is more likely that apocalyptic visions talk is just another part of the strategy.”

That analysis has a “ring of truth”. Iran’s threatening to destroy Israel is completely irrational given that Israel could easily annihilate Iran. Assuming that the mullahs while sipping tea and talking amongst themselves are rational (big assumption!), then it is logical to assume that the “nuking Israel” talk is propaganda for internal consumption.

Dan also said:

“israel will not ultimately cede responsibility for its existence to the USA. it wouldn’t matter how leftwing the Israeli government is, no concerns of the USA would prevent it from retaliating against an Islamic Bomb. this Obama talking is just nonsense. in the worst case, it’s the beginning of a diplomatic strategy to dissociate the USA from Israel’s pre-emptive strike and deny it legitimacy.”

That’s my reading as well. Obama is saying to Israel: “You don’t need to preemptively nuke the Iranians because we’ll protect you.” The Israelis are smiling at this obvious canard thinking to themselves: “Yeah, we’ll actually risk our existence based entirely upon a loose agreement with a cynical liar like Obama. How stupid does he think we are?” In the meantime Obama knows the Israelis are thinking this and they will refuse the offer. Time passes, the Israelis get nuked and Obama can then say: “I offered them our nuclear umbrella but they refused. It’s not our problem.” -or- The Israelis propose a preemptive action against Iran and Obama can say the same thing again and add: “Since you would not trust our offer of a nuclear umbrella, why should we participate with you in a preemptive action?”. Essentially Obama has told Israel to go piss up a rope but in a very nice way that the Jewish left wing and moonbats can accept. I might add that this sort of nonsense is pure “Neville Chamberlain” type thinking. It will lead to nuclear war.

Dec 11, 2008 - 1:43 pm 68. what is occupation:

Iran has called for, worked towards and enabled many to wipe Israel off the map…

Nothing more should be said…

Iran’s military and industrial complexes should be eliminated from the planet…

Using bunker busting nukes, all buildings that show an electric/commerical/military footprint should be made into glass…

Let this be a lesson to all…

Let the citizens of Iran live without modern power, sewage, schools, universities and such…

They can hate all the jews, all they wish…

but do it from mud floored huts

Dec 11, 2008 - 1:44 pm 69. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Source: Obama to nuke Iran if Iran nukes Israel:

[...] standard for the Middle East, but given the vicissitudes of American politics and, as Richard Fernandez says, the fact that there’s no reason to believe the west would act to nuke Iran when it [...]

Dec 11, 2008 - 1:52 pm 70. ramsis:

Obama has just taken the first step in ultimately disarming Israel. If I were Israel I wouldn’t take anything he says as far as a security pledge is concerned seriously. Obama will likely try to use abm support from America as well as a retaliation promise in exchange for a full declaration of Israels nuclear arsenal. This will evolve into eventually calling for disarming of Israel’s nuclear weapons and then there you have it, DISASTER!

Dec 11, 2008 - 1:57 pm 71. wildiris:

Regarding the fallout question, the amount of radioactive waste material produced by a nuclear device is only a few times the mass of the fissionable material that was used to make the bomb. I don’t have the time at this moment to go over the physics more exactly, but a quick guess-timate would be that a Hiroshima sized bomb might produce only 50 to 100 pounds of “fallout”. The point is, that if you want to poison the environment radioactively, then a dirty bomb, built with the tons of nuclear waste available to a country like Iran, would be a far more effective and easy way to do it.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:03 pm 72. fred:

Eggplant,

My thoughts EXACTLY about Obama: a cynical liar that the Israelis know they cannot trust. Plus they know he knows it and he knows they know it. Thus, the policy: the United States really is throwing Israel under the bus. Oh, and we can expect a certain someone who occasionally drops in to this blog to intone his thoughts about da Joooossss.

All allies of the United States should be very afraid of where we are going. Next under the bus, the fledgling Iraqi experiment.

In dribs and drabs the real Obama will be coming out. So far in the general campaign and the transition team appointments he’s tried to create the illusion of centrism. It’s been hilarious to see who in the talking head and political community have fallen for his jujitsu. And some of them are Republicans.

Next four years are going to be quite a ride.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:15 pm 73. twobyfour:

@ 65. Eggplant

A great majority of Iranian mullahs are nominal — e.g they don’t buy that crap, it’s just biz, a great racket. “Rational” pragmatists, as it were.

However, the minority that is represented by Ahmanutjob are mahdists. It is this minority that presently controls most of key positions, and it’s they that dictate the Iran’s policies. The parliament is just a rubber stamping institution.

So, as soon as they are able to start a mayhem, they will. The only question is how. Although “wiping Israel off the map” is their stated goal — which ties to their mahdist ideology, its eschatology does not speak of Israel but Jews, but it is equated — their main “concern” is to quicken Mahdi’s appearance.

Whatever would be, from their POV, the most expedient way, that would reflect in their tactical behavior. If they detonate a nuke in NYC, that may serve a purpose, but may fall short of mayhem they envision, e.g. Iran will get glassified and that would be the end of it. Therefore they are selecting a target that would guarantee a widespread mayhem. Something not expected and guaranteeing a “chain” reaction. They presume that either Israel would be caught in the middle and dealt a blow by default, or that they would have ample time to strike it when all hell breaks loose.

IOW, they are after a Global Thermo-Nuclear War, not just wiping Israel off the map.

So yes, there is a degree of misdirection present, but not for internal consumption — Iranian population frankly does not care about Israel one way or another.

Israel eliminating Iranian nuke facilities would not only do a favor to themselves, but to the whole world. In fact, anyone who would do it would be doing the same favor.

It’s just… there is not that many that are able to see through the smokescreen.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:17 pm 74. whiskey:

Ash is somewhat correct (policies not personalities matter) but misses some very BIG points.

1. Deterrence for our OWN safety and security with a nuclear Iran DEPENDS on Obama scaring the HELL out of the Iranians so the threats are seen as legitimate and inevitable. Not posturing of someone who has NEVER shown political courage: Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Blags, his Granny, all under the BUS.

2. Obama’s status in Iran and elsewhere as a “secret Muslim” who will help them destroy Israel and the US — it might not be actually true (though it’s probably partially true, Obama is in active sympathy with Iran’s Islamic movement, plans a big speech in a Muslim Capitol, and plans to “reboot” America’s image, no doubt by announcing he’s Muslim at an appropriate time). No one in Iran’s leadership thinks Obama would retaliate if NYC were nuked out of existence, much less Israel.

3. Israel’s fear of Obama, his Muslim status and sympathies, his history of Jihadist terrorists, and the like, his weakness, and the Democratic Party. This is particularly true of the military which as the Knesset degenerates into a weak, corrupt, and uber-liberal tea party as the Holocaust approaches must be prompted to act.

4. Iran’s need for a confrontation NOW. Falling oil prices have caused riots in the streets, as food and fuel subsidies have been cut. Iran needs a massive war NOW to prevent revolution.

5. Nuclear Iran is a disaster, not only is the regime not deterrable (they NEED war and hopefully Nuclear War with Israel and/or the US from their own perspective) but it will cause everyone in the world threatened by a neighbor to nuke up as the US security guarantee is proven worthless.

6. Any attack on Israel is likely to come from Syria and Lebanon, controlled by Iran, as a decapitating first strike overwhelmingly wiping out the entire country (likely killing about 7 million people) and it’s retaliatory capacity.

Therefore, Israel’s best option short of nuking Iran FIRST (by the military acting alone to save the people from a second Holocaust) is tripling their arsenal, and making a survivable deterrent, with US-style nuclear submarines, “Chrome Dome” style always-active planes/bombers, and hardened silos. With enough capacity to simply wipe out: Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and so forth. And when I mean “wipe out” I mean kill about 75% of the population or more.

That’s the calculation of nuclear deterrence.

Obama’s offer MIGHT mean something coming from a united Democratic party united with a solid Republican Party in defense of Israel, with a long record of Obama facing unpleasant to near career ending consequences for sticking by unpopular people, associates, etc. Demonstrating loyalty at great cost. Given his own personal history the offer is DOA.

Moreover, it’s likely to be seen that was as the Chicago scandals just move upward and upward, growing all the time, being the perfect bit of information for whichever media outlet seizes the story first and runs with it (Drudge was made a multimillionaire by running the Lewinsky story when Newsweek killed it). Obama is rapidly being defined as corrupt, weak, and disloyal.

Big talk from a weak, little man.

The fallout is likely to be a nuked America, sooner or later (and likely sooner) with Republicans making the accurate argument that Dems were weak and encouraged it.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:22 pm 75. RWE:

By the way, folks, I now have a big plastic tub container with the letters “BCW” marked on the side.

Inside are: Gas masks, a gas mask hood, plastic coveralls, a couple of surplus CD radiation survey meters, and a surplus CD dosimeter charger with a half dozen dosimeters.

I recommend that everyone take similar precautions. Right now this stuff is available very cheap. The government has cleaned out the old CD supplies from storage and people are selling them on ebay. After all, we will never need them, since we have Peace In Our Time.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:26 pm 76. programmer:

Wildiris states firmly:

Regarding the fallout question, the amount of radioactive waste material produced by a nuclear device is only a few times the mass of the fissionable material that was used to make the bomb.

Programmer says: I oppose!

http://www.aircav.com/survival/ascp23/asch23p01.html

Crucial part of the above reference:

Fallout consists of radioactive soil and water particles, as well as weapon fragments. During a surface detonation, or if an airburst’s nuclear fireball touches the ground, large amounts of soil and water are vaporized along with the bomb’s fragments, and forced upward to altitudes of 25,000 meters or more. When these vaporized contents cool, they can form more than 200 different radioactive products. The vaporized bomb contents condense into tiny radioactive particles that the wind carries and they fall back to earth as radioactive dust. Fallout particles emit alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Alpha and beta radiation are relatively easy to counteract, and residual gamma radiation is much less intense than the gamma radiation emitted during the first minute after the explosion. Fallout is your most significant radiation hazard, provided you have not received a lethal radiation dose from the initial radiation.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:26 pm 77. ash:

whiskey wrote:

“No one in Iran’s leadership thinks Obama would retaliate if NYC were nuked out of existence, much less Israel.”

You have intimate knowledge of what the Iranian leadership thinks do you?

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:40 pm 78. Uncle Jefe:

So what if the Russians offer the same retaliatory assurances for the Iranians against the US?

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:46 pm 79. wildiris:

programmer, you did not in any way contradict my assertion. Try again with some actual numbers.

Dec 11, 2008 - 2:55 pm 80. twobyfour:

@ 77. Uncle Jefe

That would be entirely peachy with them mullahs. Much easier to start the mayhem.

But I am not sure Russians would be too keen in that regard–e.g. suckered into a conflict that may be contrary to their interest, they’d rather apply pressure in another direction for a reciprocity–like Eastern Europe.

Dec 11, 2008 - 3:07 pm 81. wildiris:

Programmer, maybe if I had used the term “radioactive fallout” my numbers would have made more sense to you. What your source refers to simply as “fallout” also includes all of the tons of non-radioactive dirt that gets sucked up, mixed in and carried aloft along with the bomb’s radioactive waste products.

Dec 11, 2008 - 3:09 pm 82. newtland:

As I stood cheering President Bush at his 2006 appearance here at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation when he promised to never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, I thought to myself how lucky we were to have this resolute, honest man in charge.

What the hell happened? Chicken salad to chicken merde if ever there was …

Dec 11, 2008 - 3:18 pm 83. programmer:

wildiris,

Now we agree.

Dec 11, 2008 - 3:39 pm 84. Whitehall:

Obama’s statement will have effects world-wide. It is simply not credible and reveals a lack of motivation.

One consequence – Poland. They are in NATO now but would they expect for Germans to die for Polish freedom from Russia even in a conventional war? There’s little historical precedent for THAT, now is there?

Ergo, Poland must have nuclear weapons, just for defensive purposes, or else acquise in advance to renewed Russian domination. NATO is only as reliable as the US and its president.

As to fallout, the amount of fission fragments in a strict fission weapon is proportional to the yield. A 20 kT plutonium weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki only maks 3.3 pounds – but that can be enough. In an airburst, those pounds take many days and weeks to come to earth and significant radioactive decays takes place, greatly weakening . Plus the material is widely diffused, lowering local doses.

In a ground burst, the fission fragments and any activation products (like radiosodium) attach to the dirt that’s sucked into the fireball. These start to fall immediately, within minutes, and fall locally. The trail of lethal fallout (>500 rem within 10 hours exposure) from a ground burst can extend a hundred miles and be 20 miles wide. How many people live downwind in an area of 2,000 square miles from a major city?

Dec 11, 2008 - 3:49 pm 85. Fred2:

There are problems with preemption.

1. Congress.
2. They’ll just build more, later.
3. Dirty bombs smuggled by Hezbollah.

This only means that regime change or regime-disablement must occur with any preemptive attack. Regime change isn’t reliable; Look what happened to the Shah.

Iran must be militarily disabled. This means destroy their nuclear facilities, ICBM facilities, and bankrupt the country. All their oil is near the coast. Invade and seize it. Seize the uranium mines, too. The Mullahs can have the sand, the cities, and they will learn to ride camels instead of cars.

Nothing else lasts.

Israel has missiles that can send a nuke to Tehran. But they’re probably in the Negev. Possibly subject to a first strike. Maybe that’s what the new US radar in Israel is supposed to protect.

If Israel gets nuked, it has no way to enforce it’s treaty rights to have the US retaliate.

Dec 11, 2008 - 4:22 pm 86. Did Obama Just Give Iran a Go-Ahead to Build Nukes? | The Blog of Record:

[...] Fernandez offers analysis, concluding: It is far from clear that this proposed policy — acquiescing to a nuclear Iran while [...]

Dec 11, 2008 - 4:26 pm 87. what is occupation:

The USA, as great as it is, and as much as I love it, has screwed israel in the past…

why rely on Obama….

the entire 1967 war COULD have been avoided if America had lived up to it’s assurances to Israel.

When Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and ordered the UN troops out of the Sinai, thus closing an international waterway to Israel this was infact a declaration of war…

America COULD have simply escorted israeli shipping thru the straits and made Nasser stand down…

Sadly BOTH the UN & the USA (under LBJ) lacked the balls to stand up and force Nasser to back down…

No 1967?

No 1967 war, no west bank, gaza, golan heights and 1/2 of Jerusalem to bitch about..

No “occupation”

But in 1966 there was really no such thing as a national movement for Palestine..

but America’s screwing Israel and not living up to her word caused everything since then…

Trust Obama? lol that’s funny…

Dec 11, 2008 - 4:35 pm 88. wildiris:

My comment about the relatively small amount, by weight, of radioactive residue that a fission weapon produces was not meant to trivialize the devastating effects that such fallout may cause. The point I wanted to draw people’s attention to, by way of comparison, was the potential lethality of a simple dirty bomb. Recall, just a few months ago, there was a merchant ship hijacked by some Somali pirates that appears to have been carrying containers filled with, literally tons, radioactive nuclear reactor waste from China. I have not read any follow-up to that story, so I don’t know if it turned out to be factual, or not. Maybe Wretchard can help us out here?

The magazine, “Physics Today” recently ran an article that gave a very good rundown on Iran’s nuclear program. As it currently stands, Iran’s enrichment capabilities will only be able to produce enough enriched fissionable material to make one or two small, Nagasaki sized, devices. In comparison, imagine what you could do with a shipping container load of radioactive nuclear reactor waste, put on a ship loaded with fuel, then run aground on the Israeli coast and set on fire.

Dec 11, 2008 - 5:08 pm 89. buddy larsen:

First thought: the offer, rejected, means Obama will have his ‘wash-his-hands’ moment out of the way.

Dec 11, 2008 - 5:10 pm 90. fred:

We can clearly see that Samantha Power and Zbigniew Brzinsky have pounded out the outlines of Middle East policy under President Obama. The triumph of the Walt Mearscheimer Hypothesis.

Dec 11, 2008 - 5:27 pm 91. Hyram Haram:

Regarding Bueno de Mesquito: rationality is widely misunderstand. It only requires that an actor be able to rank order preferences and that these preferences are fixed in the short-run. Bueno de Mesquito (along with Kugler) have written software which, using such preferences, along with each actor’s power, commitment and risk profile, can give you a likely outcome of any political interaction. He could certainly predict with good accuracy you how any particular crisis will end (assuming he has good data). A crisis involving a nuclear Iran and Israel might very well end with a nuclear exchange. This is easily modeled.

Dec 11, 2008 - 5:57 pm 92. Commentary » Blog Archive » Obama’s Pledge to Israel:

[...] attack on Israel with a devastating nuclear counterstrike on Iran.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:02 pm 93. Mark Razak:

…] attack on Israel with a devastating nuclear counterstrike on Iran.
So Obama is pledging to kill possibly millions of Iranians AFTER Israel has been torched. Yeah right.
Israel is doomed.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:28 pm 94. rumcrook:

just what I would want to here from the police as an individual, dont worry about your nutty neighbor vowing to kill you and your whole family, if he kills your wife and children we will go do something about him.

Dec 11, 2008 - 6:49 pm 95. fred:

Deterrence as a strategy works if you and your enemy are rational actors. So, Obama and his ICG advisers consider Iran to be a rational actor? LMAO! These people are truly not fit for command of a barque, let alone a modern nation.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:09 pm 96. buddy larsen:

i’m resolved to try to support my president. but this sh*t is baaaad news. fred is right about the Carter retreads –they are back ‘in’.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:31 pm 97. Bob:

I’m resolved not to support a usurper.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:42 pm 98. Unsk:

Bush has only a few weeks to take out Iran nuclear installations. Yes, it may not be a permanent solution and it may cause one hell of a blacklash. But think of the alternative- nuclear proliferation to all sorts of Muslim States and in all probability the destruction of Israel. To let Iran have nukes is a complete game changer of unthinkable proportions. The Koran calls devout muslims to Jihad unless they are in a military untenable position. With Iranian nukes, welcome to the era of nuclear jihad.

Bush has had years to figure what to do with the Iran Nuke problem. The lack of his public support was mostly of his own making. He refused to make a credible case for his foreign policy and he simply refused to defend his administration’s actions and policies. And his appointed wimpy moderates, almost every time he could in the last four years for his foreign policy team

Most sane people knew that a Obama Administration would be a disaster on this issue. For Bush to leave this problem to this deceitful con man of a President is willful negligence of his office and his pledge to defend America against all enemies, external or internal.

Dec 11, 2008 - 7:57 pm 99. Mark Razak:

Obama lied, millions died.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:00 pm 100. noprisoners:

#20 – Indiana Joe

My real name is “Joe” too.

The reasong that your #2 is misguided can be answered by looking at the map of the region (or the world). If we put the ABM radar in Poland pointing towards Iran, we also cover all of Russia east of the Black Sea. The Russians can’t fly a kite without us knowing about it. THey do not want that kind of scrutiny in the vicinity of Georgia or the Ukraine.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:11 pm 101. LennyB:

All I know is, there are not many countries in the world with political leaders that vocalize a desire to wipe fellow-UN-chartered nations “off the map”. In fact there is exactly one. And to do so without the obvious muscle to back it up telegraphs a high level of irrationality, or at least a high tolerance of it there amongst the repressed citizenry. Anyone who values the present world pecking order must agree that the confluence of irrationality and nuclear weapons must not be permitted by the strong to exist among the weak.

Iran’s military and industrial complex must be taken out, both as punishment for their attempts to procure nuclear technology, and as deterrent to anyone else who seeks it. While there is still opportunity. Do we really want to tell our grandchildren that we had opportunity to keep nukes away from the crazies, but chose not to? The NPT has always been, and will always be, an illusory promise to the weak that they too are permitted to master nuclear technology — right up until the dangerous combination of crazy and nuke presents itself. Then the NPT is not worth the paper it is printed on — if ever it was considering 1990 Saddam Hussein (a confirmed nuclear weapons program dismantled after the gulf war), or early 2000s Iran.

And the Israelis should do it. But because they didn’t respond immediately to Iran’s dangerous rhetoric when the iron was hot, it would now be more costly. Just as it was more costly to wait 12 years to enforce Iraq’s truce the first time around.

If Mexico threatened to wipe the US of the map and had a not-so-clandestine nuclear technology program, would Mexico City not be a sheet of glass promptly thereafter?

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:32 pm 102. OldSalt:

I think we’re missing the point here.

Obama offers the Nuclear umbrella as a guarantee. Why?
The media is floating the idea that BHO sees a Nuclear Iran as inevitable (or juxtaposed, that a BHO led America will not pay the price of preventing it).

However, BHO knows full well that that Israel will not, CAN NOT accept such a guarantee for all the reasons that have been floated here. In fact, I’ll go so far as to posit that no Israeli government could stand if it does not attempt to proactively eliminate the Iranian Nuclear threat. The Israeli people, from left to right of the political spectrum, will to a man and woman swear that they believe that their government will act to prevent it, militarily if necessary. If the Israeli government breaks faith, the government will fall and there could even be a civil war. No, there is absolutely no way Israel will trust any third party guarantee over prevention via military elimination of the threat.

Then the key is, what is President-elect Obama accomplishing here, since his implied goal is a non-starter?

Answer: BHO knows that Israel will move soon, probably before or close to the date BHO takes office. He can’t prevent it. He knows all the intelligence that Bush knows, and Israel can’t prevent that. BHO is telegraphing to the (Arab and Persian) world that Israel is going to strike, and that Obama’s American does not support this. He’s also setting up the Monday morning quarterbacking and worldwide condemnation. “Israel had no right and no need to attack Iran. They had a viable out.”

BHO is “going nuclear” against Israel now, so to speak. This is his first strike AGAINST Israel, couched in undeniable “nice guy terms”.

Now, this may sound like I’m wearing the proverbial tin foil hat, but think it through. BHO’s suggestion is a non-starter, and he knows it’s a non-starter. Again, to flip the argument on its head, ask the rhetorical question:

“What would Obama do if he knew in advance that Israel intended to strike Iran, and opposed it?”

Certainly, the man who associated with pro-Arab and radical left wingers, and who opposed every military action America took to defend herself post-9/11 WOULD oppose a proactive Israeli strike. Would he tip Israeli and US top secret information to Israel’s enemies? To the press? No difference; if any part of Israel’s war plans end up in the public domain, Israel would know the origination of the leak. No, Obama would not openly fracture the US relationship with Israel, and in effect call down the dogs of war upon Israel. BHO would not politically his first term.

What would he do? Something like he’s just done. He’d preemptively try to remove Israel’s moral justification for her own proactive self-defense.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:41 pm 103. OldSalt:

Correction: “BHO would not politically his first term” = add the word “survive” after “politically”, as there would be calls of treason and moves to impeach, while Israel was at ward due to the treaty violation by America.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:45 pm 104. fred:

The people of the ICG and his other advisers generally fit into the view that Israel’s existence is extremely inconvenient for us. A pimple on our ass, and that we’ve made a major policy mistake for decades supporting them. So, I believe they are trying to find a way to cut the ties and let the Muslims have the low hanging fruit, thinking that if sated the Muslims will then leave us alone.

Those of us who know history and know Islam do indeed know that only a stubborn intellectual sloth can be at the root of a refusal to see the light, as far as Islam’s aims are concerned.

Israel, unbeknownst to these clowns, really is the canary in the coal mine.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:52 pm 105. whiskey:

Ash — why would they be afraid of Obama? He’s all set to meet with them, is considered to be a closet Muslim, and Ahmadinejad let out some gratuitous racial insults at Obama.

Iran’s leadership is filled with people who executed prisoners for Khomeni. Among them, Ahmadinejad, who also tortured our hostages.

They don’t believe Obama will do anything he says … they fear him even less that GWB.

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:58 pm 106. Bob:

“Always support your country, and the government when it deserves it.”

Mark Twain

Dec 11, 2008 - 8:59 pm 107. Skeej:

This is a craven, mendacious trick to put the onus on Israel to pre-emptively strike, while giving Obama the cover to say to Muslims, I did what I could!

Not surprising coming from Carters dog, Brezinski.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:04 pm 108. buddy larsen:

That’s it, Skeej –the Pontius Pilate statement –”I wash my hands” –

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:28 pm 109. Dave:

Acting on the presumption that the mullahs are not as crazily suicidal as the want us to believe they are, I do think that deterrence
will work on them.

HOWEVER: Israel has to provide that deterrence. Only way to assure that retaliation will be on the way.

Israel’s problem is its small land mass coupled with near proximity to Iran. An Iranian first strike could all too easily
take out the deterrrence.

Sooooooooo——Lend Lease them a boomer.
(Ruby, are you listening?)

Having that kind of firepower always ready to reply from some unknown location ought to give anybody pause.

Lend Lease period should be for a fixed period of time, say 10 years with possibility of renewal.

In the interim Uncle Sam OUGHT to be moving
both ballistic missle defense and strategic bombardment into orbit.

A Strategy of Technology will work on jihadists as well as communists.

And just in case deterrence fails, retaliation will be massive enough to reduce
enemy capabilities significantly if not eliminate them entirely.

Might as well give this one a try.

Dec 11, 2008 - 10:31 pm 110. Whitehall:

Israel has reliable nuclear retaliatory capability in its submarine fleet. Not nuclear-powered subs but diesel boats with nuclear missiles. MAD is promised and can be delivered.

Bush has 40 days to deliver on his promise that Iran won’t have nuclear weapons. How would Russia react if he came through? I don’t see them standing up for Iran although they will do their best to exploit the chaos that would follow any attack against Iran.

The Russians might have the capability and the will to trail and interdict the Israeli boats.

As to the politics, Obama might be accepting the Israeli attack but preparing some insulation for the US against the backlash. That’s probably the best motive I can ascribe to this statement.

Dec 11, 2008 - 11:03 pm 111. Subotai Bahadur:

For Hussein Pasha to allow such an offer from him to go public before gaining the acquiescence of Israel guarantees that it is in fact a message to Israel. To publicly offer something that is a negation of their sovereignty that at the same time reverses a policy that the Israelis could understand and agree with [not allowing Iran to have nukes]is in fact a slap at Israel and tells them that they can no longer depend on the United States in any situation, so long as he is in the White House.

If cooperation with the United States in dealing with Iranian nuclear weapons development and the immediate threat of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel is no longer strategically possible or conceivable; then Israel has to decide what it will do, regardless of what the reaction of an already hostile US government will be.

If it is impossible to deal with the threat by conventional means, then other means become usable options. The United States is not going to like those options. I have spent some considerable time about a year and a half ago examining those other options. Much will depend on how far into a corner Israel feels it has been backed. There is a wide range of strategic choices available to Israel. At the low end of the range, it would take 3 missiles out of a much larger inventory; and Iran will cease to exist as a functioning society. And they would be unable to retaliate.

This collection of criminals, crackheads, and invokers of the McNaughton Rule that is going to become our government has no conception of what happens when you blindly assume that the rest of the world thinks just like you. They are in for an unending stream of unpleasant surprises.

Subotai Bahadur

Dec 12, 2008 - 12:01 am 112. CPT. Charles:

I’ve commented on this before.

I hate it when I’m right.

Buddy [95]: I support the Constitution and the Republic; the President [any President for that matter...] is only a footnote. My oaths have neither an expiration, nor a ’sell-by’ date, but that’s just me.

Dec 12, 2008 - 3:01 am 113. Ledger:

Obama Speaking on National Television:

“My fellow Americans, Israel has been hit by six large Atomic weapons. Israel is now a smoking crater. What is done is done.”

“We cannot afford to extend Israel our nuclear umbrella as I had promised. We just don’t have the missiles necessary to retaliate against the ‘alleged attacker’ Iran.”

“Thank you and keep your TV tuned to this station while I prepare for further up-dates on the situation from my secure bunker. Good night.”

Dec 12, 2008 - 4:31 am 114. peterike:

This is the least off topic of current threads for this, but it’s still off topic. Still, I wanted to get this out there because I feel like I have to tell somebody.

Today, the Washington Post has put up a story “Green Berets earn Silver Stars for Afghan battle.” In other words, a story about a heroic and inspiring display by US forces. Now what is different about this particular event compared to the dozens if not hundreds of similar events that have taken place these past seven or so years? The differences:

1 – Obama was elected. War is now good.
2 – It’s Afghanistan, and the media has to prepare the ground for the escalation Obama says he wants.

I found it jaw dropping. Right when I saw the headline I thought, “What the? It can’t be.”

But indeed it is. After ripping the country apart for years with their fradulent reporting and anti-war drumbeat, suddenly — coincidentally, of course! — the media discovers American military heroes.

I didn’t think their disgusting cynicism could surprise me anymore, but I was wrong.

Though in the end, more of this kind of reporting will be a good thing for the nation, so I’m happy to see it. But by god, the MSM deserves a thrashing.

Dec 12, 2008 - 6:11 am 115. Phillip Reece:

Bernard lewis was right when he stated “America is harmlesss as an enemy and Treacherous as a friend”

Dec 12, 2008 - 6:21 am 116. Buck Smith:

could only create eternal enmity with its neighbors

Uh, Wretchard, I think the eternal enmity has already been there for a while. Predates the Bush presidency and in fact the creation of the USA. Myself I would be fine to end all aid to Israel as long as we needed to Egypt and Palestine. I would use the money to give raises in combat pay to all US soldiers.

People in the Middle East have been killing each other over religious and ethnic differences for thousands of years. If they keep that fight in the Middle East it will work out better for them than if they continue to bring it to the US

Dec 12, 2008 - 6:37 am 117. Buck Smith:

Sorry that’s I would be fine to end all aid to Israel as long as we ended it to Egypt and Palestine.

Dec 12, 2008 - 6:58 am 118. buddy larsen:

CPT Charles @ 111: Well put –that’s it, that’s the distinction. Next come the enormous questions of definition, implication and implementation. What to do when the footnote starts paging backwards and erasing text.

Dec 12, 2008 - 7:08 am 119. joe buzz:

Dont know what yall are getting spun up about and why the OPEUS feels the need to propose such as the esteemed authors of the NIE informed us last summer that the Persians stopped their nuke weapon program years ago.

Dec 12, 2008 - 7:25 am 120. slimslowslider:

hitler was able to use the world’s hate for jews to accomplish a lot of things. the mullahs may be betting on the same thing. wretches conjecture of hitting soft targets with wmds=chaos.

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:02 am 121. buddy larsen:

but joe buzz, that was the “Bush” NIE –it was doing Higher Truth. Maybe now that there’s a “D” after the president’s name it can maybe go back to good old ‘lower’ truth. you remember it dontcha? the thing with facts and stuff?

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:23 am 122. Behind Blue Lines » Obama and the Big Fire:

[...] at Belmont Club thinks endorsement of this idea is an indication that our policy-makers have accepted the idea of the Iranian bomb and view it as inevitable. Proposing the use of our nuclear arsenal (assuming it still works) is [...]

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:43 am 123. Paul - Indiana:

I think Obambi just voted ‘present’ again.

Dec 12, 2008 - 9:06 am 124. Lifeofthemind:

Who would BHO send against Iran if this offer was serious, Madeline Albright, a crack team from TSA and the basement “I believe Drill Team?” He is going to gut all strategic systems, the missiles will be off line, the attack carriers will be mothballed, the bombers will be decommissioned, the boomer subs will be tied up retraining until people think Crimson Tide was reality. The only only hope that Israel has, and it is a very slim one, is the possibility that the Saudis and the Turks might hate and fear the Iranians more than the Jews.

Dec 12, 2008 - 9:24 am 125. Whitehall:

This morning in Drudge, Egypt’s president came down hard on Iran:

“Mubarak accused the Islamic Republic of trying to subsume its Muslim neighbors, telling the forum that ‘the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states.’”

Maybe the notion for POTUS and POTUS-Elect is that we can use proxies to hit Iran with maybe a little behind the scenes support.

Dec 12, 2008 - 10:05 am 126. Subotai Bahadur:

113. peterike:

I noted a similar trend. After 6 1/2 years of attacking anything to do with the war and denying that any threat existed to the United States [while actively helping our enemies], ABC now has a new program out extolling the virtues of Homeland Security. Of course Hussein Pasha will be in charge, and therefore any attack on this country could reflect badly on him and his media supporters. Mind you, anything that does happen for the next 4 years will have ‘It’s Bush’s fault’ as the default reaction by the Democrats and the media; but after a while they are not going to be able to spin us.

It really is not that far off thread, because the Democrats are going to have to try to pretend to love and to want to defend this country at the same time that their foreign policy is enabling and arming mortal enemies; lest they start having close encounters with ropes and lamp-posts.

Keep in mind that to the Iranians, we are the “Great Satan” and Israel is only the “Lesser Satan”. We are on their hit list too. Between Iranian nukes and possible loose Pakistani nukes [both have only a limited number of ways to hit us by missiles or aircraft; but quite a few unconventional ways, and it will be countervalue, not counterforce]; I expect that we are going to lose more than one city in the next couple of years,in addition to a surge in what has become ‘normal’ terrorist attacks. Mumbai and Beslan are likely patterns.

With the advent of the incoming [if you will pardon the expression] “national security team”; I think that the number of iterations in Wretchard’s Conjecture #2 will be >2 before we respond in kind. One indicator to watch, is to see if Hussein Pasha revokes National Security Directive 17.

On reflection, if the iterations of terrorist nuclear weapons detonations includes any of 4 or possibly 5 specific cities; the Democrats’ own base will demand and probably get retaliation. Of course Washington, DC is one [and that particular strike may make the concept of a decision by that specific "national security team" moot]. I will leave the names of the rest for you to ponder.

Subotai Bahadur

Dec 12, 2008 - 11:03 am 127. RWE:

Folks, remember something. Pres George Bush does not lie. He also has very little use for those who do lie, as the case of Scooter Libby and those two poor Border Patrol agents show.

The President has handed Obama a win in Iraq and a win in Afghanistan and in fact, a win everywhere in the War on Terror. Figuratively speaking, it is September 1944, Gen Patton is sitting on the Merse and ready to go all the way to Berlin, the Japanese fleet has been effectively destroyed, the Luftwaffe is on the ropes, and B-29 raids have begun on Japan. That does not mean that it all still can’t be screwed up, just as our win over Japan was screwed up in Korea 5 years later. In fact, I think we can be assured that it will be screwed up to some degree.

Pres Bush will hand Obama the answer to the Iranian nukes, both in terms of big obvious things, such as the win in Iraq, significant but smaller achievements such as missile defense, and, you can be sure, very important things we don’t know about. “W” will give “O” all the means to keep the promise he made about Iranian nukes. It won’t be on the Texan’s shoulders if the Kenyan does not do the job.

Dec 12, 2008 - 11:50 am 128. buddy larsen:

SB @ 125: there’s yet another worrisome source. If a Russian suitcase nuke pops in the west, any needed cover is already solidly in place –did you not see the terrible Russo/Chechnya war? Did not Kremlin already admit it had lost a number of these weapons (stored on the over-run military bases) to the terrorist/rebels? Did not Grozny prove that Putin and the military have both done their best to put an end to these terrorists?

Dec 12, 2008 - 12:42 pm 129. programmer:

Subotai Bahdur reflects:

On reflection, if the iterations of terrorist nuclear weapons detonations includes any of 4 or possibly 5 specific cities; the Democrats’ own base will demand and probably get retaliation. Of course Washington, DC is one [and that particular strike may make the concept of a decision by that specific "national security team" moot]. I will leave the names of the rest for you to ponder.

programmer adds:

Hell, Subotai, old bean. If the right 5 cities are nuked, there WON’T BE any Democratic base left to demand and stomp their little feet. What a pity! Oh well, one must seek the silver lining where one can, eh old boy?

Dec 12, 2008 - 12:46 pm 130. buddy larsen:

programmer, thanks for giving me a sudden cold chill re the GOP cities –of which, hmm, one in Texas, one in Nebraska, hmm…?

Dec 12, 2008 - 12:52 pm 131. programmer:

Buddy,

One of the things that occurs to me as I ponder on the current demographics in America, is that our enemies should consider long and hard the resulting long, cold stare of contemplation coming from “red” America if all our nuanced, elitist, dip***** were no longer standing in the way of the calm, pragmatic a**wh*****g that a whole lot of &*#$)(%’s have coming big time. Hmmmm, I better lay off the highly caffienated bevarages today…., but I am starting to get p.o.’d.

Dec 12, 2008 - 1:01 pm 132. tcobb:

The best thing that could happen would be if the Israeli special forces could
plant a weak nuke near an Iranian nuclear facility and then set it off. It would appear like the Iranians had a little accident, in which event the more powerful nations of the world might start to get serious about de-fanging Iran.

Dec 12, 2008 - 1:57 pm 133. Right Pulse » Blog Archive » Obama accepts a nuclear Iran:

[...] means Obama has accepted the inevitability of an Iranian nuke. Yes, of course I blogged on it. And so did Richard [...]

Dec 12, 2008 - 3:15 pm 134. 3Case:

They operate off an end of the world mentality.

I cannot understand the reason we cannot deliver them the Apocalypse if that is how they see the World. I would be willing to beat that the onset of the Apocalypse would promote a lot of conversions.

Dec 12, 2008 - 3:31 pm 135. buddy larsen:

programmer @ #130; it must be contagious, that over-caffeinated restlessness. Yep, fer sher the schoolmarms have kept us long at our little desks doing our little lessons –tic tic tic –

Dec 12, 2008 - 5:09 pm 136. Utopia Parkway:

Caroline Glick in today’s jpost talks about what she thinks will happen with the new administrations in Israel and the US. Column One: Netanyahu’s grand coalition She’s expecting a full court press from Obama’s team to pressure Israel to make territorial and other concessions to the Arabs. She offers her advice and criticism to Netanyahu regarding what he should do to withstand the pressure.

She says that Netanyahu spent his entire first term as PM fending off President Clinton’s attempts to force him out of office.

Dec 12, 2008 - 5:58 pm 137. myth buster:

Even if Israel were willing to trust Obama to retaliate for them against a nuclear attack, they still wouldn’t dare give up their arsenal. They need it to defend against a conventional invasion. Israel’s Samson Option calls for unrestricted nuclear war against any potentially hostile nation in the event Israel is hit by either a nuclear weapon OR a massive conventional invasion which their conventional forces cannot repel.

Nothing we, Obama, or the Arabs do can destroy Israel. Numerous Jews may die, but Israel itself is indestructible. The Lord will see to that, I assure you.

As for poisoning the environment, if that is the goal, then a Cobalt bomb is your weapon of choice. It’s blast yield is in the low kiloton range, but it leaves behind massive quantities of Cobalt-60, which renders large areas of land uninhabitable for 50 years. This is because it is a beta-emitter, but 60% of its decay energy is released as gamma radiation. Thus, it has a massive power source to draw on to emit highly penetrating gamma radiation. Interestingly enough, the Bible does speak of Tyre and Sidon being destroyed and left uninhabited for 70 years before being rebuilt. This is consistent with being hit by a Cobalt bomb. Read Isaiah 23 for details.

Dec 12, 2008 - 8:49 pm 138. Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » A totally unworkable idea:

[...] Richard Fernandez offers an interesting analysis as to rational motivations behind a potential U.S.-Israel nuclear alliance: From a certain point of view the only thing worse than an Iran with nuclear weapons is the prospect of an Israeli retaliation to an attack, which however justified, could only create eternal enmity with its neighbors. But if the retaliation could be left to America, that might have the virtue of preventing Israel from retaliating, thereby preventing other regional nuclear powers (who presumably emerge in response to a nuclear Iran) from explaining to their outraged populations why they ought not punish the Jews for using atomic bombs. Maybe there is the belief that an American retaliation to an Iranian strike would be more politically acceptable than an Israeli one. With an American deterrent in play Israel could be cut out of the deterrent process — and this would be desirable from a political point of view. [...]

Dec 12, 2008 - 10:48 pm 139. fred:

What good is retaliation if it is not a deterrent? That’s the bottom line, the end point of the logic, of this whole issue/topic. This is not a difficult thing to reason out of the entire morass of every wrinkle, wriggle, angle, nook and cranny of all the nuances of policy talk.

Israel has not the luxury of trail and error. It is such a small nation of a densely packed population that one huge nuclear weapon or even a couple decent sized ones pretty much wipe that nation out.

If you can reasonably calculate, based on prior statements and the operative theology of the enemy, that MAD would not work, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DENY THE TRUTH AND CONTINUE TO THINK THAT IT WOULD WORK? It is insanity or an exercise in mental masturbation to dally on in endless discussions – no matter how sophisticated those discussions are – about how Obama’s policy could work. It won’t. It rests on faulty premises not based in fact.

I still marvel that people who are supposedly educated could see this thing in a way that is so at variance with reality.

Dec 13, 2008 - 10:00 am 140. buddy larsen:

fred, the o phenom seeks to make reality from words, rather than words from reality. This is commonly attempted, but rarely so self-consciously, deliberately –and so far, successfully. It almost requires fealty. It can work if the whole world miraculously becomes the one realm. If that is to be, it better get packing –got a long way to go and not much time to get there.

Dec 13, 2008 - 11:00 am 141. WestGuard:

Obama’s proposal is absurd. It’s basically a pledge to revenge Israel after they’re destroyed.
Iran’s position and direction is clear and seemingy unalterable. Regardless of the many carrots or sticks we’ve waved at Iran over the years their response has been a consistently defiant “No power on earth can stop Iran from achieving it’s nuclear goals”

The world should take this nut Ahmedinejad at his word and stop wasting time trying to appease him.
Better to bomb his dark fantasies with Bunker Busters now rather than retaliate his evil acts with nukes later.

Dec 13, 2008 - 8:35 pm 142. WestGuard:

^avenge

Dec 13, 2008 - 8:37 pm 143. Whitehall:

Actually, a cobalt bomb is just one member of a class of weapons. “Salted” nukes can use a number of target isotopes that absorb the excess neutrons from a fission or fission/fusion device. They can be of any blast power that the designer can provide although adding a fusion reaction (aka hydrogen bomb) component gives one higher energy neutrons to work with. (About 2 MeV for a pure fission device and up to 14 MeV for a fusion device.)

So yes, encasing a fission device in natural cobalt will activate a goodly portion of the cobalt to Co-60m (if memory serves) with a 5 year half life. As a rule of thumb, after 5 half-lives the radiation levels are at 1% of intitial levels. Using sodium, as in table salt, gives radiosodium (Na-24) with a 15 hour half life and a 2.7 MeV gamma.

I remember talk of an Israeli placement of nuclear “mines” (atomic demolition munitions or ADM) on the critical passes through the Negev desert, salted with sodium chloride in the days prior to the Egyptian peace settlement. The idea being that an advancing Egyptian army would trigger the nuclear explosions, blanketing the passes with Na-24. This could make passage lethal for enough days to allow Israelis to rally on a defensive line to the east and the destruction of the blocked forces to the west with air power.

Other elements suitable as the “salt” include gold, tantalum, and zinc.

None of these have publically been designed, built, or tested.

Dec 15, 2008 - 5:37 pm 144. The Captain’s Journal » Is a Nuclear Iran Inevitable?:

[...] Fernandez writing for Pajamas Media latches onto a significant report about the thinking of President-elect Obama and his team of [...]

Dec 16, 2008 - 10:01 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.