Kralizec on November 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM

There had been such rumblings in the past, with Europe being the recipient.

However, the real transitivity comes in the case of Israel NOT carrying out a MAD strategy and the arabs ending up in control of the Israeli nuke arsenal and industry. No one likes to talk about this scary prospect.

Iran maintains it was given the papers without asking for them during its black market purchases of nuclear equipment decades ago that serve as the backbone of its program to enrich uranium — a process that can generate power or create the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran’s refusal to suspend enrichment has been the main trigger for both existing U.N. sanctions and the threat of new ones.

Iran, which says it has a right to enrich to generate power, has repeatedly said it will not mothball its program.

Both the IAEA and other experts have categorized the instructions outlined in the blueprints as having no value outside of a nuclear weapons program

Yet here we are, twiddling our thumbs and listening to our idiotic politicians who wish to have “discussions” or “conversations” with these duplicitous bastards.

Good Grief!

As for all the hand-wringing: Israel already pointed out that bombs can fly two ways. A senior political official said it (forgot who, but someone very high up, and he said it openly).

Meryl Yourish on November 15, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Saying it is one thing. The question is whether anyone believes it. Given the fact that Israel has never bombed a major arab city in war (even wars where Israel was very close to losing, like 1973) belies the tough talk.

Israel isn’t planning for the death of most of her people. Israel is planning for the protection of her people in case the worst happens. It makes sense to me.

Given what Israel thinks are the stakes, it’s clear that protection of Israelis is not the driving factor of Israeli policy. This bleeds into laughter when the same country claims that it is ruthless enough to wipe out mass civilians in a final volley (from the grave) of MAD missiles.

I don’t believe it and I highly doubt that the arab/persian worlds do, either.

There must be continuity between local actions and global threats.

As with the stupidity of having called WWI “The War to End All Wars”, the banning of all the successful Allied tactics of WWII right after WWII in the 4th Geneva Conventions was nothing more than an emotional reaction to the horror the Allies were confronted with in the utter barbarity of the enemies – both the Nazis and the Japanese – but that doesn’t excuse anyone in this day and age when the horror is long gone and history is laid out for anyone to see.

The best way to insure that nukes will be used is to pretend that they don’t exist and act as if they could never be used – though relying on them for ultimate deterrence. This attitude might be palatable to guilt-ridden Westerners, who would rather live in a fantasy land, but it is highly ineffective in practice.

Frankly, of the five or so major fronts these days, the most containable for such a hot exchange is India/Pakistan. This was pointed out by the Indian Prime Minister when India and Pakistan almost went nuclear not long after 9/11 and he said that India could absorb the entire Pakistani arsenal and still wipe out Pakistan. I would note that no one complained about the threats of incinerating civilians back and forth in that exchange.

As for all the hand-wringing: Israel already pointed out that bombs can fly two ways. A senior political official said it (forgot who, but someone very high up, and he said it openly).

Israel isn’t planning for the death of most of her people. Israel is planning for the protection of her people in case the worst happens. It makes sense to me.

I’m personally convinced that if Iran does not dismantle its nuclear program, the attack will occur right after the 2008 Presidential elections.

… if any nukes come their way … They should also strap Jimmah Carter to one.

Hening on November 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Why wait?

Has the UN ever been able to ascertain anything about anything?

boomer on November 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Are you kidding? If the UN was tasked with ascertaining the location of their own hiney, they’d appoint a committee headed by the hiney-denying, goat-banging dictator of a 3rd-world dirtclod, and then hold a press conference to denounce the US and Israel.

Professor Blather on November 15, 2007 at 7:10 PM

I have long said to the few who listen (to me) that there are only four known solutions to over population:
war
plague
famine
migration.

Pick one.

Not to sound fatalistic … but good ol’ planet Earth is overdue for a good brawl. Humanity seems to (perversely) enjoy the perpetual cycle, and the time seems ripe for a fight.

I’m not even sure it can be stopped. My only hope is that we learn from the next war. We might – cuz it’s gonna be a doozie.

And although I can’t guarantee who will start it … I’ll bet I can narrow it down to a geographic region with a lot of sand. And camels. And guys named Achmed.

The only thing I don’t know is what will trigger it … who else will get involved … whether some of it will be aimed in our direction … and how it will end.

But it’s coming. And even if would could stop it, it doesn’t seem like we will.

God – or the nondenominational, non-offensive, only figurative spiritual figure of your choice – bless Israel. I think they’re going to need it.

We live in interesting times.

Would that be with a logic bomb? ;)

nukemhill on November 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Can I blame that on my failing eyesight, or my spell checker? Or boredom?

I guess that means my credibility is out the window?

(There is a reason for [good] editors. . . .)

I think Reagan proved how they value their own lives over their “beliefs” with a “hello from hell” card to Kadafi.

Unless Ahmadinejad, or Hezbollah manages another mass causality attack, or the Taliban bring down Musharraf more people will begin to suspect that the terrorists are losing the fight.

Would that be with a logic bomb? ;)

I was just struck by the juxtaposition of the concept of WMDs and ruins…

I wish there was a way to show it. I’ve saved it as a screen shot.

I’m beginning to suspect that Ahmadinejad is bluffing in the same way, and for the same reason that Saddam Husein was bluffing about WMD.

Unless Ahmadinejad, or Hezbollah manages another mass causality attack, or the Taliban bring down Musharraf more people will begin to suspect that the terrorists are losing the fight.

This is why it is bad public policy to make threats; someone might call your bluff.

Personally, I don’t care if Iran, or Pakistan, or India, or Russia, or China have nukes. I do care, however, when they threaten my country. It’s not the weapons I’m concerned about, its the threats.

Too bad millions will have to die before this happens.

Iran will be the smoking hole in the ground as proof of Israel’s willingness to follow through….

The leaders of these countries are not into that at all. And they are very much into self preservation I assure you.

conservnut on November 15, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Gawd. And your basis for that assurance is . . . ? (Self-delusion doesn’t count.)

Saddam was into self-preservation, too. He believed he could and would survive even if his whole country fried around him.

But in Islam, self-preservation does not trump all, and nukes change the equation dramatically. Here’s a scenario for you to consider: Ahmadinejad has his finger on the button that will send 3 nukes to Israel. If he pushes it, he goes down in Islamic history as a martyr, the destroyer of Israel. His name will be sung and celebrated by hundreds of millions of Muslims forever. If he doesn’t push it, he goes back to the daily grind of dealing with declining oil revenue, rising prices, birthrate implosion, dissatisfied populace, annoying UN inspectors, etc. Which do you think he’ll choose?

Then we can finally end the delusion about Iran, and impose a blockade (siege) and sanctions that effectively put them on the moon.

Agrippa2k on November 15, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Or, we could send some strategic nukes a’calling. Screw what the UN thinks. America F&$% Yeah!

Frankly Israel has been too weak on this. So have we.he UN, the EU, and our liberals need to hear the words – until their limited imaginations can get the image.

Agrippa2k on November 15, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Yep. People have forgotten. And the fact that MAD is “illegal” under the 4th Geneva Conventions, that people are so fond of these days, doesn’t help to convince some of the more adventurous and unhinged strategizers in the world.

That is the real danger!

Agrippa2k on November 15, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Exactly right. Deterrents won’t work. Bombs will. The sooner they fall, the better for everyone, including the Iranian people.

My guess: Iran will keep their nuke program moving steadily forward, but avoid any overt actions/threats that demand a response, because they know Bush won’t unleash our Air Force in an election year without rock-solid justification. If a Dem wins the election, they drop the farce and start threatening, knowing the Dem will sit on her/his hands and send a strongly-worded memo to the UN. If a Repub wins the election, Iran will go back to stalling, hoping the Repub will not risk the fallout from another Iraq-type political disaster. That’s why we need a president with both physical and mental gonads. Hillary doesn’t qualify; Obama is (I assume) 50% qualified. No way to know for sure about the Repubs — it’s easy to talk tough on the campaign trail.

The leaders of these countries are not into that at all. And they are very much into self preservation I assure you.