Sunday
(0)And by that question I do not mean 'might they give nukes to Al-Qaeda' or sundry other Islamic loonies, but rather is the claim that they would promptly nuke Israel as fast as they could strap a warhead onto a missile actually credible?
The author of the linked article, Edward Luttwak, is a good but uneven commentator and analyst. His book Coup d'Etat: a practical handbook is probably the definitive 'how to do it' book on the subject... however his prediction on the outcome of the western attacks on Iraq were embarrassingly off-target. Luttwak says that Iranian government figures said:
Some members of the government have even boasted how they would use them: to destroy Israel. "Islam could survive the retaliation," they insist, "but Israel would be gone forever." The thought of ayatollahs with nuclear bombs should terrify everyone – especially in Europe, because the Iranians could soon put those bombs on the top of rockets that could reach European capitals.
And whilst I feel it is entirely possible they said exactly that, given the nature of the Islamic theocracy in Iran, I do not think I can just take Luttwak's word for it. Oh how I look forward to the day when newspapers do what blogs do: always always always link to a supporting source when you say "they said this".
Can anyone helpfully provide links to other reports where Iranian government figures have actually said such things? Forming a sensible view on how to react to the Iranian state is far too serious a matter and the more sources of information that can be gathered, the better we can form theories about what would be the best course of action and what sort of policies should be supported by whom.
The link I have is: Iran Press
It is at the http://www.iran-press-service.com website under archives of December 2001, there is also a subsequent post where the Iranians issue a denial
Editor's note: thanks very much for the links but please embed them, it just makes life easier
Posted by Barnabus at January 23, 2005 08:53 PM
They might not use it, but blackmail is never fun.
Posted by The Wobbly Guy at January 23, 2005 10:19 PM
From Memri: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502
Posted by Jwarrior at January 23, 2005 11:09 PM
You take your fascinacion with the litteral word to extreme ends. Is it really that important what exact words this or that mullah uses ? Are they under solemn obligation to forewarn you and tell you exactely what they are going to do ? Are they under divine obligation to say the truth, and only the truth and then stick to what they say ? Aren't they under strict obligation to lie and mislead the kuffar ?
What is the great fascination with words they said ?
Words are used in different cultures for different purposes. Words are used in the Arab world to create or preserve honor. Words are used to create an alternate reality to cover up unpleasant aspects of this one. But even on that you can't rely. Sometimes words (incitement) create a new reality which was maybe unintended, but turns out catastrophic.
Given the facts of the muhllas' behaviour so far, with their fomenting and build-up of terrorism against Israel and Iraq - presume the worst. That would be the sensible assumption, the safe one.
The exact quotation from the Iranian press, together with it's customary denial aren't important.
Posted by Jacob at January 23, 2005 11:14 PM
Isn't this the same place where a sixteen year old retarded girl was recently sentenced to death for committing adultery?
No, I don't feel comfortable with such primitives having possession of nuclear-tipped theater ballistic missiles. I would be surprised to learn that anyone living within range of such weapons (those of our friends in Europe for example), wielded by such a government, was comfortable either.
Posted by Neuroto at January 23, 2005 11:25 PM
and we're still the Great Satan.
After they approved moving forward w/the technology, IIRC, some in their senate stood up and chanted Death to America.
I'm taking this stuff seriously.
And for those who want to keep an eye on the world from a military POV, Rantburg is a useful site, tho it can be a rough place.
Posted by Sandy P at January 24, 2005 12:08 AM
Thank you for the link to Edward Luttwak's book Perry, can't wait to get my hands on it! ;-)
Jacob: people (including politicians) may give themselves away by what they say - consider the internal rivalries between Iran's politicos in the run-up to their next set of elections; to nuke Israel will be controversial over there simply due to the risk of killing a great many Palestinians. Such talk may inform our best guesses as to what exactly the mullas in charge will be up to. Our best guesses about the risk of the mullas actually nuking Israel may at the very least inform our decision of how we attempt regime change.
I really hope nobody responds to Sean's trolling, it'd be such a shame to spoil this thread with daft punch-ups with commies. We might all agree on regime change in Iran, but the thrust of Perry's article seems to me to be aimed at the how questions of our future actions toward Iran more so than the whatquestions. In any case, I think I should give way to those more informed than myself (and see about that book..).
Posted by mike at January 24, 2005 12:09 AM
In reality a more possible outcome is that they (shia) nuke saudi arabia (sunni) in a power struggle over control of Iraq. clouds, silver lining etc
Posted by Giles at January 24, 2005 12:49 AM
Personally, I don't think the Ayatollahs would do it, and certainly not with a ballistic missile. They might well supply a warhead to terrorists, but they know damn well that the moment US launch-detection satellites detected a missile launch heat bloom and tracked it as heading for Tel Aviv would be the same one that Israel was notified and retaliated. They have too much power to risk it.
Posted by Jeremy Nimmo at January 24, 2005 01:20 AM
Jacob, excuse me if your words do not count for much:
Words are used in the Arab world to create or preserve honor.
The Iranian government are not Arabs. Duh.
Somehow discovering at least what the stated position of the Iranians is seems a fairly worthwhile question to ask.
Posted by snide at January 24, 2005 01:39 AM
This runup in propoganda about Iran looks to me to be a precursor to military activity there. Who knows if they are making nuclear weapons, Iran says they're not, the Bush Administration says they are, however the Bush Administration are proven liars when it comes to WMDs.
If they want to attack Iran nonetheless it won't be a walkover, Iran is a much bigger, richer country than Iraq with a lot more people and a bigger military. They haven't been starved by 10 years of sanctions and haven't had their defences pulverised by almost daily air-raids. The country is not the most pleasent place in the world in which to live, however by the very low standards of that region it's pretty OK.
Evidently the Iraqis just wanted to give up at the time of GWII, however things have gone so badly there since then that time the Iranians might think that simply giving up would be a bad idea.
I also really wonder how an attack on Iran would be done, the US doesn't have a lot of free conventional military resources, the Iranians would almost certainly retaliate, the US now has two borders with Iran in Iraq and Afganistan, it would be nessesary to fortify these borders, how would this be done without a lot more troops? This would at the very least mean that the draft must be instituted. If they want to invade Iran it will be a much bigger deal than Iraq. It is possible the US could use nuclear weapons to intimidate Iran but how would they do this without alianating any support they have in the world, and isn't doing that a tad hypocritcal anyway?
Posted by Della at January 24, 2005 02:21 AM
Yo dude, if the Son of Sam puts his .44 up against your forehead and says he is going to squeeze one off, that is not a threat, it's a promise. The Son of Sam was a lot more stable then these Mullahs are. I mean, GOD TALKS TO THEM. Get a grip on that.
Meanwhile, it's not Iran that has nukes, it's the mullahs that have them. Big difference there. If Iran had a President with some power and a Legislature that was more then a rubber stamp, then who cares if they have nukes or not?
The DPRK has spent the last decade plus working to build nukes. It would take South Korea 6 months or so. South Korea doesn't want to waste the money. I don't think there is a single Western democracy that couldn't build nukes if they wanted them. No point in spending the money on what you don't need and won't use.
Why do the mullahs want nukes? Protection from Afghanistsn, or Iraq? There are no logical reasons for the mullahs to have nuclear weapons, and many reasons why they shouldn't.
Either Europe tries to stop them with diplomacy, or Israel and the USA stop them with war. There is no 3rd choice.
Posted by Stehpinkeln at January 24, 2005 02:36 AM
Della writes:
"Who knows if they are making nuclear weapons, Iran says they're not, the Bush Administration says they are, however the Bush Administration are proven liars when it comes to WMDs."
Well, that's all right then. Let's believe the people who hang 16 year old girls from cranes.
Do try to grow-up, Della. I wonder, whatever you are, how you would feel if it were you or your sister who was being winched up to your death because you had somehow offended a mullah?
Posted by GCooper at January 24, 2005 02:44 AM
Della, Iran will be easier then Iraq.
Size isn't much of a factor in conventional warfare anymore. That is why China and Russia are downsizing their armies. And Iran would be ideal for a Bosnia type air campaign. We hit the mullahs and the barracks were the troops that keep them in power stay. Drive them underground and keep them there, the citizens of Iran can do the rest. Take out the command structure and the army will go home. 21st century conventional warfare means killing the generals and waiting for the conscripts to surrender.
Iran has plenty of practice at holding elections, it's just that the people they elect have no power. The mullahs keep that. Kill the mullahs (whoops, send them to paradise) and the Iranians will take it from there. We don't need to put anything other then special ops guys inside Iran. Hitler and Saddam were not able to run a country from inside a bomb shelter and the Mullahs won't be able to either. I call it JDAM diplomacy.
Posted by Stehpinkeln at January 24, 2005 02:51 AM
the Mullahs have also not done their arithmatic.
Israel has 2oo warheads. I suspect that Iran wont be able to build more than a handful. Ok tel aviv goes but so does Tehran, Bam, Mecca, Mediana etc 200 times. Not a wining scenario.
NB one question I have is would Iran nuke jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock? Its a holy site but if they dont then Israel will survive. Bit of a dilemma there methinks.
Posted by GILES at January 24, 2005 03:18 AM
Stehpinkeln,
"And Iran would be ideal for a Bosnia type air campaign. We hit the mullahs and the barracks were the troops that keep them in power stay. Drive them underground and keep them there, the citizens of Iran can do the rest. Take out the command structure and the army will go home. 21st century conventional warfare means killing the generals and waiting for the conscripts to surrender."
Yeah, because the citizens of Iraq have shown what a good job they can do defending themselves, rounding up rogue remnants and groups and protecting against bombings and the like haven't they...
Posted by Edward at January 24, 2005 03:32 AM
however the Bush Administration are proven liars when it comes to WMDs.
They were proven wrong, which is not the same as proved to be liars. Saddam's behavior made deducing he had nukes a pretty smart move... he just turned out to be bluffing when his cards were called.
Posted by Big Red at January 24, 2005 10:21 AM
"Words are used in the Arab world to create or preserve honor."
"The Iranian government are not Arabs. Duh."
In may cultures, why in most cultures words are used differently than in the anglo-saxon culture.
That goes for Arabs, Chinese, South Americans, Latins (French and Spanish and Italian), Slavs. Each culture has it's own nuances. None of them assign so much importance to "truth" contents as the only role of words.
For many words are just adornment, poetry, song etc.
Posted by Jacob at January 24, 2005 10:52 AM
> Editor's note: thanks very much for the links but please embed them, it just makes life easier
Especially for goatse.
Posted by dof at January 24, 2005 11:12 AM
Would Iran nuke Israel if they thought they would retaliate? Possibly, after all the mullahs glorify martyrdom and what better way to guarantee yourself some virgins than to take out evil Israel? But then again there's always the possibility that they don't believe a word they're saying and quite like staying alive.
Would Iran nuke Israel if they thought they could get away with it? Absolutely. Iran secretly gives nuke to Hizbollah, Hizbollah nuke Tel Aviv (along with any incriminating evidence), Iran points finger at North Korea, North Korea points the finger at American Aggression(TM), and no-one knows who's responsible. Israel are certain that it was Iran, but there's enough wiggle room for say France or Russia to stand by Iran, saying they're innocent, their nuclear program is only for civilian purposes, and if Israel retaliates then they will nuke Israel for good. End result, half of Israel wiped out, and they can't strike back.
Posted by Gazaridis at January 24, 2005 11:36 AM
Gazaridis - I remember Euan Grey saying something about fallout patterns being distinctive, and thus traceable to specific programmes, ergo regimes. I don't always agree with some of Euan's views, though I do agree with some, too! Regardless, he is very knowledgeable about such things, and more besides, so I believe him.
Della - the Bush administration turned out to be wrong about WMDs in Iraq. Most probably wrong, I should say - I wouldn't at all be surprised if some turned up in due course. Perhaps outside Iraq. There was an awful lot of smoke for no fire in regards to Saddam's WMD. So anyway, Bush&co being wrong does not mean they lied. Clinton conceded in an interview on Australian TV that the information provided to Bush was most probably the same as what he was getting :
Uh, the CIA is now being blamed for all this bad intelligence in America...apparently, they should have known that there was less likelihood of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq...I don't think they cooked that up for President Bush 'cause that's what I was told for eight years too.
I think it's fair to say all the major nations had pretty much accepted that Iraq possessed WMDs. If I remember rightly, the nations that demanded further weapons inspections couched their demands in a "we'll find them peacefully" manner, rather than a "it's all a beat up!", which seems to be the retrospective spin afforded to the relevant past statements of Old Europe. At best, these nations cannot claim anything better than accidental vindication. They were wrong, too. Did they lie as well, Della?
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 24, 2005 12:40 PM
I'm Suffering...writes:
"So anyway, Bush&co being wrong does not mean they lied."
Precisely. But it's a distinction certain to be lost on those who have adopted the "Stop The War Coalition" mindset.
The hatred of George Bush felt by such people seems to be quite beyond reason. It's not even a passion - more a delirium and, as such, not amenable to reason.
Posted by GCooper at January 24, 2005 12:50 PM
So just how big a threat would a 'Nuclear Iran' be?
Too big to tolerate, for a couple of reasons.
First, of course, is the scenario where they supply it to one of the terrorist groups they are so tight with, ably described above.
Second, is that even if you believe the current mullahs aren't so nuts as to use a nuke, what about their successors?
Would you bet millions of lives that a mullahcracy that is increasingly under seige, both on its borders and within, will never have a leader (or even a faction with access to the damn things) that would be willing to fire off a nuke or sneak one to its Islamist allies?
That's not a bet I'm willing to make.
Posted by R C Dean at January 24, 2005 12:51 PM
Gazaridis: I cannot see how anybody (even the ayatollas) could claim a direct link between N.Korea and a nuclear war in the ME.
I see Straw getting his act together, but a question remains whether, should EU diplomacy with Iran fail (or is judged to have failed by the US) there will be enough wiggle room for Blair to support Bush again. Should any action be confined to air strikes, perhaps Blair could lend Bush his support, but for anything more than that it would be truly astounding if Blair even tried to get another yes vote in the Commons.
Posted by mike at January 24, 2005 01:08 PM
R.C.Dean,
Second, is that even if you believe the current mullahs aren't so nuts as to use a nuke, what about their successors?
The U.S. could use that argument to try to strip any current nuclear power of their weapons:
What if France got another Napoleon?
What if Russia got another Stalin?
What if China got another Mao?
What if Britain got another Lord North or Earl Jenkins (prime ministers during the period of the US civil war and war of 1812-1814)
So far the only people that have been "so nuts as to use a nuke" are the Americans.
Posted by Della at January 24, 2005 01:23 PM
The hatred of George Bush felt by such people seems to be quite beyond reason. It's not even a passion - more a delirium and, as such, not amenable to reason.GCooper - I wholeheartedly agree. Going on my own personal experiences, I'm flabbergasted at just how many (otherwise) intelligent people suffer from various forms of this hugely pervasive affliction.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 24, 2005 01:27 PM
Whoops, some bad quoting there. It's Mozilla's fault! Not my HTML coding ineptitude!
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 24, 2005 01:30 PM
Does the notion of different degrees of risk mean anything to you Della? At least do yourself the compliment of actually thinking about what the other chap is getting at before you presume to argue with good fellows like RC Dean again.
Posted by mike at January 24, 2005 01:38 PM
GCooper,
Della writes:
Well, that's all right then. Let's believe the people who hang 16 year old girls from cranes.
Do try to grow-up, Della. I wonder, whatever you are, how you would feel if it were you or your sister who was being winched up to your death because you had somehow offended a mullah?
I wouldn't like that one bit, however, China has nuclear weapons, and they have an appaling human rights records, the communist goverment has killed more of its own citizens than any other coutry has ever. The Russians, although they have got better recently have commited all manner of attrocities, and no doubt continue to do all manner of bad things in Chechenya. France had the Terror, which showed the way in post revolutionary murder, and Britain, although not quite so bad as the rest has done some things that could been seen by some in a bad light such as conquering 1/4 of the world.
Although Iran has a bad human rights record it is not even in the same legue as what China and Russia have done, I think Iran doesn't even have concentration camps, plus it has elections which China doesn't, and Russia didn't have till recently.
Would you suggest the the US should attack these countries with histories varying from appauling to bad to strip them of the nuclear weapons they are known to already possess?
Posted by Della at January 24, 2005 01:46 PM
Copy Mike's comment and paste it after just about everything Della has said (and probably will say) on this thread. The above comment is perhaps the most deserving. Part of me wants to respond...but...I really can't be bothered. I think the parallels Della's trying to draw are so easily dismissed by anyone with even a tiny modicum of historical perspective that refuting her will sound trite.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at January 24, 2005 02:31 PM
Does the notion of different degrees of risk mean anything to you Della?
Take for example the current rulers of China, that goverment has murdered 50 million adults and children through it's policies. It's 1982 one child policy which is enforced using haeonous measures has caused a reduction of the number of expected births by 250 million, which is around 10 million a year. It's a novel sort of genicide I suppose, but it still is genocide. Since the invasion of Tibet (Iran hasn't invaded anywhere recently) the Chinese have murdered 1 million Tibetans.
So if you tot it all up that comes up to 300 million people murdered which is 100,000 times worse than September 11th and is the equivilent of killing every single person in America and Canada. They also have nuclear weapons pointed at the US and probably europe too.
What about Iranian genocide you ask? The only site I can find talking about Iranian genocide (post '79) claims 200 people have died (the Baha'i), it seems unlikley they killed so small a number though, maybe there's somewhere else with a bigger total.
Also when talking about degrees of Risk what about Russia, they invented the suitcase nuke, the worst terrorist weapon imaginable. They had pre-placed nuclear weapons in the US either buried or disguised as rocks, they set of the largest nuclear weapon ever, they invaded pretty much every country they are neighbors with, and they have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the US and western europe.
How can you compare a country that in the past planted nuclear weapons next to major cities in the US with the intent of destroying them, and currently has thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the US, and a country which has some anti-US demonstrations, and say the one with the demonstrations is a bigger risk?
Posted by Della at January 24, 2005 03:24 PM
I think the questions are more like this:
1. If Iran does have/obtain nuclear weapons, how likely are they to be used?
Not very, I would say. The use of nuclear weapons invites rapid and deadly retaliation, and everyone knows this. If you have the only nuclear weapons in the world, you may feel able to use them with impunity. However, all of the world's known nuclear powers with the exception of North Korea can launch a strike in retaliation against Iran. However deluded the mullahs may be, it still needs reasonably sane military personnel to make the things work. I would expect the Iranian military command to be rational enough to understand the likelihood of retaliation & hence the lack of wisdom of pre-emptive nuclear action. Defence is another matter, of course.
2. Would they ever use them pre-emptively against Israel?
Extremely unlikely. Israel has a substantial if undeclared nuclear arsenal and is more than capable of devastating retaliation. Furthermore, the Moslem world, especially the Arab part of it, is not exactly shy about using bombastic rhetoric with no supporting action. Just because they may say they would launch a nuclear strike against Israel does not mean they have the slightest intention of doing so.
I know Iranians are largely (but not exclusively) not Arab, but the mindset of their governors largely is. To focus on the Zoroastrian tradition of Iran and its cultural differences from the Arab world as a rationale for Iranian peaceability is deluded, IMO. Having said that, the Iranian governors are probably a touch saner than the neighbouring Arab loonies.
3. Why would they want them?
Iran sees America as a threat to its strategic interests & power in the Gulf region. It is aware that elements within America or its government would like to remove the Iranian government, perhaps by fomenting rebellion, perhaps by invasion. Boasting of a nuclear capability is a good way of deterring invasion, and of making spectators stay in their seats if they have to get a little assertive with their own population or, come to that, if they have to assert their interests in eastern Iraq. Whether Iran actually has nuclear weapons (or is trying to make them) is another matter, but the fact is they have the capability, thus the boasts are credible even if they are not accurate.
Whilst it is the case that America (or Britain, or France) has the ability to invade and respond in kind to a nuclear strike, I doubt very much if any American, French or British administration would care to be remembered as the one which started a middle eastern nuclear war through an aggressive act. This would be political, diplomatic and strategic suicide. Iran also knows this.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 24, 2005 03:35 PM
The problem with Euan Gray's cool analysis of the situation can be summed-up in a single word: religion.
To make assumptions about the Iranian government without understanding that its members are as alien to Western attitudes as invaders from outer space is to court disaster.
It cannot be said too often. These are not rational people.
Posted by GCooper at January 24, 2005 04:30 PM
"Would you suggest the the US should attack these countries [China, Russia] with histories varying from appauling to bad to strip them of the nuclear weapons they are known to already possess?"
There is another question: what is possible vs. the imminence of the threat. Dissarming Russia or China seems impossible now, and the threat they pose at the moment isn't huge, so, no, don't disarm them.
Not that it would be a bad idea to have them disarmed, but it's just not possible or too risky.
However, it was a grave mistake that China and Russia were allowed to produce nukes and missiles in 1948-9. The US, sole possesor of nukes, should have used them to stop and prevent the cold war and nuclear proliferation (and, incidentally, prevent the murder of many million people under communism).
Iran can be stopped, and should be stopped, otherwise we incur grave and unpredictable dangers.
It would be nice if the EU, Russia and the US could declare a doctrine that no new nuclear weapons will be permitted anywhere in the world.
Meanwhile Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria are also developing nukes.
Failing to disarm Iran of nukes now will result in some kind of nuclear war in the ME sooner or later, with the oilfields going radioactive, and the world frozen to death.
Posted by Jacob at January 24, 2005 04:43 PM
Della writes:
"Would you suggest the the US should attack these countries with histories varying from appauling to bad to strip them of the nuclear weapons they are known to already possess?"
Like Euan Gray, your analysis is lacking the most important ingredient - the one that changes the entire nature of the game.
No one is pretending that the gang of thugs in Peking is anything other than it is. Similarly, no one is under any illusions about the essential sweetness and goodness of Mr Putin. But do you seriously believe that China is likely to launch a nuclear attack? Or Russia?
Even at it's most barking, even when on the very brink, the Soviet Union held back
from assured self-destruction. As materialist atheists, it's not hard to work out why. Likewise the pragmatic Chinese. There is a world of difference between killing even a million Tibetans and having your own homeland reduced to a smoking, radioactive wasteland.
If, on the other hand, you are sufficiently deluded to believe that martyrdom is the greatest thing to which you can aspire. If your belief in an afterlife is so strong that even a mediaeval Catholic would have been awed by it, than you are not deterred by the same sort of fears that condition the behaviour of even a hardened Maoist.
The gravest error made by the Left is to believe their own poison - the cultural relativist nonsense that we are all, more or less, the same. We are not.
People who scream 'Allah Akbar' as they detonate their suicide bombs are not rational people. By any reasonable definition, they are insane and, as such, cannot be expected to behave like sane people.
That is why Iran is a threat of an entirely different order.
Posted by GCooper at January 24, 2005 04:51 PM
I admire your flexiability EG. You accept the words of the mullahs that support your POV and belittle those that don't. Words are the favorite tools of liars, a rational man tends to discount them. Unless of course, somebody says they will do something, and then does it. Repeatedly. Then you have to take their words into account.
In military terms, you look at capabilites, NOT intentions. Knowing your enemies intentions requires mind reading, which is in short supply in the real world.
Lets look at capabilities. Iran MIGHT have a nuke now, and almost certainly will by the end of the year. As far as delivery systems, they don't have any reliable ones. There is a lot more to an ICBM then bolting a bomb on top of the thing. Iran has been trying for the last decade to manufacture it's own ATGM's and SAM's, IIRC they also tried to do a AAM. NO luck at all, they ended up buying Russian again. ICBM's are several orders of complexity beyond other guided missiles.
Della's suitcase nuke is a figment of the Liberal press's imagination. If anyone is interested the FAS has a good article on the W-54 (I think that is the number. It's been a long time since I had to know this stuff) SADM (Special Atomic Demolotion Munition). It is the smallest nuke the USA ever built and since US nukes were 15 to 40% smaller then Soviet nukes, might be the smallest ever. The Brits might have been able to build a smaller one, but when they decide to buy American, that went out the window.
Anyway the W-54 goes around 90 kilos, and while small (It is about the size of a commercial thermos like you find at truck stops. Even looks like one). It is that light because it has minimual shielding. Slap that 90 kilo backpack on and you will be dead in 3 or 4 hours. Obviously that will not deter a suicide bomber, but it does limit how transportable the device is.
Then you have the problem of giving your suicide bomber a nuke and hoping he gets to the right city. Might he forget an leave it in the bathroom?
One of the Job requirements for being a homicidal tryant is paranoia. I have trouble with the concept of someone who clawed their way to the top by ruthlessly murdering anybody that got in his way, leaving no stone un-turned and nothing to chance, handing a nuke to anyone. But I could be wrong.
Nuclear weapons have shelf lives. The Plastic Explosives break down and the radiation fries the electronics. The USA rebuilds its nukes very decade or so. I doubt that there are any 'suitcase' nukes that are still functional. I'm worried about the 16 nuclear torpedo warheads the Soviets lost back in 89 to 91. They are at the end of their life cycle, but I'll bet they still can fizzle.
Posted by Stehpinkeln at January 24, 2005 06:12 PM
Della, so much of your thinking is devoid of logic and so many of your "facts" are wrong that it would take pages to go through it all. However, here are just a couple of points to consider. 25 years after their revolution, the Iranian leadership still vehemently hates the U.S. Recently, their parliament voted to continue uranium enrichment after which the chamber erupted into the familiar "Death to America" chant. In addition, when they hold military parades, guess what is painted on the side of their missiles...of course it is, "Death to America." You may have the luxury of dismissing such things, as an American, I don't.
Posted by Barnabus at January 24, 2005 06:25 PM
Euan has a decent point, to be fair. I would point out that a lot of the thugs who run Iran are basically cowards, and hence quite possibly deterrable. They are perfectly okay with sending impressionable young man out to blow themselves up for the greater good of Allah, but not quite so enthused about doing so themselves.
Having said all of which, we may need the coalition powers to carry out the same kind of brilliant pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities that was done to Osirak in Iraq in 1981. In public, the the likes of France, Russia and even Britain will bleat, but in private leaders will be delighted.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at January 24, 2005 09:19 PM
The flaw in Della's arguments, well one of the many, is that China and Russia are not at war with the West or the US and its allies. The thugs in Peking are despicable thugs no doubt, but they are also rational thugs concerned with their own survival and the acceptance of China as a responsible global "citizen".
Putin recently affirmed his support for the President (one of the only European leaders to publicly express partisan support for a second term Republican administration) and talked about the unity of European Christian civilisation.
Iran on the other hand considers itself in a cold war with the West, with Christendom and with Israel, has paid for and exported terrorism against Israel and the West for twenty years, and has repeatedly threatened to use nukes against Israel at the earliest opportunity.
That Della either cannot see the difference between these countries, or that she can and is just indulging in rhetorical games to defend the indefensible, is reason 10867 as to why I am not a liberal.
Posted by Shawn at January 24, 2005 09:34 PM
If you think that that Iran is only a threat to the United States, you should read this.
Posted by Hylas at January 24, 2005 10:13 PM
To make assumptions about the Iranian government without understanding that its members are as alien to Western attitudes as invaders from outer space is to court disaster.
But, to assume they are an alien species (in effect) is not going to get anywhere. The mullahs may well have a fundamentalist religious world-view (so for that matter did Ronald Reagan and so to a lesser extent does GW), but this does not mean they are from another planet. They are still human beings, and as such individuals of widely disparate views. To assume that the Iranian government is a monolith of fundamentalist clones is unwise, and even less wise is the assumption that the military command or even the government executive wholly and wholeheartedly shares this zealous outlook.
The senior clerics may be happy to vaporise Israel, but the people who press buttons, give orders and make things happen are perfectly well aware they will have to live with the consequences and it is by no means certain that any such order would necessarily be obeyed. Iran is not as unified as some would like to think, and there is plenty of evidence to show disquiet within the government, never mind the population. Assuming fundamentalist Islam means Iran will act irrationally over the use of nuclear weapons is not, IMO, justifiable.
You accept the words of the mullahs that support your POV and belittle those that don't/blockquote>I don't recall accepting any words of the mullahs.
In military terms, you look at capabilites, NOT intentionsOK, let's play your game. America has the capability to economically ruin and then invade my country, Britain, and there isn't a thing we could do about it. I should be worried that this is going to happen? After all, I'm looking at their capabilities.
Knowing your enemies intentions requires mind reading, which is in short supply in the real world.Not really. A reasonable understanding of the history and political-strategic circumstances of the area in question together with current cultural issues and expected economic & political trends is generally enough to make an informed guess.
ICBM's are several orders of complexity beyond other guided missiles.You do know what ICBM means, don't you? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Iran is trying to develop an intercontinental range weapon. In any case, precision guidance is not normally a necessity for nuclear weapons at the ranges Iran is likely to be interested in. Unguided ballistic weapons with nuclear payloads are quite devastating enough - Germany did a fair amount of damage with the V2 using what is by today's standard very simple technology and a tonne of high explosive, so what could you do with a simple rocket tipped with a 5kt bomb? The tricky part in making a short to medium range nuclear missile is the nuclear part, believe me - the missile technology itself is not that hard and for these purposes can probably be assembled from information freely available, for example, on the internet or in any reasonably stocked reference library. If you want to get really fancy, you could interface a retail GPS locator to the guidance system. An accuracy of a km or so is fine for the sort of thing Iran would, worst case, be looking for. Basically, an unguided artillery approach to rocketry would meet their needs.
Just because western nuclear devices and delivery systems are relatively complex does not mean that ALL such systems have to be equally complex. They just have to work.
Recently, their parliament voted to continue uranium enrichment after which the chamber erupted into the familiar "Death to America" chant.There is a difference between rhetoric and reality.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 24, 2005 10:26 PM
Shawn writes,
Iran on the other hand considers itself in a cold war with the West, with Christendom and with Israel, has paid for and exported terrorism against Israel and the West for twenty years, and has repeatedly threatened to use nukes against Israel at the earliest opportunity.
The Iranians goverment aren't nice people, they go for a lot of bobastic retorict, however apparently they haven't killed a lot of people and they havn't invaded anywhere in the years since '79. Iran is also a democracy, although with a lot of imperfections.
That Della either cannot see the difference between these countries, or that she can and is just indulging in rhetorical games to defend the indefensible, is reason 10867 as to why I am not a liberal.
I'm not a liberal, at least not in the American sense. Can't anyone be against the state and for the non initiation of force or fraud round here? It seems that there is a lot of fraud and initiation of force in the case for an Iran war.
Posted by Della at January 24, 2005 10:42 PM
Euan Gray said:
There is a difference between rhetoric and reality
Josef Goebbels said:
we have succeeded in leaving the enemy in the dark concerning Germany’s real goals, just as before 1932 our domestic foes never saw where we were going or that our oath of legality was just a trick. We wanted to come to power legally, but we did not want to use power legally. They could have suppressed us. They could have arrested a couple of us in 1925 and that would have been that, the end. No, they let us through the danger zone. That’s exactly how it was in foreign policy, too… . In 1933 a French premier ought to have said (and if I had been the French premier I would have said it): “The new Reich Chancellor is the man who wrote Mein Kampf, which says this and that. This man cannot be tolerated in our vicinity. Either he disappears or we march!” But they didn’t do it. They left us alone and let us slip through the risky zone. … And when we were done, and well armed, better than they, then they started the war!
Enough said.
Posted by Hylas at January 24, 2005 10:45 PM
Euan Gray writes:
"But, to assume they are an alien species (in effect) is not going to get anywhere."
Wrong. Where it will get us is to a place of greater security. If you are faced with a barking, salivating dog, the safest choice is to assume it has rabies and accordingly. Your choice - to assume the mullahs are reasonable chaps, just like us, beneath the turbans - is risking disaster.
May I remind you, again, that reasonable men do not hang 16 year old girls from cranes in the marketplace.
Posted by GCooper at January 24, 2005 11:28 PM
Della:
"The Iranians goverment aren't nice people, they go for a lot of bobastic retorict, however apparently they haven't killed a lot of people"
Er...yes they have. Thats what terrorism does Della, it kills people. Lots of them. The Iranian Secret Service has networks throghout the ME, and has been co-ordinating major terrorist and military actions for twenty years, including the attack on the US Marine barracks which killed three hundred US citizens. And Hizbollah has been carrying out military attacks against Israeli citizens for years now, including recently. Hizbollah remember, is a proxy for the Iranian government.
So your claim that its just rhetoric is false. Utterly and completely false.
"Can't anyone be against the state and for the non initiation of force or fraud round here?"
But your not against them.
\Your telling us that the Iranian state can initiate force against the West and Israel, and this is just fine to you. Iran has initiated force by carrying out terrorist attacks against Western targets and Israel. Under the non-inititiation of force doctrine, the US and Israel are within their rights to attack Iran and remove its government.
Like most liberals, or anarchists, or paleo-con-paleo-libertarians or whatever you are, your using the non-inititation of force doctrine to claim, falsely, that the US and Israel have no right to self-defense.
Euan:
Equivalency in this case is a poor argument. Comparing Reagan or Bush to the Iranian mullahs because they are all "fundamentalists" strikes me as dishonest. The problem is not that the Iranian leadership is fundamentalist, the problem is that they have been carrying out a terrorist war against Israel and the West.
Posted by Shawn at January 24, 2005 11:31 PM
MAD assumes the players are rational, and I'm not entirely convinced the mullahs are.
That said in the 21st century all sorts of people are going to get their hands on nukes as the technology becomes old hat. You won't be able to stop proliferation forever.
The selfish me says stopping it for 50 years will do, but I think there needs to be some serious reconstruction done so it's not even an issue, or at least all the players are rational as at least the Soviets, despite their many other faults, were.
Posted by The Last Toryboy at January 24, 2005 11:33 PM
Wow, what a lot of misinformation you can get here.
1) Della,
Neither North nor Jenkins are in absolutely any way at all comparable to Stalin, Mao, Napoleon or even Adolf Hitler (the one you seem to have omitted), personally I find it rather insulting that you make the comparison ..
2) Shehab-3 - the Iranian IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) is capable of carrying a 1760kg warhead over 1,300km. It's not an ICBM - that involves the creation of a re-entry shrouded vehicle and a delivery powerpack capable of achieving low-orbit - which brings us to what Yitzhak Mordechai (head of the Israeli Defence Force then) brought up in 1997 - that Iran was THEN developing Shehab-4, an IRBM with a 2-3,000 km range and Shehab-5, an Intercontinental Range Ballistic Missile (yes, the one that can go into low orbit) with a range of 5,000km and the potential to carry a 2megaton capable warhead.
Shehab-5 apparently, as is so usual in this day and age, has been developed with the active assistance of the Germans and the Dutch but NOT (unusual maybe) with any assistance from the French.
It seems that the Dutch, despite clearly worded warnings having been previously issued by the USA, still have some odd affinity with the now infamous AQ Khan (father of the Pakistan H-bomb, as well as that of North Korea, Iran and others) to whit, that they originally supplied Pakistan with basic centrifugal systems, while the Germans supplied them with the original meranging (improved steel) centrifugal systems - these systems are part of the Uranium 235 (yellowcake) purification process.
If Iran already has the Shehab-5, or even the Shehab-4, in place then I would personally feel a lot more secure if Israel did indeed carry out another Osirak-style raid upon their production facilities. Hopefully the USA could earn pluspoints for providing them with suitable satellite intel and refuelling facilities ...
Posted by Julian Taylor at January 24, 2005 11:40 PM
"Iran remains the ideological center of the America-hatred pervading the Islamic Middle East. That theocracy began warring with America when its rulers took 52 Americans hostage in 1979. Highlights of Iran's terrorism on Americans include the bombing and murder of 241 Marines in Beirut in 1983 and the killing of 19 US servicemen bombed at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996.
More recently, intelligence sources believe Iran harbors Al Qaeda operatives who orchestrated the bombing of a Western residential compound in Saudi Arabia last month that killed nine Americans. Iran sends Islamic agitators and militants into both US-controlled Iraq and Afghanistan, and sponsors such terrorist groups as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Lebanon, Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
In January 2002, Israel intercepted a ship from Iran delivering 50 tons of weapons to the terrorist Palestinian Authority. A month before this, former Iranian "President" Hashemi Rafsanjani stated publicly that when the Islamic world has nuclear weapons "the strategy of the West will hit a dead end, since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel." Last month, an Iranian opposition group discovered another secret nuclear facility in Natanz, undoubtedly part of Iran's advanced nuclear weapons program. "
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2888
Looks like a lot of initiating of force to me. Perhaps Della's interpretation of the non-initiation of force principle is doing nothing while the enemy kills you.
Posted by Shawn at January 24, 2005 11:47 PM
GCooper,
Euan Gray writes:
"But, to assume they are an alien species (in effect) is not going to get anywhere."
Wrong. Where it will get us is to a place of greater security. If you are faced with a barking, salivating dog, the safest choice is to assume it has rabies and accordingly. Your choice - to assume the mullahs are reasonable chaps, just like us, beneath the turbans - is risking disaster.
May I remind you that the kill them before they kill us was one of the reasons suggested for the wholesale liquidation of the Jews by the Nazis after they'd done a bit of killing because they apparently didn't want Jews to come after them for what they had already done.
Your argument is mearly an excuse for genocide.
Posted by Della at January 24, 2005 11:58 PM
Mike -
Gazaridis: I cannot see how anybody (even the ayatollas) could claim a direct link between N.Korea and a nuclear war in the ME.
Cool hard cash. The US has I think set up the Asian non-proliferation initiative or something because it believes NK would be willing to sell its warheads for the right price. I think they've set up a ring of countries (including china) that have set up a de facto cordon around North korea to search any suspect ships. A similar worry are the ex-soviet nukes.
Euan -
However deluded the mullahs may be, it still needs reasonably sane military personnel to make the things work. I would expect the Iranian military command to be rational enough to understand the likelihood of retaliation & hence the lack of wisdom of pre-emptive nuclear action
Game theory is a nice way of looking at the problem, and using it you can give an argument as to why nuclear proliferation is good, but ultimately it falls short. Firstly, you assume rationality, and secondly you assume they want to stay alive. On the first issue, you assume that someone along the chain of command is rational enough to disobey orders. However, if I was in charge of a country (and god forbid that ever happens), I'd put my most fanatical followers in my most important areas. Im sure the Iranian Mullahs are the same.
But ultimately, that's missing the point. The real problem (as someone here pointed out to me some months ago) is not that they are irrational, but that they are perfectly rational but just have different goals to the rest of us. If you honestly believe the Jews/Americans are Satan's minions, and that being killed in a nuclear exchange with them is the best thing you can ever ever do, then its perfectly rational to play thermonuclear war. Tic-tac-toe just doesn't matter any more, because that assumes both sides want to win by getting three in a row. A deathwish changes the rules. The only way they can then lose is if there is no retaliation - and even then at least they've killed 5 million infidels.
Furthermore, the Moslem world, especially the Arab part of it, is not exactly shy about using bombastic rhetoric with no supporting action
They've repeatedly talked about driving Israel into the sea, and they've made at least two serious attempts at it (1948, 1967). When they talk about wiping out Israel, it's pretty clear they're serious. And when they talk about wiping out other people, Im inclined to think they believe it.
I doubt very much if any American, French or British administration would care to be remembered as the one which started a middle eastern nuclear war through an aggressive act. This would be political, diplomatic and strategic suicide. Iran also knows this.
Exactly. Which is why the scenario I describe above is relevant. They know we go into hysterical fits over civilian casualties on the order of 5 or 6 people. If they can let off a nuke and create enough doubt over the origin, they can rely on the fear of creating 5 million innocent civilian casualties giving them protection from nuclear retaliation by the established powers. I honestly believe the UK and France would sit tight in such a scenario, Russia and China would have little interest in becoming involved, Pakistan wouldnt want to nuke another Muslim country, India wouldnt want to risk nuclear war with Pakistan, and so it all comes down to the USA. This is where uncertainty comes in - even with Bush in charge. And if Iran waits until the USA elects a relatively pacifist president (which it may well expect in 2008 after Iraq is still being fought), it could reasonably expect to get away with it. And if they don't? Well, at least they'll go to heaven.
Posted by Gazaridis at January 25, 2005 12:08 AM
Euan
One of your themes is that the Iranian military may not obey orders to launch a strike. Strictly speaking, the military has no part of it. Iran's nuclear programme is locked down and under the control of the Revolutionary Guard. You won't need reminding that they form the Praetorian Guard, the most faithful.
Della
I think one of your holiday photos was mixed in with mine at the developer.
Posted by Pete_London at January 25, 2005 12:56 AM
Firstly, you assume rationality, and secondly you assume they want to stay alive.
And you assume they are all mad and all prepared to sacrifice themselves for Allah and country. I doubt this is the case. Whilst there are of course many prepared to die for Islam, you have to consider that there are probably in this case rather more who would prefer to live for Iran.
Iran is not a naturally fundamentalist nation, and those ruling it - although powerful - are only a narrow clique within a broadly cosmpolitan and educated society. The government is not monolithic, and it is not particularly secure.
I'd put my most fanatical followers in my most important areas. Im sure the Iranian Mullahs are the same.
This doesn't work very well. You put technically capable and competent people in the key positions - ability being more useful than ideological purity - and put your zealots over them, watching. Like the political officers in Nazi and Soviet units, you see? If you are looking for a bomber pilot or submarine captain, you want someone with a passing familiarity with the controls to operate the thing. But you also need to check his loyalty, and this is where the zealot comes in handy.
A deathwish changes the rules
There is no evidence that Iran has this sort of deathwish in reality rather than in rhetoric. I would expect Iran to continue to fund terrorist organisations, but I would not expect them to carry this on to the extent of supplying nuclear weapons or permitting their use against Israel.
Iran's government is mature in the sense that it has been in existence for 25 years. Pragmatism tends to overcome ideological fervour fairly quickly, and Iran has more important long term strategic interests in the Gulf region than trying to wipe out Israel or unnecessarily piss off the US. Governments change, interests persist.
When they talk about wiping out Israel, it's pretty clear they're serious
Almost all Moslem states spout vitriol against Israel, since opposition to Israel is the only thing they have in common. The point is that the separation of Islamist rhetoric and pragmatic reality must be made. Iran could have made life extremely difficult for the US/UK invasion of Iraq, but didn't - despite rhetoric from all corners. The Arab world, given capable generals and astute political leadership, could easily neutralise Israel, but doesn't - plenty of talk, no meaningful action to put themselves in the position to do it. It is interesting to note that the most capable Cold War anti-western Arab state was Syria - also the one with the most Russian advisors and officers. The potential is there, but the leadership lacking.
If they can let off a nuke and create enough doubt over the origin
Oh, come on. If a nuclear device exploded in Israel, just how many countries could plausibly be blamed for it? Pakistan is capable (maybe), but not interested enough in that area. North Korea is preoccupied with local concerns about Japan and South Korea, not to mention the US interest. It's unlikely to be an accident. An ex-Soviet warhead is unlikely to function after 15 years without maintenance or rebuild. Really it has to be Iran. Just how long do you think it would take the rest of the world to figure this out - and how long for Israel to do what it feels it has to do?
Iran's nuclear programme is locked down and under the control of the Revolutionary Guard.
I still think it is extremely unlikely - although remotely possible - that the Iranian government would even permit a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Even if they did, they need to count on the RG assenting to the destruction of their own cause and country. Even if they do this, they have to assume the non-RG elements involved (and there will be many, it is not possible to have such a complex program completely and solely operated by the zealots) doing the same. There is no reason to believe that Iran is about to immolate itself for the cause.
Whilst one can read Iranian rhetoric as being a defined threat to Israel, one can also read other statements as meaning that the nuclear program is more of a deterrent than anything else. Iran has for years clearly seen a danger of American invasion (although after Iraq I'm not sure there's an appetite for it in the US), and it would be appealing for them to have a definite deterrent. I wonder if America and Britain would have invaded Iraq if they knew it had operational nuclear weapons and was prepared to use them?
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 25, 2005 01:11 AM
The Iranians might never nuke Israel. But they would be invulnerable to military and possibly political pressure if they have nukes. They always work through proxies like Hizbullah, which has hundreds of short-range rockets aimed at Northern Israel. If they become invulnerable, they will up the ante to make Israeli population centers vulnerable to attack. Given their ideology (which is a Shiite version of Wahhabi absolutism like Al Qaida), we can be sure that they will become expansionist if they get a chance.
So you don't HAVE to nuke your enemy to make nuclear power work. The Soviets made it work for fifty years, without ever taking the risk of nuclear attack. And they were relatively rational (after Stalin, at least). It is simply unknown how rational the radical Mullahs who run the place are. Plus --- every new nuclear power expands the probability of further proliferation. Pakistan's AQ Khan spread it to Lybia and Iran. North Korea is probably spreading it. Add Iran, and immediately the Saudi's will want nukes, because the Iranian Shiites have designs on the Saudi oil fields (which are populated by Shiites, plus they hate the Sunnis). So you get more and more spread to more and more irresponsible regimes, and at some point it is likely to get into the hands of someone who has nothing to lose.
It's very dangerous.
Posted by Barry at January 25, 2005 01:28 AM
I know Iranians are largely (but not exclusively) not Arab, but the mindset of their governors largely is.
I can only assume you have not met many Iranians then. They are quite different cultures, as different as, say, Italians and Germans (i.e. they share many historical facts and influances but are significently different in how they reacted to them).
You need to realise there are people from my former part of the world (I live in Australia now, thank God) who think that a nuclear war would be a great thing. If we are all reduced to the dark ages, it is the 'Godless West' who has a long way to fall, not 'us'. Millions of muslims still see the Taliban as the perfect Muslim society. Who is more vulnerable to nuclear attack: pious rural muslim or 'evil' highly urbanised jews? Nuking Tehran and five other Iranian cities would not end Islam in Iran and would probably 'only' kill 25% of the population in the country. Nuke five cities in Israel and you probably kill 85% of the entire population. THAT is the calculation at least a few people are making. If you are not afraid of those people, then you are not paying attention.
Posted by Reza at January 25, 2005 11:54 AM
I can only assume you have not met many Iranians then
You really didn't read what I'd written, did you?
I said their GOVERNORS share a largely Arabist, anti-Israeli mentality, NOT the people. And actually I do know several Iranians.
If we are all reduced to the dark ages, it is the 'Godless West' who has a long way to fall, not 'us'
True. You can't bomb people back to the Stone Age when they already live in it. However, and less frivolously, it is the "godless west" which has the means to cope with such a catastrophe, not the pious Moslem world.
In any event, no Moslem country has the ability to launch anything other than extremely limited nuclear strikes not far from their home base. Nuclear weapons are not actually as hideously destructive in the long term as many people believe (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today if you doubt this), and the overall long term effect of a Islamist nuclear assault on the west, worst case, would not be that great.
On the other hand, America, Britain, Russia and France have a global reach to their nuclear forces and can strike any Moslem nation at pretty much any time with massive force. Incidentally, Britain no longer has a "no first use of nukes" policy. This was announced by Hoon in Parliament before the Iraq war, probably by accident.
The threat of nuclear catastrophe against "the west" in general from Islamism is infinitesimal. A specific nuclear threat against Israel is less so, but still very small. Israel, of course, would not be likely to have any moral hang-ups about returning the compliment.
If you are not afraid of those people, then you are not paying attention.
Well, knowing something of how nuclear weapons work, what damage they do, how difficult they are to design and make, and what the long term effects of their use is, I am inclined to be a little concerned rather than mortally afraid.
Fear leads to demonising the enemy, over-estimating his ability, under-estimating one's ability to cope, permitting the terrorist to gain his objective (terror), and ultimately to giving up in a blue funk. None of this is necessary. In a nuclear context, Islamism does not pose a serious threat to the west in general, and only a slightly more serious one to Israel.
However, to be entirely frank and selfish about it, the west can survive without Israel but Israel cannot long survive without the west. I'm not convinced the west in general would do or care all that much about the extinction of Israel, to be honest. I suppose America might, but no-one else really seems to care about them any more.
Even looking at the worst plausible case, Islamism could detonate one or two small nuclear devices in the west. The damage, both short and long term, would not be all that severe, but you can be certain it would be the very last nuclear device freely available in Moslem hands - there would be retaliation, make no mistake. In effect, a nuclear assault by Islamism on the west would bring about in short order the effective end of Islamism and would not significantly degrade the west as a whole.
I am quite sure the Iranians realise this. They may spout apocalyptic Islamist rhetoric, and they may fund and supply terrorist organisations, but they do not seem to do much beyond this, although they certainly have the ability. They are not expansionist or particularly aggressive towards other states in the region. One should consider why this is.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 25, 2005 01:43 PM
Nuclear weapons are not actually as hideously destructive in the long term as many people believe
Do you really think that there has been no progression since a 12.5 kiloton bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? That the standard munition on a British Trident missile is a 2 MEGATON warhead? Do a search on AQ Khan and on Iran's delivery systems and then make a comment.
The threat of nuclear catastrophe against "the west" in general from Islamism is infinitesimal. A specific nuclear threat against Israel is less so, but still very small. Israel, of course, would not be likely to have any moral hang-ups about returning the compliment.
Again, never heard of a "suitcase" bomb, the seemingly generic title for a small nuclear device that could smuggled in and detonated in a Western city? And it would be far easier to airburst a small device in a hijacked passenger jet over Belgium at high altitude - that way you could do some serious EMP damage to most of Europe.
I think I'm going to stop here before I turn apoplectic ...
Posted by Julian Taylor at January 25, 2005 02:01 PM
Do you really think that there has been no progression since a 12.5 kiloton bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? That the standard munition on a British Trident missile is a 2 MEGATON warhead? Do a search on AQ Khan and on Iran's delivery systems and then make a comment.
To create a large warhead you need to do a significant amount of testing. It would take them years of devlopment and testing to get from their first warhead which if it was ever to be created would be Hiroshima sized till they created a multi megaton device. I also believe that the warheads in the missiles on UK submarines are variable yield from 10kton to 250kton, however one missile may contain quite a few warheads. Britain does know how to make multi megaton individual weapons and has set them off.
Again, never heard of a "suitcase" bomb, the seemingly generic title for a small nuclear device that could smuggled in and detonated in a Western city? And it would be far easier to airburst a small device in a hijacked passenger jet over Belgium at high altitude - that way you could do some serious EMP damage to most of Europe.
Suitcase nukes seem to have a yeild from 0.1kton to 1kton which is not very big and wouldn't do a lot of damage (compared to a large nuclear device. They seem to weigh between 30 and 90 kgs (more likley the high end of the scale) which would be over the weight limit for an item of lugage. Even if you managed to check it in the very high density and X-ray opaquness would probably make the bagage handlers not put it on the plane, it would take upto 3 people to lift the 90kg warhead, and it would be significantly heaver than the equivilent volume of lead. You could easily put it a a car's boot though (US:auto's trunk).
A suitcase nuke would be significantly more difficult to develop than a hydrogen bomb and needs servicing every 6 months according to the Russians.
Posted by Della at January 25, 2005 02:57 PM
ok,
"Suitcase" Nuclear device, aka "Special Atomic Demolition Munitions", weigh in at around 100 pounds as a low-yield 1 kiloton atomic device and are extremely portable - I send high-spec camera equipment abroad on a regular basis that can be a lot heavier than that.
The "suitcase nukes saga" began in the fall of 1997, when General (Ret.) Alexander Lebed made several statements to the effect that during his short tenure as the Secretary of the Security Council in 1996, he received information that the separatist government in Chechnya possessed small nuclear devices. In an attempt to clarify the situation, he created a special commission under the chairmanship of his assistant, Vladimir Denisov. According to Lebed, the commission was only able to locate 48 such munitions of a total of 132, an indication that 84 were lost (subsequently Lebed changed the total number of suitcase nukes several times, stating in the end that the number was between 100 and 500, but probably closer to 100).Source [Link]
One of the advantages of state-backed terrorism, nuclear or otherwise, is that the state owns the passenger jet you want to use as a delivery vehicle
Posted by Julian Taylor at January 25, 2005 04:03 PM
Euan
I'm not convinced the west in general would do or care all that much about the extinction of Israel, to be honest. I suppose America might, but no-one else really seems to care about them any more.
That statement rings true for the anti-semitic left but certainly not for the majority.
Posted by Pete_London at January 25, 2005 04:30 PM
Do you really think that there has been no progression since a 12.5 kiloton bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?
Of course there have, but most of them are very much more complex. Thermonuclear, boosted fission and enhanced radiation (ERWs or "neutron bombs") devices are all quite possible but much more complex. Pure fission devices of relatively crude design are hard enough to design and make, let alone more advanced designs.
It's possible Pakistan and Israel have boosted weapons, but their programs have been running for a long time. Iran is unlikely to have them, but it isn't impossible. Again, considerations mentioned earlier apply - it would not be hard to determine who had built the device or at least supplied the materials.
From the residue of the explosion it is not difficult to determine the type of bomb used and, to an extent, the composition of the fissile core. It would, therefore, not take all that long to make a really good guess as to the identity of the supplier, and anyone who makes the things knows this perfectly well. If, for example, Iran supplied a simple bomb to the Islamists and caused it to be detonated in the US or Europe, then within a matter of a couple of days it would be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that it came from Iran - this could take less time than identifying the terrorist agency responsible for letting the thing off.
So ask yourself this - would the Iranian government invite the near-certainty of invasion, possible nuclear attack, military defeat and the defeat of the Islamist cause, all for the sake of letting off one small nuclear device in the west? Considering also that any such event would almost certainly be followed by extremely stringent and rapid action to control all nuclear devices and technology world-wide, the Islamists could do this once only, and would then be hammered mightily in retaliation.
As for the effects of nuclear strikes. Well, assuming that even if the Islamists did manage to get a bomb and set it off, it's not likely to be a high-yield state of the art thermonuclear device. It is estimated that the total number of people adversely affected by Hiroshima and Nagasaki is anywhere between half a million and one million. I'd tend to the lower side, since these estimates often get inflated. Even that could be inflated.
In the cold and brutal calculus of war, a million deaths over 50 years in a population of 300-400 million (US or EU) is not excessive. In the same period, one fifth of this number would be killed in road accidents alone. Keep it in proportion. Also, the distribution of fall-out after an explosion is very widespread and much less of an environmental hazard than many think. Again, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they aren't exactly ghost towns, are they? Consider also the surprisingly small number (
Suitcase bombs are, I suspect, something of a scare story. Whilst it's entirely possible to make small nuclear devices - the US and Britain had 8" nuclear artillery shells, for example - it's not so easy. Also, the yield is very low, around a kilotonne. Even if you could get one on a plane, the EMP damage would not be all that great. If you detonate at say 35,000' then the blast and radiation damage would be pretty negligible too.
Nuclear devices don't last so long. The radiation from the core degrades the metal structure and the electrical equipment surprisingly quickly, and as has been pointed out by others they do need to be rebuilt fairly often - especially the small ones. The probability of a Soviet suitcase or artillery shell device being nicked 15 years ago and still in working order is slim indeed.
In summary, the matter is being blown out of proportion. The threat exists, but is very small - so small in fact that it probably is not worth losing a great deal of sleep over. It would be prudent to keep an eye on things & prevent anything untoward developing, but it would be paranoid to assume we are only an air ticket & a corrupt baggage handler away from nuclear oblivion.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 25, 2005 04:51 PM
That statement rings true for the anti-semitic left but certainly not for the majority
I was considering the governments, not the people.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 25, 2005 04:52 PM
Julian Taylor,
ok,
"Suitcase" Nuclear device, aka "Special Atomic Demolition Munitions", weigh in at around 100 pounds as a low-yield 1 kiloton atomic device and are extremely portable - I send high-spec camera equipment abroad on a regular basis that can be a lot heavier than that.
That's the page I linked to, I did read the whole thing.
70lbs is between 30 and 90kg, the high density would be noticable to anyone handling it though, and the X ray opacity. Later on it says "suitcase nukes" need maintenence every 6 months.
One of the advantages of state-backed terrorism, nuclear or otherwise, is that the state owns the passenger jet you want to use as a delivery vehicle
A suitcase nuke is as difficult to build as a fussion bomb, so if you're going to go to the effort of putting a suitcase nuke in a plane with the help of a state, in which case size does not matter, why not just use a fussion bomb, adjust the mirrors to make it a high yield neutron bomb and kill a lot more people? I mean if we are going to just throw reality out of the window why not create a gigantic 27 ton, 100 megaton multiple stage fission fussion device and blow up western europe. A passenger jet could easily hold it...
Posted by Della at January 25, 2005 06:17 PM
So was I.
Ye-es.
So, how exercised is France going to get about it? Other than some emotional bleating and ineffective sanctions (maybe), what exactly would the other EU states do about it? Is anyone really going to go to war to defend an unpopular state which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being not much less repressive and dogmatic than its neighbours? When its neighbours are the co-religionists of those who own the oil? When one of its neighbours controls a strategic waterway? When they could not realistically do anything militarily about it in any case? Really, what would be in it for Europe?
If anyone would do anything about it, it would be the US. Even then, depending on how things go in the rest of the middle east over the next few years, that cannot be taken for granted. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has gradually reduced the subsidy and support Israel gets, because Israel is no longer strategically important. This has resulted in Israel becoming a little less bellicose and a little more flexible with its neighbours, as can be seen in the various withdrawals from certain occupied territories, which is deeply unpopular but economically and militarily necessary. Israel is withdrawing to a defensible heartland, & is presumably not expecting much if any tangible outside support. If the worst happens, I really do think they're on their own, at least if the Arab nations can manage to act decisively and quickly enough.
This is unlikely, and would be pretty much unprecedented. However, it's not impossible. But all in all it makes a nuclear assault on Israel less rather than more likely - there is more to be gained for the Arabs by negotiating Israel into irrelevance than there is by trying to bomb it into oblivion.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at January 25, 2005 06:30 PM
Going back to Julian Taylor's earlier comment:
Neither North nor Jenkins are in absolutely any way at all comparable to Stalin, Mao, Napoleon or even Adolf Hitler (the one you seem to have omitted), personally I find it rather insulting that you make the comparison ..
If you were to listen to what Americans way talk about British "tyranny" at that time you would believe the British administration was similar to Pol Pot's. I don't think they were bad guys, but if you look for British Prime-ministers who are the most "evil" by American standards you have to choose those guys. Of course by British standards and absolute standards they were not evil at all.
Posted by Della at January 25, 2005 07:24 PM
Euan Gray writes:
"It would be prudent to keep an eye on things & prevent anything untoward developing, but it would be paranoid to assume we are only an air ticket & a corrupt baggage handler away from nuclear oblivion."
This business about so-called "suitcase bombs" is a bit of a red herring. As is pretty much common knowledge, the greater threats are either the use of conventional explosives (without or without a garnish of radioactive waste) or the use of a merchant ship to deliver a nuclear strike. I am told that this latter is the option that it is really worrying security.
Needless to say, perhaps, I still find your opinions on the threat posed by the Iranian government naive to the point of complacency. Mercifully, it seems the US government is not so blasé about its first duty.
Posted by GCooper at January 25, 2005 08:03 PM
Euan
So, how exercised is France going to get about it?
This is exactly my point. Frankly yet another Arab-Israeli war would see the EU jump into the Arab camp. It has been conducting a proxy war against the US via the Palestinians as it is. Whilst socialists predominate in European nation states and in the EU Europe will not be rid of anti-semitism. They are past and present masters at it.
Is anyone really going to go to war to defend an unpopular state which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being not much less repressive and dogmatic than its neighbours?
Seriously, are you sitting on the fence here?
Posted by Pete_London at January 25, 2005 08:38 PM
the use of a merchant ship to deliver a nuclear strike
But the bomb still has to come from somewhere. This could be determined quickly enough and appropriate action taken. The sponsoring state would have a difficult few weeks ahead, and Iran et al know this perfectly well.
your opinions on the threat posed by the Iranian government naive to the point of complacency
I do not believe there is a Persian master-plan to irradiate secular western society into oblivion. None but the paranoid do, I suspect. I do not think this is naive.
Yes, Iran is a dangerous regime, no doubt - but not to the extent of planning to nuke us all. As I said earlier, one can read several recent Iranian statements on nuclear matters as confirming the deterrent nature of the program. Taking this in combination with Iran's noticeable l