Nuclear shell game
posted at 1:35 pm on October 9, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The US continues to pursue a policy it the Bush administration says will end North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. But while the agreement is hammered out, Israel strikes targets inside Syria that, according to the international rumor mill, were of a nuclear nature and of a North Korean origin.
What is going on here, and what does it mean to the future of nuclear proliferation? Jim Hoagland and Stanley Kurtz are both working on these questions from different ends, and a trio of Democrat thinkers present a depressing display of scenarios and responses. John Bolton, the Bush administration’s vilified but effective anti-proliferation expert, suggests that there may be an inspections shell game going on.
The implications may be more serious than that.
Suppose Iran follows North Korea and declares via a test or other means that it’s a full fledged nuclear state. Suppose further that Syria, now largely a client of Iran, announces something along the same lines. Suppose a few months go by, and then the US is attacked with a nuclear weapon in one or more of its cities.
North Korea, Iran and Syria are all hostile states and all of them have longstanding relationships with terrorism. All three of them would have been declared nuclear states. Any of the three could be the source of the weapon that was used against us. Or, of course, the weapon or weapons could have come from other sources–Russian scientists or labs (rogue or otherwise), Pakistani or Indian sources, you name it.
The likeliest fountainhead of a nuclear attack on the US would naturally be Iran, given its bellicosity in Iraq and its leadership’s stated goals of destroying us en route to destroying Israel. But a diffusion of nuclear technology among US enemies means plausible deniability for all of those enemies. If North Korea, Iran and Syria are all declared nuclear states, which one do we hit after we’re hit? Can we justify hitting all three? Will Russia and China stand by if we do?
We don’t know what the Syrians intended to do with whatever it was that the Israelis destroyed. We do know that the Syrians don’t act without Iranian acquiescence these days, and we do know that the North Koreans were involved. That puts the three of them together in this deal, whatever it was. The Syrians would have to know that any major attack, especially involving WMDs, on the Israelis would invite an extreme response from them and probably from us and probably our other allies as well, so to me it doesn’t seem all that likely that they were obtaining nukes from North Korea for the purpose of staging an unprovoked attack that obviously came from Syria. If you don’t obtain a weapon to use it in an attack, then why do you obtain it?
You might obtain a weapon to hand off to an ally so they will attack an enemy, and given Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah (and new Syrian construction projects in the Golan Heights), that shouldn’t be ruled out even though such an attack would invite Syria’s own destruction. You might obtain a weapon to convince someone else not to attack you. Or you might obtain a weapon to confuse your enemies when someone allied to you uses a similar weapon. Such confusion can lead to paralysis, and if the US is paralyzed by indecision after we’re hit on our own soil, then the world will be on fire shortly.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
This perception is part of the problem.
After 911 Bin Laden was probably SURPRISED at the intensity of the response.
It makes more sense for the US to be brutally honest that Syria, Iran and North Korea would all cease to exist after such an incident. Not because it would be pre-incident POLICY, but because the US public would FORCE that policy after the fact. It is in the most humane sense unfair to suggest otherwise.
boris on October 9, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Sorry Bryan, but wha-?
MadisonConservative on October 9, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Wretchard at the Belmont Club.
The Three Conjectures.
Conjecture #2.
“if the US is paralyzed by indecision after we’re hit on our own soil, then the world will be on fire shortly.”
And Islam (with all its believers) could become extinct if Islamic terrorists get their hands on a nuke and detonate in the United States. As you say, no American government could resist a call for massive retaliation against all of the “usual suspects” if a US city is destroyed. And short of every Muslim simultaneously surrendering to the United States and her allies, it would be hard to stop a world-wide pogrom.
The only way to prevent this is to prevent nuclear proliferation. “MAD” doesn’t work with madmen.
georgej on October 9, 2007 at 1:45 PM
In the harshest reality, it doesn’t matter. Afterward, the remaining two countries realize you’re not just going to stand by and take it. Also, the pool of available targets is reduced by one, making it now a 50/50 chance that your country is next if another incident happens. That should make working together to prevent it from happening again both very easy and very important…things they should be doing already to prevent a first incident.
Of course, this is all in the hypothetical world where we aren’t such PC wimps.
James on October 9, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Don’t hold back, Bryan. No need to sugar coat this stuff. You paint a pretty bleak picture. With a Democrat administration, I wonder if they would have the “Malkin’s” to retaliate.
This also directly deals with my National Security Law class. If a President has information of an impending attack, is consultation with Congress, even just the leaders, a waste of valuable time? I say yes. However, if intelligence is being gathered, Congressional input would be helpful. Unfortunately, there are those in Congress who cannot be trusted to keep a secret.
Troy Rasmussen on October 9, 2007 at 1:48 PM
If? That’s already a given, IMHO.
infidel4life on October 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Not really Bryan, it’s actually pretty damn easy to track the origins of a nuclear device whether that device has detonated or not. There are about 8 I think specifics which define the devices origins.
These specifics include the unique transuranic signature of the isotopes used, the nomenclature of the device, the yield, the dispersal pattern, the devices mass to energy conversion rate, delivery method and fallout half-life.
Put all of these items together and you get a very specific picture of where the device originated. Yes, that picture is capable of determining the difference between whether the device was manufactured by the Russians Chinese, Iranians, Pakistanis and delivered by a terrorist network. It would even give you a pretty good idea of which terrorist network delivered the device.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM
You assume that countries like Syria or Iran have a similar sense of national self preservation as the western world, that is a suicidal assumption.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 1:56 PM
In the event of nuclear terrorism, I would turn the population, buildings and all material possessions of all 3 of those nations into a glasslike substance that makes a geiger counter go click for the next 1000 years.
I would also include Venezuela and Cuba as a bonus.
That ends the shell game.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 9, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I fail to see how losing a maximum of 3 American cities, regrettable as it would be, constitutes ‘national suicide.’
At that point it’s not trading cities, nor is it MAD. There would be nothing mutual about it…we’d be hurt, but still here, they’d be gone.
James on October 9, 2007 at 2:06 PM
A nuclear terriost attack means we wipe out North Korea and invade Iran. After all we could use Iranian oil, but North Korea has nothing we would care about if it was contaminated for the next hundred years or so. That brings us down to just Syria, and I would say give the Isralis the go ahead to take them out. You know they are itching to do it. All three gone in a very short period of time.
Buford on October 9, 2007 at 2:09 PM
What about the millions of brutalized innocents subject to the gargoyles insanity?
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Remember the hit the economy took after 9/11? think about that for a couple of minutes. Then magnify that ten thousand times. Ten thousand time for New York City, another ten thousand times for L.A… the death toll in the cities hit would be relatively small compared to the death toll caused by the near total collapse of national infrastructure.
First thing to collapse would be the transportation system, panicked individuals would bring the highway system to a halt as they attempted to flee the cities they live in. After that the food and transportation fuel system would collapse, tens of millions of people would find themselves stranded in the middle of nowhere without gas or diesel unable to secure food or water.
Acts of desperate violence and vigilantly justice would claim tens of thousands of lives. If you think this isn’t what would happen you haven’t been paying attention to what happened in the aftermath of other much smaller disasters in the past. Just look at what happened after hurricane Katrina.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 2:22 PM
It’ll be 911 times 1000
[/team america]
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 2:40 PM
As I understand it, nuclear reactors have their own sort of radiation signature, so if there was an attack, we would likely be able to tell where the nuke material came from.
CP on October 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM
It is true only if we have the book on the facility that enriched the uranium/produced the plutonium (or God forbid, produced the tritium). I rather doubt that, unless the nuke was made in Pakistan, it will come from facilities that we have the book on.
Getting back to Sunday’s discussion briefly (sorry about leaving you hanging), that “fingerprint” is why the Iranian/Syrian effort is being built there and with just enough secrecy for the Soviet…er, Russians and Red Chinese to claim plausable deniability.
steveegg on October 9, 2007 at 2:44 PM
This is a message about Babylon that God revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz
On a bare hill raise a signal flag, shout to them, wave your hand, so they might enter the gates of the princes!
I have given orders to my chosen soldiers;
I have summoned the warriors through whom I will vent my anger, my boasting, arrogant ones.
There is a loud noise on the mountains – it sounds like a large army!
There is great commotion among the kingdoms – nations are being assembled!
The Lord who commands armies is mustering forces for battle.
They come from a distant land, from the horizon.
It is the Lord with his instruments of judgment, coming to destroy the whole earth.
Wail, for the Lord’s day of judgment is near; it comes with all the destructive power of the sovereign judge.
For this reason all hands hang limp, every human heart loses its courage.
They panic – cramps and pain seize hold of them like those of a woman who is straining to give birth.
They look at one another in astonishment; their faces are flushed red.
Look, the Lord’s day of judgment is coming; it is a day of cruelty and savage, raging anger, destroying the earth and annihilating its sinners.
Indeed the stars in the sky and their constellations no longer give out their light; the sun is darkened as soon as it rises, and the moon does not shine.
I will punish the world for its evil, and wicked people for their sin.
I will put an end to the pride of the insolent,
I will bring down the arrogance of tyrants.
I will make human beings more scarce than pure gold, and people more scarce than gold from Ophir.
So I will shake the heavens, and the earth will shake loose from its foundation, because of the fury of the Lord who commands armies, in the day he vents his raging anger.
Like a frightened gazelle or a sheep with no shepherd, each will turn toward home, each will run to his homeland.
Everyone who is caught will be stabbed; everyone who is seized will die by the sword.
Their children will be smashed to pieces before their very eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives raped.
Look, I am stirring up the Medes to attack them; they are not concerned about silver, nor are they interested in gold.
Their arrows will cut young men to ribbons; they have no compassion on a person’s offspring, they will not look with pity on children.
Babylon, the most admired of kingdoms, the Chaldeans’ source of honor and pride, will be destroyed by God just as Sodom and Gomorrah were.
No one will live there again; no one will ever reside there again.
No bedouin will camp there, no shepherds will rest their flocks there.
Wild animals will rest there, the ruined houses will be full of hyenas.
Ostriches will live there, wild goats will skip among the ruins.
Wild dogs will yip in her ruined fortresses, jackals will yelp in the once-splendid palaces.
Her time is almost up, her days will not be prolonged.
VinceP1974 on October 9, 2007 at 2:48 PM
All of those would probably happen, yes…but they are temporary situations and we would still have at the least 270 million of our current 300 million population left to pick up the pieces.
And if we don’t put Louisiana in charge of the rebuilding, we’ll eventually have new great cities in new places to replace those lost.
James on October 9, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I am amazed that people seem to think that the result of a nuclear attack with no rational response from our government would only result in the loss of cities or collapse of national infrastructure.
If the United States Government cannot defend itself or retaliate against a nuclear attack, the entire government and the Constitution will collapse. You will see mass exoduses of people in the North to Canada, and people in the south to Mexico, as they flee the target centers. You’ll see other states unilateraterly surrender to the terrorists, in complete defiance of the Federal Government. You’ll see imposition of shaira law in other localities. You’ll see riots as people demand that someplace, anyplace, be attacked in retaliation.
The President from a command bunker with all 435 representatives, 100 senators, and all 9 supreme court justices, will be completely useless. Even if the Army is called in to prevent, for example, Wisconsin from surrendering to the terrorists and imposing shaira law, it is likely there would be regional fighting between state and federal troops.
If the government DOES respond to a nuclear attack within a short timeframe, this scenario could be avoided. But if it doesn’t? Forget it.
Sydney Carton on October 9, 2007 at 2:57 PM
…and the rest of the world would more then likely follow to a certain degree wouldn’t it? With out the US there wouldn’t be anything to stop Putin from driving through the Folda Gap with every tank that runs. Nothing to stop China from walking through Taiwan either.
liquidflorian on October 9, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Dont even actually need the book. Process of elimination. The unique transuranic signature, for instances comes from the ore refined, not the refining process itself. Australian yellowcake has a different transuranic signature than Niger’s or than that mined in Colorado. Since there are a very limited number of places where uranium is mined exactly where each mines output goes is pretty specific.
Yes the specific refining process leaves a traceable signature on the fissile material produced was well, however that signature is pretty well defined for each process. Once you know the transuranic properties reverse engineering the refining process is pretty simple.
A combined knowledge of the refining process and the origins of the ore gives you a fairly specific region where the device came from. As an example, the refining process used by Iran is done with the Zippe centrifuge as is Pakistan’s.
Match the isotopic signature produced by the Zippe centrifuge with the transuranic signature of the ore and it becomes obvious that device is of Middle Eastern origins.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Lee Harris was on this in March 2003:
The Bush Admin was on it even earlier. It’s why NK, Iran and Iraq made the “Axis of Evil.” It’s the argument for not waiting for the “imminent threat.” That Iraq is taking as long as it is — and that the Left has succeeded in making a partisan issue of it — has caused folks to forget this, if they ever realized it in the first place.
Karl on October 9, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Cool…cheap real estate
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Heh heh…
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Wake me up when Tehran is a giant mushroom cloud.
Until then, this speculation wearies me.
thejackal on October 9, 2007 at 4:05 PM
The key is to make them understand that before they contemplate the attack. Make them 100% sure that we will retaliate in the manner you outline, and that we will hunt down everyone responsible just in case one or two escapes.
Unfortunately, we have not shown that resolve.
right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Most of the past MADD strategy was based on the idea that we would KNOW where the nukes came from.
Its pretty easy to track an ICBM, or Bomber, back to its point of origin.
This idea that you will be able to figure out IMMEDIATLY the point of origin from the blast debris is really hard to swallow.
With proper forensics, you MAY be able, eventualy, to get to the blast site, get enough transuranic material to figure out where it came from… but its going to take quite a bit of time…
And thats IF they don’t do one of my Nightmare scenarios of putting it on a merchant ship and detoniating it off the coast of the US, creating a tidal wave.
Romeo13 on October 9, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Hollywood science dude…don’t lose sleep ;-)
Ochlan on October 9, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Really?? Then I guess the guys I worked with at Commander Submarine Pacific… and all those US Navy training manuals I read, were wrong…
So glad you set me straight…
/shakes his head and wanders off…
Romeo13 on October 9, 2007 at 5:50 PM
This thread seems like a cool place to remind people that Tom Tancredo is running for President. He’s the only guy I trust to confront this situation.
thuja on October 9, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Much as I’d like to see all 3 of those countries reduced to radioactive dust, does anyone really think it’s possible to nuke North Korea without killing people in South Korea, if not in the initial blast, then due to radioactive fallout in the days and weeks that followed? And more importantly, what about the thousands of U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea?
NightmareOnKStreet on October 9, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Hold your horses their cowboy, nobody said it would be done instantly.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Point being that if not done immediately, our own internal dissension will make it almost impossible to actualy nuke anyone.
There will always be a certain amount of people who will want even more proof… or not believe the proof you have.
Even during WWII, with the “Greatest Generation” there was a LOT of war weariness in 44 and 45.
Romeo13 on October 9, 2007 at 7:08 PM
True. And remember that American casualties were really minimal in comparison with Soviet losses.
But what if America had to cope with similarly devastating destruction and losses, both civilian and military ?
Try to imagine a total war on american soil. A war of annihilation…
Americans are lucky !
Syndic Nuruodo on October 9, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Comment pages: