20 Comments

1. Dave Schuler:

It’s time for a public discussion of the consequences of the use of a nuclear weapon against the United States.

Nov 17, 2004 - 7:44 pm 2. Ben:

Dave Schuler -

I agree, but I don’t think that will be sufficient to focus the minds of those who do not see a threat. Those people have already decided to bury their heads in the sand. Looking at consequences will only reinforce that tendency.

Instead, I would like to see more emphasis paid to the nature of the enemy – how dangerous an enemy is can be expressed as a function of the enemy’s capability and his level of commitment to the fight. Relatively speaking, the Islamofascists do not have much in the way of capability compared to the West in general and the USA in particular. On the other hand, they have a very strong will to fight. We need to stop covering up the atrocities committed by the Islamofascists, focus on the words being spoken by the radicals (in some cases right here on the US Mainland), look at what they have done when in power, etc. I fear that even this will not work, given that 9/11 failed to wake up a substantial portion of the population, but it is an effort that must be made.

Nov 17, 2004 - 7:51 pm 3. thedragonflies:

A missile can reach Israel and that must not be allowed to happen. We should pre-empt, or overtly back Israel’s pre-emption to stop the building of a nuke missile.

I would certainly hope that it is obvious to the entire world that a nuclear strike on Israel would be considered a nuclear strike on the U.S. And we would not be diplomatic in our responses, especially now that we have rejected a Diplomat in Chief and kept a Commander in Chief.

It is nice to see Colin doing his job, good for him.

Nov 17, 2004 - 7:52 pm 4. PDS:

There are worse things than living in History, or History in the Making, to quote a phrase. I cannot help but have a sense of wonder about the times in which we live, partly because the future will move faster toward directions we cannot imagine. “One day we’re waiting for the sky to fall, the next we’re dazzled by the beauty of it all…” as Bruce Cockburn might say.

Nov 17, 2004 - 7:54 pm 5. Rick Ballard:

Roger,

Perhaps less interesting than the headlines purport. President Bush has a relatively known value wrt to his word. NK and Iran are shortlisted for change. With the election (Kerry being the only hope of survival for the forces of Mordor) out of the way, the axle (no longer an axis) must retreat. The question for NK and Iran becomes “What level of obeisance is required in order to survive?” President Bush is going to be the arbiter in the matter and he will determine the price to be exacted.

One might wish that the MSM posessed the innate intelligence to present the matter logically but one might also wish to grow wings and fly. A greater herd of the intellectually bereft has not been seen since the last ice age. Thick hair did not protect the mastodon and thick skulls will not protect the MSM.

Nov 17, 2004 - 7:59 pm 6. Katherine:

ìA greater herd of the intellectually bereft has not been seen since the last ice age.î

Oh, Rick I DO love youÖ.

Nov 17, 2004 - 8:41 pm 7. Charlie (Colorado):

Ben, I think the most salutory effect of the discussion would be to focus the minds of the people who might be making the threats.

Nov 17, 2004 - 9:47 pm 8. David Thomson:

Iím not overly concerned about Korea and Iran. Their leaders fear President Bush and are unlikely to push the envelope too far. A no nonsense approach should be enough to get them to capitulate. They are not suicidal and don’t wish to be placed in harmís way. An affluent lifestyle is their primary goal. These guys are not “true believers” like Osama bin Ladin.

Nov 18, 2004 - 4:20 am 9. Matt Evans:

I disagree with David in that Iran is not a threat. Unlike North Korea, where Kim Jong Ill is ultimately, the final say-so in his country’s destiny (and so can be directly moved by carrot/stick approaches), Iran is a bit different, run by a collection of fanatics -and it only takes one to issue a fatwah. We’ve already seen a iman issue an edict (this week ?), giving permission to terrorists to use nuclear weapons against the United States and its allies and it only takes one.

Maybe I’ve misread these two countries but North Korea seems to be using nuclear threats as economic leverage (ie to get certain concessions from the US and its Pacific neighbors) whereas Iran’s intentions in developing nuclear weapons is much less clear. I have a bad feeling Iran has Israel on its radar and we simply cannot let that happen on our watch.

Nov 18, 2004 - 5:00 am 10. Vertical:

Is there really any question at this point that the US would back an Israeli pre-emption? And is there much question that Israel would pre-empt? I don’t mean these to be rhetorical questions, I’m curious.

Nov 18, 2004 - 5:44 am 11. Knucklehead:

I’ll join with Matt and register my disagreement regarding the level of threat the Iranians and Koreans represent if they have, and can deliver, nuclear weapons. There are a number of issues involved and David Schuler outlined them but, IMHO, did so insufficiently. I won’t pretend to any comprehensive view or understanding of why they want nukes and associated delivery systems but I do believe that any understanding that goes no further than looking at it as a matter of deterence or protection of their “status quo” is short-sighted or, perhaps, out-dated thinking.

At some level, or at least potentially so some people, nukes are nothing more than the most powerful weapon available. Modern American and European thought seems to place nukes in the sphere of The Unthinkable Threat. We believe that nobody in their right mind would consider using nukes, especially against us, because of the massive retaliation and indiscriminate destruction they would bring. Life as we know it would end if the world ever engaged in nuclear war.

I don’t believe we can project this understanding or viewpoint to Iran and NK. We cannot assume that they are, deep down, “just like us” and simply want to protect what they have. There are least two very deep and dangerous flaws to that notion.

The first flaw is that there is very little historical precedent to suggest that it is accurate. Throughout history there are no end of examples of societies or cultures or nations or whatever one wishes to call them who believed they they possesed sufficient force of weaponry to deter anyone from attacking them. Various technological advances in weaponry and military organization, etc., have led peoples to believe themselves invulnerable to attack or, rather, that nobody would be irrational enough to attack them. And there are no end of examples proving this line or reasoning incorrect. What seemed wholly irrational to the Persians was not the least bit irrational to Alexander. What seemed irrational to the Romans was totally rational to the Huns. The Wehrmacht seemed irrational to the rest of Europe and perfectly rational to Hitler.

In the case of Iran we have to try and understand what is “rational” to them, not to us. They have their own risk/reward calculations that may have little resemblence, if any, to our own. And they have their own perceptions of the value of “life as we know it”. The very notion of destroying Israel and the Jews seems irrational to us but given the continued actions and rhetoric of the Iranian regime we cannot assume it is irrational to them. They are clearly prepared to act upon their rhetoric. If their goal is rational to them and the risk/reward calculations they have made tell them they can successfully achieve this goal at a cost they are willing to pay (we cannot assume that just because we would find the cost unacceptable that they would find it so), then they will potentially use whatever weapons they have access to to achieve the goal. This portion of my argument says, essentially, that the Iranians may well not view nukes as a weapon they want to acquire for its deterrent capability but, rather, for its value as a weapon with which to pursue a goal.

The second dangerous flaw is that the 20th century “old-think” assumes that our nuclear capabilities represent a deterent to Iran or NK. There are, it seems to me, two basic elements to deterrence.

The first is that those one wishes to deter must believe one would use nukes against them. If they don’t believe we’d pull the trigger than waving the gun is not much of a deterent. Does the Iranian regime really believe that the US will respond, in kind, to any nuclear attack they make upon Israel or even upon us? If Iran launched, say, 3 nukes into Israel would the US really respond by nuking Iran? And what if we cannot prove that the Iranians were the source of such an attack? What if Russia and/or China and/or France immediately said that should the US respond to an nuclear attack on Israel they would respond with a nuclear attack on us? Even if the nuclear attack was on NYC or Washington DC under those conditions, would the US repsond? I don’t see how we can assume that the Iranians are deterred or that we are not subject to some deterent that would render the deterence value of nuclear responce moot? Would we or could we actually pull the nuclear trigger? If not, or the Iranians believe not, then we have no deterent power.

The other basic element of deterrence is that even if the target of the deterrent is convinced we’d actually pull the trigger they must also be afraid of whatever loss they would suffer. Waving the gun around is a deterrent if the other guy believes you’d pull the trigger AND also is afraid of the consequences of that. If the Iranians are willing to die or to suffer whatever level of injuy, or don’t believe the injury would be fatal or too costly, then we don’t have deterrent effect. You can’t deter anyone with a threat they do not fear.

Another thing that always troubles me when thinking about the likes of Iran or NK as nuclear powers is that I have no way to know what “victory” looks like in their worldview. In both cases I see nothing that convinces me either of those regimes have any interest in living peaceably in the modern world. They both seem more interested in some reactionary recreation of some “glorious and better past” rather than attaining their own “place among nations”. We believe they will not attack us because it would be suicidal. They may not see it that way and, additionally, they may not view our physical destruction as essential (in any meaningful timeframe) to their notion of “victory.” Simply destroying the modern world’s economy might be ample victory in their minds. I could be wrong, but I believe nuking Israel and/or one or two US cities would, for all intents and purposes, destroy the economy as we know it. It ain’t 1945 anymore and I don’t believe we realize how much our current economic wellbeing depends upon the absence of massive destruction by war. I don’t have any evidence or data to back that up, but I believe a nuclear exchange would be fatal to the global economy (at least in human generational timeframes). It would kill many people and leave the rest of us facing something akin to the Great Depression. That might be more than enough to satisfy the Mullahs and the likes of One Ill Fuk or whatever his name is.

Nov 18, 2004 - 8:42 am 12. Knucklehead:

Vertical,

It’s just my knuckleheaded opinion, but I don’t see any solution that is “better” than pre-emption. If the threat one faces is too great and the possibility of retaliation can potentially be thwarted, then there are only two choices remaining: pre-empt or be prepared to live with the results of an attack without retaliating.

In the case of Israel it would seem to me that is the problem they face. To a near, but lesser extent, we face the same problem. If Israel were to pre-emptively attack Iran that would be understandable from their perspective but “world opinion” (not that I really give a rat’s butt for it) would see it as an attack, by proxy, on Iran by the US. To my way of thinking, so be it. Expansionist Islamofascist mass murdering has to be stopped. If that is to be possible the Iranians cannot be allowed to have nuclear capability. Israel is left with little time and precious few choices other than to pre-empt. If they do so it really doesn’t matter a great deal whether or not we “approve”. We certainly won’t attack them in a physical sense so, therefore, any rhetorical condemnation we might send their way is a small price to pay.

JMO, but I think its time for US policy on the matter of further nuclear proliferation to become “We will tolerate no additional nuclear powers. Become one or come close to becoming one and we will kill you. No questions or comments will be accepted, have a nice life or death, your choice.”

Nov 18, 2004 - 9:01 am 13. Dave Schuler:

The purpose of the public discussion I mentioned in my lead-off comment would not be to convince people in the U. S. of how terrible it would be but to convince unfriendly regimes that they couldn’t survive such an attack.

For example, if the official U. S. position were to be that both Pyong-Yang and Teheran would cease to exist in the event of any attack with nuclear weapons on the U. S. it could be a powerful incentive for North Korea and Iran to engage in permanent verifiable nuclear disarmament.

Nov 18, 2004 - 9:39 am 14. Akira:

Add me to the list who believes Iran is a definite threat to the US. While they don’t yet have a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead this far, they will certainly be willing to help spread dirty nukes.

Furthermore, former president (and still very influential cleric) Rafsanjani is on record saying that if/once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it on Israel, that it is basically their moral obligation to do so. I believe we have a moral obligation to protect Israel from this happening. I don’t necessarily believe that will come in the form of a preemptive strike ourselves, but rather seeing that Israel possesses the capability to do so on their own (e.g. with the recent delivery of the new F-16 jets).

Nov 18, 2004 - 9:48 am 15. Old Tigger:

I’ve supported US pre-emption in the past — like 1 Feb 2005, after Iraq has some sort of elections.

I’ve been afraid that Israel would have to pre-empt, alone, if Kerry won. I truly Thank God this didn’t happen.

David Frum writes of a new option I had overlooked — Oil Export Blockade (yes, act of war, pre-emption, but not invasion).

I see Iran “giving in”, but not really giving up — though public delays aren’t too shabby, the real verification issues need to be tested, again and again.

A democratic, free press Palestine, w/o Arafat, can’t be ruled out, either. When Condi speaks, the world will know she’s more in agreement with Bush than anybody else. LOTS of good things can start happening — as the World Adjusts to 4 more Years of Bush.

Go Bush; and Dictators — Get Lost!

Nov 18, 2004 - 9:49 am 16. Knucklehead:

Dave Schuler,

I think we’re having at least a semi-public version of the discussion you asked for

In my previous statement above and yours

if the official U. S. position were to be that both Pyong-Yang and Teheran would cease to exist in the event of any attack with nuclear weapons on the U. S. it could be a powerful incentive for North Korea and Iran to engage in permanent verifiable nuclear disarmament.

we are both looking for some way to ensure that US nuclear capabilities retain or reacquire deterrent status. Basically tell Iran or NK that if any nuclear attack is made anywhere (or some sensible subset of “anywhere”) BOTH nations will cease to exist for all practical purposes – we’ll nuke them into oblivion. I’d like to see that threat extended beyond those countries to include whomever we decide, but that’s just the devil in the details.

The ultimate question, however, is whether or not deterrence is even possible. Can, for example, either of the regimes in Iran or NK continue to survive without nuclear weapons (or, looking at the question from their point of view, do they believe they can survive without nuclear weapons). In the case of NK it seems to me the answer is a definite NO.

Their entire economic structure is on the verge of complete collapse. They can continue on for a while, but certainly not indefinitely without some way to extort tribute from China, SK, Japan, and the US. They can’t turn their extortion scheme solely on China because China wouldn’t tolerate it. China’s fine with the extortion scheme provided it is targetted at SK, Japan, and the US and will pay a small amount of tribute (they will call it aid) as long as NK continues to make the others squirm. SK and Japan are not sufficient targets alone and aren’t likely to pay up unless the US takes on some of the burden.

So, ultimately, the NK needs to aim its extortion at the US and needs nukes to pull it off. If we claim to refuse to be extorted but yet allow them to develop their capability, at some point they can simply call our bluff. “There, no we showed you we have nukes and will use them. Since we both know you’re not going to carry out your threat of retaliation, pay up, make it three times what we demanded earlier, and make it quick.” NK goes nuclear or dies. They don’t want nukes for any deterrent potential they provide, they want them for the purpose of committing armed robbery because that is the only way left to them to make a living. I do not believe NK is subject to deterrence (except from China but China won’t exercise their deterrent capability for the sake of SK, Japan, and the US). NK needs nukes to survive AND to make a living.

Iran is a different kettle of fish (has anyone ever actually seen a kettle of fish?).

They clearly don’t need to play an extortion game. If they were interested in mere extortion they could use oil for that purpose (and, I suppose, do so). They are not in nearly the same “get nukes or die” situation as NK. If they stopped threatening to destroy Israel and the Great Satan they could continue on in their merry little Sharialand indefinitely. They don’t need nukes to survive or to make a living. Their reasons for wanting them lie somewhere else.

The optimists among us suggest they just want to join the club with the rest of the big dogs and practice the same sort of deterrence the others practice. A pessimist like me says, “nonsense!” They don’t need them for deterrence since nobody would bother them if they stopped threatening to destroy Israel (and ineffectively acting upon that threat by killing Israelis) and the US. Optimists seem to claim they only kill Israelis because the poor Palestinians are subjected to so much injustice and they only threaten the Great Satan because we support Israel and all the rhetorical bluster is just that – part of their exotic nature and mostly born of the frustration of the oppressed anyway. Pessimists like me say, “Nonsense! They are saying what they mean, meaning what they say, and are determined to achieve the capability to act effectively upon their intentions.”

Which is all to say that I don’t believe Iran is subject to deterrence.

We, on the other hand, are subject to deterrence. We proved that in the Cold War. I don’t believe for a moment that either NK or Iran believes they need nukes to deter us from attacking them. I suspect they already believe they have the deterrence angle covered. I don’t believe they think we’d attack even in retaliation. In their minds the race is on to get nukes before we convince ourselves pre-emption is the only answer. If we don’t pre-empt, we lose. Both Iran and NK will conduct nuclear attacks regardless of any threats we make. Not only do they not believe there would be any negative consequences for doing so but they see gain in it. Both regimes must be removed BEFORE they reach the point of no return. It may already be too late in the case of NK. It will soon be too late in the case of Iran.

I guess I’m a wild-eyed, war-mongering, pre-emption hawk. I don’t see any way out of death and destruction. The longer we wait the more of each we’ll get and need to give. I’d rather we limit it to their deaths and their destruction as far as possible by acting sooner rather than later.

Nov 18, 2004 - 10:49 am 17. JPS:

Vertical asks:

“Is there really any question at this point that the US would back an Israeli pre-emption? And is there much question that Israel would pre-empt?”

I regret to say we might make some entirely disingenuous noises of disapproval, after the fact, nothing too stern, and nothing of any practical consequence.

As for Israel preempting, I think (and I’m not the first to raise this point–seems to me I’m echoing den Beste) the only doubts are practical: Can they do it?

Maybe, but I don’t think it’s as simple as deciding to take the Iranian program out, then–voila!–taking it out. It’s a much taller order than blowing up one above-ground, not-yet-critical reactor at Osirak. I admire the hell out of them for that and I don’t minimize the skill and daring involved, but that was pretty much at the edge of their capabilities at the time. Which, doubtless, have advanced, but then the Iranians must surely have learned from that incident, and taken steps to avoid a repeat of it.

In short, I think it’s a comforting fantasy that if the problem looks too threatening, the Israelis will make it suddenly go away. I do hope I’m proven wrong.

Nov 18, 2004 - 11:19 am 18. Knucklehead:

JPS,

Good points. The Israeli military is worthy of much admiration and is one of the world’s finest but they are a regional force with limited ability to project large scale power over long distances. I suspect, however, they could pull off a reasonably effective pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities provided somebody rented them some B-2’s and F-117’s and such.

Nov 18, 2004 - 11:32 am 19. Akira:

With the cabinet Bush is building and with the fact that it’s fairly obvious that any Israeli strike on Iran requires US help (either in the form of selling them F-16s designed especially for this strike, or perhaps helping them refuel mid-air so that they make it back), I doubt we’d even so much as lightly condemn an Israeli strike. Bush oftens talks of their right to disarm, has grouped Iran into the Axis of Evil, knows they’re building nukes, etc.

But I do agree completely with JPS on the difficulty of the task. Everybody remembers Osirak and most seem to think it’ll be more of the same. But from what we hear, Iraq’s nuclear capabilities are vastly distributed and largely underground. Yes, they learned from Osirak, as has NK. Even with excellent intelligence on where to strike, it would be an incredibly difficult venture.

Nov 18, 2004 - 12:10 pm 20. Dave Schuler:

Knucklehead:

You and I see eye-to-eye on quite a few things, Knucklead. Let me take the easiest point first. Yes, I’ve seen a kettle of fish.

Second, we just missed our A-#1 opportunity to have the kind of publish discussion I’m talking about and instead talked about stuff that happened 30 years ago and a bunch of non-existential issues during the just complete Campaign 2004. That’s what the campaigns are for and the candidates completely blew it. The world’s greatest deliberative body right now finds it more pressing to discuss the rules under which their sister house operates than to discuss issues of this weight.

Iran and North Korea are hard to discuss in the same sentence. No serious progress can be made in dealing with North Korea unless we get China on board and we’ll never get China on board as long as we’re willing to do anything for cheap consumer goods.

I think the mullahs can be deterred but we don’t yet have the state of mind required to do it. Maybe we never will. As long as we’re more concerned about killing Iranians than Iranians are about staying alive, no, deterrence is not possible.

Nov 18, 2004 - 3:53 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: