Stop the ACLU’s John Stephenson points to this impressive and thorough Yankee Sailor post, “Nuclear Deterrence in the Age of Terrorism,” which examines in some detail the familiar arguments for deterrence, and extrapolates from those arguments the problems likely facing us under current (and future hypothetical) conditions of global nuclear proliferation:
[…] Going forward into the 21st Century […] a number of changes in the balance of nuclear power have resulted in doubts about the utility of current doctrines of nuclear deterrence. Today there are three major challenges to future nuclear deterrence: 1) the small nuclear forces of new atomic states, 2) anti-state or non-state actors, and 3) return of preventive war as an acceptable deterrence doctrine.
In the case of nations possessing small nuclear forces (SNF), like Pakistan and India, the applicability of traditional theories of deterrence are shaky at best. Deterrence by denial by a SNF is useless against opponents with LNF, and against other SNF powers the applicability depends upon many other factors, like intelligence, delivery and early warning systems. Deterrence by punishment, again, may be effective against other SNF states, but against LNF states it has minimal value. And existential deterrence’s effectiveness depends heavily on the cultural and religious values of the SNF state, and might be impossible to quantify.
The dangers posed by antistate actors in the nuclear balance of power are even more troubling. Deterrence is based on reason, and while states are generally “rational actorsâ€Â, terrorist organizations (essentially “anti-state†actors) are often “irrational actors.†States have stable political and military systems and organizations, with checks and balances, populations, territory and resources to protect, and have a vested interest in being rational and predictable. Anti-state actors, however, have none of these elements, usually possess radical political or religious ideologies, and often take pride in their unpredictability and willingness to escalate conflicts.
Complicating this is the fact that anti-state actors also work to destabilize the very systems and organizations that make state actors rational. In The Stability of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia: The Clash Between State and Antistate Actors, Mohan Malik concludes that South Asia is particularly vulnerable to the influence of anti-state actors, as the nations in the region have yet to fully develop the checks and balances in their political systems and mature, redundant controls over their arsenals.
There appears to be some progress with respect to the SNF problems. India has made gains in stabilizing and securing their arsenal to address the dangers of SNF and anti-state actors as an example to other new nuclear powers. First, India has adopted a strict policy of no first use. Second, India asserts that it will not resort to nukes against non-nuclear and non-aligned states. India’s current doctrine is focused on denial by punishment, and they are pursuing a triad of air, land and sea based systems to ensure second strike capability. Third, India has enforced strict civilian control by democratically elected leaders through a survivable command and control system, and their arsenal is protected by adequate security and safety systems to prevent unauthorized use. And fourth, though India will not accept limitations on its maintenance, testing and R&D, its stated goal is to continue to emphasize and pursue global nuclear disarmament.
Where no progress has been made is with regard to the irrational state and anti-state actors. The Bush Administration’s doctrine of preemptive war was intended as a step towards addressing the new security threats, but there are many dangers inherent in this approach. With the invasion of Iraq the Global War on Terror became as much a war of counterproliferation as a war on terrorism.
In the past nonproliferation and counterproliferation entailed diplomacy, sanctions, deterrence, defenses and the capacity to strike at another nation’s nuclear arsenal, command and control and delivery systems. This shift is a tacit acknowledgement that the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not guarantee a nation will not develop or acquire nuclear arms. Deterrence now, at least for the time being, has broadened to include not just deterring a nuclear state from using their weapons, but also includes preventing non-nuclear states and non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons. And in the case of Iran, this approach appears to be failing. Indeed, the Bush Doctrine and preoccupation of America’s conventional military on conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may have actually had the opposite effect and accelerated development efforts by states that were already pursuing nuclear weapons.
Frightening as this sounds, I’m actually glad of it: note that Yankee Sailor talks of the Bush Doctrine accelerating efforts by some countries to acquire nuclear weapons, not creating those efforts, and I’m of the mind that dealing with a hastily-cobbled together nuclear program in Iran is better than constantly handing the problem off to new administrations, which is almost always the default impulse of politicians.
Reasonable people may disagree here—afterall, one can argue that by trying to change the complexion of the middle east, the US has forced the hands of countries like Iran, whose theocratic leadership fears a loss of regional strength and control (both ideologically and geopolitically)—but this argument conveniently brackets out Iran’s long-stated goal to acquire a nuclear arsenal, which we are in a far better position to deal with now than we would be were we not operating militarily so close to Iran’s borders (and likely inside those borders, as well).
Continues Yankee Sailor:
All of which begs the question: where do America and nuclear deterrence go from here? The current global security situation has been and will continue to be a challenge to large and small powers alike. Major powers are confronted with threats that their vast arsenals appear useless to deter, and are reverting to risky, offensive doctrines of the past. In response, small powers and anti-state actors are deciding to pursue nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in attempts to deter a major power they believe is an irrational, uncontrollable threat.
So, with the vexing problem of anti-state actors rendering deterrence by denial and existential deterrence dead letters, deterrence by punishment seems to be the only remaining option for America. This would entail warning the most likely cooperative sources of a terrorist bomb or bomb technology – Iran, Pakistan and North Korea – that if an unexplained nuclear detonation takes place on the territory of the United States, Tehran, Islamabad and Pyongyang would pay a heavy price. Ten years ago this kind of policy would have been unthinkable, but the brave new world of atomic proliferation seems to demand it.
[My emphases.]
Raising the specter of deterrence by punishment is, of course, what Tom Tancredo was famously excoriated for—though in Tancredo’s case, he posited, as a hypothetical, the punishing of religious actors instead of state actors by floating the idea that should the US be the site of a nuclear detonation carried out by those with no state affiliation, important Islamic sites (rather than likely “cooperative” state sources—which should be expanded to include Russia) would bear the brunt of our response.
The only real difference between Yankee Sailor’s conclusion that deterrence by punishment could be our only recourse—and that we should make such a response known to those (rational?) state actors likely to provide the technology—and Tancredo’s remarks, is that in the former scenario religion is ostensibly extrapolated out of the equation, while in the latter, it is precisely the focus of the deterrence.
And so the question becomes not so much one of policy as it does of defining who the enemy is and which threat is more likely to yield the desired result—namely, deterrence, using the promise of return punishment against a pre-selected group of targets as a shield.
In either scenario, innocent people (those who have either no hand in their government’s policy, or no hand in the terrorism carried out in the name of their religion by extremists) will perish en masse: and after all, visiting nuclear retaliation on Tehran, Islamabad and Pyongyang in the event of an “unexplained nuclear detonation” is of the same moral calculus, I think, as visiting nuclear retaliation on Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia.
And of course, this needn’t be an either/or situation. True, it is certainly politically less explosive to pre-name as retaliatory targets state actors, who in the traditional paradigm of war we are conditioned to accept as the most likely and deserving recipients of a response; but if what we are after is deterrence first and foremost, than we shouldn’t ignore the fact that to some of our enemies, the destruction of religious sites may provide a more powerful emotional deterrent, and may aid us in turning moderates against extremists.
Which is only to say that if we are willing to put certain countries on notice, why would we avoid putting on notice, along with the countries that are likely to provide the material and technology, the country that has generated, by way of an ideological campaign and a state religion that preaches our destruction, the kind of non-state actors most likely to detonate a nuclear device (regardless of where the technology comes from) in the first place?
Which brings me to the occasion of this post. Stop the ACLU points to a WorldNetDaily column that outlines the claims of Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who insists that al Qaeda has already obtained suitcase nukes from the Russian black market and forward deployed them in the US—a claim also made last July by Dr Paul Williams (which I posted on at the time).
The thrust of Mir’s contention is that Iran’s recent martial posture is tied to the long-rumored “American Hiroshima”—in short, that Iran and al Qaeda have hatched a plan that calls for al Qaeda to use the occasion of a US attack on its nuclear weapons facilities to detonate its forward deployed suitcase nukes.
From “‘American Hiroshima’ linked with Iran attack”:
Mir said that he met with an Egyptian engineer last week who lost an eye after one of bin Laden’s nuclear tests in the Kunar province of Pakistan. The Pakistani journalist said the encounter with the engineer greatly disturbed and depressed him since it provided further assurance that a nuclear nightmare for America is about to dawn.
Mir believes that an “American Hiroshima†will occur as soon as the U.S. launches an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“Al-Qaida and Iran,†he says, “have a long, secret relationship.†“American Hiroshima†is the name al-Qaida leaders chose for their long-planned nuclear attack on the U.S.
The relationship between Iran and bin Laden dates back to June 21, 1996, when bin Laden attended a terror summit in Tehran. The gathering attracted terror leaders from various places throughout the world, including Ramadan Shallah (the Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Ahmad Salah (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), Imad al-Alami and Mustafa al-Liddawi (Hamas), Ahmad Jibril (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), Abdallah Ocalan (the Kurdish People Party), Muhammad Ali Ahmad (al Qaida), and Imad Mugniyah (Hezbollah). The summit resulted in the creation of the “Committee of Three” that would meet on a regular basis for the “coordination, planning and execution of attacks” against the United States and Israel. The committee members were Ahmad Salah, Imad Mugniyah and bin Laden.
Mir’s position that al-Qaida’s nuclear weapons may have already been forward-deployed to the United States confirms the report of Sharif al-Masri, a key al-Qaida operative who was arrested in Pakistan in November 2000.
Al Masri, an Egyptian national with ties to al-Zawahiri, said that al-Qaida had made arrangements to smuggle nuclear weapons and supplies to Mexico. From Mexico, he said, the weapons were to be transported across the border and into the United States with the help of a Latino street gang.
Mir also maintains that numerous sleeper agents are in place in major cities throughout the United States to prepare for the nuclear holocaust. Many of these agents, he says, are Algerians and Chechens who obtained European passports and are posing as Christian and Jews.
He further says that many of these agents have been in the United States since bin Laden’s issuance of his “Declaration of War on Americans Occupying the Country of the Two Holy Places.” That fatwa was issued Aug. 23, 1996.
But how credible is this threat exactly?
Here is Ralph Kinney Bennett, writing for Tech Central Station in April of 2004. From “Hell in a Suitcase”:
The closest the U.S. is known to have come to a suitcase or hand-carried weapon was a variation of the W-54 called, interestingly enough, the SADM (small atomic demolition munition). This device—officially the Mk-54—would have required a mighty big suitcase. It was a fat cylinder, 15 inches (diameter) by 24 inches, not unlike one of those big plastic buckets you can buy bulk paint in at Home Depot, and it weighed 150 pounds.
Since the deployment (and eventual retirement) of these weapons, more ingenious designs and advances in explosives, structural materials and microelectronics, have brought relative miniaturization of nuclear weapons to a multi-billion dollar high art, making possible the stuffing of warheads by the half-dozens into missile nose cones
Relative is the key word here. How small can a nuclear bomb be? What are the downscale physical limits to making one? It is important to have some concept of these limits as we consider the occasional alarms in the media regarding terrorists and suitcase or (lately) backpack nuclear bombs. Last week were heard al-Qaeda claims that it has a couple of suitcase bombs it bought from Russians years ago. Chechnyan rebels have made similar claims in the past, as have Palestinian terrorists.
The infamous Soviet-made suitcase bombs that supposedly disappeared from inventory sometime after the break-up of the Soviet Union have been the subject of numerous investigations and much fevered speculation. It is known that the Soviets, like the United States, developed small nuclear munitions, small enough to be fired in artillery shells or to be hand-carried (by one or more soldiers) as a demolition device. If they designed and built one that could actually fit in a large brief case, one of them has not shown up anywhere, nor has an official photograph or blueprint of it.
The ones described by Soviet General Alexander Lebed, in sensational Congressional hearings back in 1997, were supposedly in suitcases approximately 24 x 16 x 8 inches. A mock-up of such a bomb, using the warhead of an American nuclear artillery shell, was constructed and, indeed, all the necessary items—neutron generators, batteries, arming mechanism etc.—were successfully stuffed in around the cylindrical device itself. (For a photo of the mock-up and more see [here]. This is an excellent site thanks to the expository writing of Carey Sublette.)
There continue to be disturbing rumors, and in some cases evidence of fissile material and dangerous nuclear byproducts (strontium, cesium etc.) floating around the international underworld. And while nothing should be considered beyond the scope of determined terrorists with enough money, building a hand carried nuclear weapon from scratch, so to speak, would be very difficult.
The starting point would be a critical mass of plutonium or U-233. This would be a sphere about 4 or 5 inches in diameter and weighing roughly 28 to 30 pounds. Since the carriers of the weapon would presumably be in close quarters with it for some period of time, the critical mass would have to be of supergrade plutonium, which would be relatively safe to handle because it gives off lower neutron emissions. Beyond that, design variations (neutron reflector, high explosive, trigger type etc.) and the packaging for the device would add to size and weight depending on materials used, ingenuity of layout and other factors.
Part of the design of U.S. and probably Soviet small atomic munitions was to insure maximum safety to handlers and enough robustness to preclude accidental damage. These might not be particularly acute considerations for some terrorists, who would be thinking more about portability and concealment.
There can be little doubt that next to the acquisition of an actual contained nuclear munition (in a suitcase or whatever) the acquisition of an artillery-type nuclear warhead would be the ticket for terrorists—a sort of advanced starter kit. The smallest one the U.S. ever deployed in its arsenal was the M-45, which could be fired from a 155 mm cannon. It was 6.1 inches in diameter (caliber) and 34 inches long. It weighed up to 128 pounds. Remove the conical tip and fuse from one of those and you reduce the length enough to barely fit diagonally in the Soviet-sized suitcase.
But, hey, why not a larger suitcase? Or a crate, or a strong cardboard box? How about the trunk of a car? The possibilities for concealing or disguising a nuclear weapon are endless. Take a look, for instance, at one of those high-capacity air compressors you can buy in any Sears hardware department.
The big question is the shelf-life and availability of nuclear artillery shells. The U.S. shells are apparently accounted for and secure. Whether all the Soviet era mini-warheads can be accounted for is another story.
The shelf-life issue is important. If there is a nuclear munition or more than one out there, its condition could be in question. A nuclear weapon involves the melding of a variety of materials in close proximity—metals, plastics, ceramics, exotic high explosives and, of course plutonium and uranium. Things happen inside a nuclear weapon even when it is just sitting.
The plutonium core gives off quite a bit of heat. This will warm the other parts of the weapon up to as much as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Uranium rusts in much the same manner as steel when exposed to the air. And even though warheads are sealed in airtight metal containers, the materials inside—the explosives and plastic, for instance—give off trace amounts of oxygen, hydrogen and water vapor that can eventually cause oxidation and corrosion, both of which are abetted by the weapons intrinsic heat. The high explosives in the detonating lenses of a weapon also have been known to deteriorate.
So, unless the purloined (or purchased) warhead was regularly monitored and, if necessary, refurbished by experts it might become dangerously unstable or perhaps not work at all. Its conceivable that the conventional explosives might detonate incompletely and that the nuclear core might be scattered rather than being assembled to cause a nuclear explosion. Thus a dirty bomb incident, spreading radioactive material, would be the result.
Of course a nuclear weapon gives off a significant signature in the form of both gamma rays and neutrons. A huge effort is being made to employ a variety of gamma and neutron spectrometry devices at ports of entry and the perimeters of potential targets. But these devices (and more sophisticated ones are now being worked on at the national laboratories) are not foolproof. Distance, shielding of various types (tungsten, lead, steel of a given thickness) and the problem of false positives and false negatives are some of the challenges now being wrestled with by detection experts.
In the end, an atomic bomb in a suitcase is really just a metaphor, not only for the portability of nuclear weapons but for the new and ominous possibility of who might be carrying them. […] Those who now seek to terrorize the West and particularly the United States are hate-filled killers who have glorified suicide as a virtue and are bending every effort to secure and use the bomb, be it in a suitcase, a packing crate, a car or whatever will surreptitiously deliver it to target. If is not the question. Where and when are.
[My emphases]
If Bennett is to be believed, then, the idea that al Qaeda has been able to maintain forward deployed nukes inside the US since 1996 seems unlikely—though there are scenarios where one can imagine such a thing is possible.
However, the risk of something going wrong in the decade leading up to an attack that is itself contingent upon a US strike on Iran makes the scenario Mr Mir describes dubious.
Which doesn’t mean that new developments—perhaps only recently al Qaeda was able to get its hands on some sort of nuclear device, or locate and import someone with the expertise to monitor it or finish constructing it—haven’t contributed to Iran’s practically begging to have its nuclear program attacked by the US.
Stop the ACLU’s Stephenson makes the argument that what we need to take from this is a bipartisan concern over strengthening border security—a strong point, and one that, unfortunately, we are still discussing nearly 5 years after 911.
But what it also argues for is an end to Congress’ silly turf war with the Executive over the NSA surveillance program, which could very well be helping us piece together the location of such a device from a number of disparate pieces of information going back several years.
Does Arlen Specter really wish now to defund the program? And if so, do we know that he is even aware of stories such as those being spun by Mr Mir, Dr Williams, and others?
The point of all this being, perhaps it is time that we have a national discussion not only about what the appropriate US response should be to a nuclear attack within the US, but about what we should be willing to do to deter such an event—be it using back door threats delivered through diplomats, or a more public threat, one debated and considered by the electorate (at least as a means of preparing us) that places all those with potential ties to a nuclear attack against us on notice about what are response will be.
This latter, of course, runs the risk of leading to public outrage (see the Tancredo dustup, and the self-righteous grandstanding of a whole host of public servants who evidently are willing to sell off pragmatic strategic considerations for that momentary fillup of showy moral superiority), but—if placed in the proper context—could also just as easily galvanize national opinion and, in so doing, convince our enemies that we will in fact pull together enough to make it easier on the CinC to go through with such retaliatory strikes.
And this could be the very key to deterrence.
Thoughts?
****
related: The Indepundit
Another difference is the causal link. Unless I’m misunderstanding the Yankee Sailor, it seems like he wants to go after people that are responsible for terrorists having a bomb.
Or maybe he is just declaring, for some reason, that no matter who cause the bomb to come here, we are going to target pre-determined places. Perhaps they best fit into the current narrative of evil. Perhaps they best fit into the facts—ignoring the russian origin.
Which is an odd way to set up the incentives in your deterrence scheme: the people responsible know who will be punished for an event, and will calculate based on that. In whose advantage would nuked and innocent Teheran, Pyongyang and Islamabad, work?
A discussion with whom? Ourselves? I’m afraid a bipartisan discussion would be deflected to our bedwetting problem and the LIES LIES LIES of W.
We’re doomed.
Personally I’m all for making a open declaration to our lawmakers that; should a nuke go off in one or more American cities; and it can be reasonably shown that it could have been stopped by intelligence means THEY didn’t allow us to use, they should pay with their own lives, right on the Capitol steps. The danger that they are exposing the American people to is immense, and they seem to not really care that they are doing it. It’s all a power game to them…
Keep in mind, you’re trying to make reasoned arguments to an “intelligentsia” whose idea of “suitcase nukes” is shaped by 24 and Alias. Don’t expect too much.
You can even do it yourself.
I know, I know, I’m guilty as well. But this is an important topic, and early into the thread. Thusly:
Obligatory post: IGNORE ACTUS.
I will. Promise!
That is all.
I volunteer Washington, DC, as a free punch to the gut for al Qaeda, but only if actus becomes smores with it. Knock out DC with the WMFSCA and we write you a nasty letter, call it even.
Any other city, we kick-start the glass industry from N.Africa to Central Asia.
Stay Calm, America, all will be well…
Thanks a lot, Jeff, for leading me back to the Tancredo dust-up, during which many conservatives who condemned the remarks adopted a high, mighty and condescending (and, usually, fact-deficient) pose towards those conservatives who had no problem with the remarks. No I’m all PO’d again.
And, seriously, thanks for highlighting the Yankee Sailor post.
To me, Pandora’s Box (for this particular issue) was opened when the Soviets tested their first nuclear weapon. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.
Since the best “early warning system” that we have is under fire for partisan reasons, and border security remains problematical at best, deterrence becomes an essential element of our strategy.
The problem with deterrence, of course, is identifying the source of the attack. Nuclear weapons are not built without a lot of industrial and logisitical support. They are not easily transported (the “nuclear suitcase”, even if such exists, likely has its own problems). And funding is required.
In short, any cave complex in some remote mountain region of the world is not operating alone. Ultimately, terrorists with nukes have state support.
Given the world situation, there are only a few nations that have the moral depravity to give/sell nukes to terrorists. Iran and North Korea are obvious. Pakistan is less likely, IMHO, but not impossible. And let’s not forget Russia, which is already providing some material support to Iran; Putin sups with the devil gladly, it seems. China is a candidate, but down near the bottom (industrialization and capitalism may be calming down their revolutionary zeal. Somewhat).
The problem is that most of these nations, historically, have been know to sacrifice a portion of their population (against their will, or at least without asking) for a tactical or stragetic gain for the sake of the state. Not to mention the active recruitment of zealots who would die to kill a few innocents.
(For the pedantics: please note that I said “population”, not “citizens who volunteer to defend their nation”.)
In short, the “sanctity of life” is not universal, and is not an effective lever against these ghouls.
But deterrence means the enemy pays a price if they cross the line. What is valuable to these people?
Well, there is something to look at in that regards: industrial targets. No industry means no capital, means no military forces, and no economic clout.
Iran has oil; NoKo still has some factories, and stockpiles. Russia is heavily industrialized, as is China. Pakistan is problematical.
But the policy would be simple: Keep your nukes home. If you can’t, for each nuclear attack by terrorists in the United States, one industrial target in each nation gets nuked. 12 hours notice will be given to evacuate personnel.
That’s an extreme measure. But I’m sure that you get the idea.
But targeting industrial centers is less brutal and more effective than targeting poulation centers. The loss of life is still there, but lessened. And if the ghouls in charge start moving human shields into identified targets, oh well. They were warned.
The obvious countermeasure is to disperse industry. But that is easily said; doing it will take time and resources. The same is true for effective anti-ballistic missile systems. Neither is impossible, but not cheap.
In the end, the arms race would re-emerge. But we would buy time to solve major problems, in and of itself a significant victory.
Controversial? You betcha! But I place it on the table for discussion.
Personally, I expect the “when” to be in the future. I’m not convinced that AQ has the wherewithall to build and deploy nukes now. But I am convinced that they are trying….and will eventually succeed.
My only problem with a pre-determined list is that it opens you (I’m Canadian) to manipulation by third-parties with access to nukes who could benefit from the US starting three wars all at once. I’m thinking China but even Isreal, Russia or France, given the right circumstances, could decide that it was worth it for their own reasons if they knew they wouldn’t get caught.
I’m with Jeff when he says that no option should be taken off of the table but a pre-determined list might cause problems. Promising that “someone” is guarantied to eat a nuke might be a compromise.
TW: Don’t fall for actus’ trolling.
Ah, yes, Canadia; that and patriotism are the last refuges of scoundrels…
Heh, from a Michigander.
I believe in deterence.
Not the tit-for-tat kind, the real kind.
Nuke a US city, and watch us lose our minds.
The scumbags who contemplate causing mass casualties here must know that they risk losing everything. We should let it be known, though not necessarily publicly, that the reprisals will be widespread and cataclysmic.
You can be sure that the Chinese and Russians have toyed with the idea of helping some group or country get and use nukes against us, in order to focus our attention completely on the Muslim world while they undertake little projects of their own such as invading Taiwan or taking Eastern Europe back. This outcome would also make it easier for them to curry favor with the oil tyrants in the Mid East. And let’s not forget Chavez and his supporters to our south. Would an oil crisis, along with general war in the ME benefit thugs like that? Most certainly. And there are others who would be more than happy to see us involved in a nuclear exchange and regional war with somebody like Iran. I’m looking at you Jacque.
So, let it be known quietly, calmly, that if attacked, EVERYONE will lose something dear to them.
China? We get nuked, we arm Taiwan and Japan with nukes. And we take the ME oil fields.
Chavez? Castro? Fuck around with stuff like this, you get a quick chop to the larynx.
We must make sure that everyone knows that we will spread the misery far and wide so that no one can even think about doing something like this without knowing that they are committing suicide.
This is the same debate that Tancredo started months ago. At the time, I told several people who got up on the moral high horse that this type of threat was essential in order NOT to wind up really doing it. The idiots who ran around claiming to be horrified never really considered the possibility that we might really be faced with the choice of what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. For them, such a reality is completely unimaginable. The Clintons and their supporters are such people. They never really took terrorism seriously. They still don’t. This is childish, and it is costing us right now.
The adults realize that this is deadly serious stuff, and act accordingly.
TW – There are places all over the world which will get a lot more “level” if things go wrong.
There is another danger in making a threat known; in certain circumstances, we could take a nuclear hit and know definitively who did it and not respond in kind.
For instance, Russian or even American malcontents steal a nuclear weapon and destroy a city. We know who did it, how and why, but we need to keep quiet aout it and cannot act on it. (Who would we nuke? Moscow and end the world? For an American or European or even Japanese–Aum Shinrykyu–cell? Do we strike Tokyo, Portland, or Munich?).
The very nature of the threat from terrorist cells means that every crackpot group from white supremacists to Islamic supremacists to environmental whackjobs could offer fire and brimstone. Indeed, a group like Aum Shinrykyu, composed of lawyers and physicists in a Raelian-like cult, Russian ex-Spetsnatz (who were trained to nuke American cities) or white supremacists who might pull actual talent from elite military and law agencies (as opposed to Islamic groups who might be able to win adherents in jails, but not much elsewhere) are arguably better positioned to succeed with a complicated operation like deploying nukes.
Not acting adds insult to the injury of destroyed lives. Bluster compounds it. But if the unthinkable happens, nothing will put the fear of God into our enemies more than making the hard choices as a matter of conviction. And of course, thankfully, the US has made its policy to be first-strike since Jesus was a mess cook; anybody unloads on us, gets to surf the happy mushroom cloud.
Good point, Eric. I agree, this could be a means for a third party to start a war. That was a possibility during the Cold War as well, although more so in this case.
But we do need a defined response. Perhaps not a pre-defined target list, but someone needs to feel the crosshairs on their forehead.
TW: Don’t feed the trolls.
What a difference eight months (since Tancredo) and a blustery Iranian president make.
TW: history
Is there any reason why the US would not have “forward-deployed” suitcase nukes in any city of any size anywhere in the world, with a button sitting on GWB’s desk marked “Minsk” “Pinsk” or “Chelyabinsk”, not to mention Doha or Riyadh or Singapore or Beijing? We must have thousands of available devices. Does bin Laden really want to precipitate the one marked “Makkha”?
I’ve just spent some time in Paris. I tell you. If the Islamofascists get nasty on the Frogs, they’re going down. Hard.
There’s a reason there are no Muslims on Star Trek. It’s set in the future.
R
This one gets wingnuttiest award. So far.
This will happen, and worse. We were surprised 5 years ago, but if it happens again, the public will demand that heads literally roll. I pity the President or members of Congress who are holding their elected positions at this time. The People will be pissed.
I agree with others that Iran/AQ have the wherewithall to handle nuclear materials correctly, or even to build a bomb. I think we have enough time for now to play as many diplomatic cards as possible, maybe until at least Bush is out of office, while monitoring Iran and AQ. The concept of suitcase nukes is too James Bond to take seriously, and I doubt that a dirty bomb would shock the country like 9/11 did.
– So there you have it. The advanced guard, actus-ites, will deter, reflect, ponder, obscure, consider, doubt, equivacate, argue, invagle, and the net result of the mighty lefts pavarications will set the stage for the most likely senario in which, at some point, one of the myriad of Jihadist moron groups will slide, stumble, fall over some viable nucker devices and take out a sizable portion of one or more of our cities, at which point as a country we will lose it and return the favor at a level some 1000 times worse, and any idiotarian MF moonbat that opens their anti-American pieholes at that point had better have their insurance paid up, because a lot of people aren’t going to be in a “touchy”, “feely”, understanding mood.
I’m far more concerned about dirty bombs than actual nuclear explosives.
Anyone who could make a normal bomb could just add some radioactive waste/unrefined yellowcake/handfulls of depleted uranium they picked up in the Iraqi desert.
Then all you have to do is explode it in the centre of a city in such a way that everyone knows it was a radiological bomb. I suppose even a mass spamming announcing that the bomb will go off at 12:00 midday and saying how radioactive it was would work. Send announcements to all the radiostations and papers, including the independant and student ones. The word would spread.
Then you rent a penthouse in a tall tower in the city, bring up your heavy piano or something. And set the timer for 12:00.
Now it won’t work. I mean it won’t wipe out the city. Best case scenario is that people in the same building get killed by the blast and the actual radioactivity is harmless.
It will not matter.
The entire city will evacuate. Imagine New Orleans again, now make it a big important place. The evacuation caused far more destruction than the bomb. And government will overreact (of course) and if they try to suppress news and not react then people will do it privately and overreact to the news suppression. Other cities will evacuate too, especially if they get follow up warnings.
With a few hundred kg of yellowcake spread over the CBD, the EPA will close the whole city down until the place is declared safe, which will take months, or years, if ever.
City is destroyed.
Actoff is a Clintonite.
They don’t like thinking and behaving like adults. They see these God-awful savages and their works, and wonder “how will this help me discredit Bush?”.
They are not serious, grown-up people.
They’re the childish dolts that the rest of us are forced to drag along and protect.
They’re akin to children who need a crossing-guard to get across the street.
TW- Actoff “has” no clue what is coming.
Thats why we’re not sitting around and thinking just who is gonna get it and how and in what order, in response to the hypothetical nuclear blast. Because that’s what adults do.
Aren’t dirty bombs less threatening? From what I know, and I’m far from being an expert, is that their damage is very focused and the area is not left uninhabitable. Contrast that with a nuclear device, which causes more damage across a wider radius, and does leave the area uninhabitable for years, if not decades.
I’m open to learning more, though, if anyone has good info.
This one is hard to begin a comment about; the facets of everything from the changed dimension of both nuclear technology and the incentive to use it contrast so sharply with the usual sitepest masturbations even I’m at a significant loss as what to say.
Some basics:
-The ME nuke threat—at some significant level regardless of who and where—utterly changes the dynamics of war and defense. The only option is denial. They don’t fear—nay, they wish—annhilation.
-The sheer volume of potential available nukes on the market, coupled with the above, makes the summed threat exponentionally higher than during Castro or even USSR-era situations. The Russians cared, as did Castro; N Korea and the more civilized ME countries probably somewhat less so.
The terrorists simply do not, which is their ace as much as their flaw, a flaw they love. The line from “Local Hero” goes, we’re not dealing with our own kind, Mac.
-As usual, the 5th columnists simply don’t get it.
The Yankee Sailor post is perhaps the most comprehensive yet succinct, rational, objective, and important of any post on any political topic in the last number of years. This is the stuff of intelligence, not usual fodder for casual political bloggers. That fools like actus cannot objectively separate this new reality from their own self-important lunacy is only testament to the latter.
A little light fisking, just to show what I mean. Pardon my stooping to this level:
That would be the Pentagon’s denial doctrine, not a feature of any one given casual commentary. You can count on that and I’m somewhat shocked that even you didn’t make the distinction.
The first step isn’t the Bomb coming “here”. ‘Nuff said?
There is no “narrative.” This isn’t rhetorical. This evil is real and it’s clinical. Cold, hard, objective. When the preemption begins, it’ll be equally cool and businesslike. But with real results. There is no “narrative.”
You wish to convict, say, Winchester for the murder down the street? Origin somehow matters?
What part of denial don’t you understand?
Yours. Fool.
This isn’t nuanced “narrative.” There’s neither room nor time for it. This is all the marbles. The threat cannot be diffused, it cannot be negotiated away. It is indeed a question only of when.
You have seen the future. Do you have the will to survive it?
Or aren’t you—speaking only for yourself, sitepest, and never speaking for me and mine—worth that effort? Because that I get completely…
tw: Back to our regularly scheduled programming…
I never thought idiocy would rise to this.
Yes. Origin matters. Because people who give nukes to terrorists are bad. In the way that people that make firearms for sale to the general public are not.
</blockquote>Thats why we’re not sitting around and thinking just who is gonna get it and how and in what order, in response to the hypothetical nuclear blast. Because that’s what adults do.<blockquote>
A moment of clarity for Actholio!
Exactly right. That’s what adults do. What children do is whine and get in the way. They don’t know how to care for themselves in a world they don’t understand. So we hire crossing guards, cops, and soldiers.
Sleep tight children. Close your eyes and everything will be all right.
Wack off to megatons and brown people? Meccas and glass industries? yup.
Associate causes and effects—the entire universe of them—in a nuclear future, actus.
Associate motives, origins, profit incentives, what have you … with death. All of them. With your survival, as undeserving of it as you seem to be.
Can you?
You’re damn straight your idiocy has risen to this level; thank the adults for that. Nobody’s stroking anything about this. Your depth has never been exceeded as it has here today. not once.
That you’re a fool is bad enough. That you’re proud of it is incomprehensible.
“That’s what adults do.”
As opposed to playing silly political games that could cost the lives of one’s self and millions of otherwise innocent Americans.
And it’s “whack off”, not “wack off”.
After all the practice, one would think the spelling wouldn’t be such a challenge. Maybe it’s the typing one-handed that’s the problem.
TW- I wonder if Actlikeaman speaks in a “voice” that’s as whiney and Sheehan-like as his writing is.
Arrrggh. Yeah, I agree that terror is often done on the cheap, and dirty bombs, while not exceptionally lethal, can be excpetionally disruptive.
However, DU is called depleted precisely because its radioactivity has been substantially reduced. As an emission source it is pretty damn worthless – it’s toxicity profile is essentially similar to most any other heavy metal, i.e. ingestion of any signidficant amunt is not a good idea, but standing next to a six kilo block of it is not really gonna do much to your health.
There are many other substances, some even more reasily available, that would be more more problematic if dispersed by a dirty weapon. DU would be no more problematic than lead.
Gentlemen,
It’s Saturday night, and you’re arguing with actus. Need I say more?
Sometimes tough love is the only way to go.
Pablo-
Oh man, I thought nobody else was listening.
Busted.
Back to Confession next week.
TW- I feel “both” dirty and ashamed.
Yeah, guys, I even promised to IGNORE ACTUS, ‘cuz he’s such a troll.
Oh, I enjoy baiting the little twit now and then, but that’s just the nice guy in me, paying some ‘tenshun to the pathetic dude, what with him scurrying about the place, yappin’ and snappin’ and poopin’ and peein’, just like that mangy little shithead chihuahua next door.
But if you want a serious conversation, devoid of meaningless contrarian one-liners, one must ignore actus.
You’re scaring me dude. Let’s talk about lying strippers. Something I’m familiar with.
Patrick, your post is brimming with ignorance. The only practical way IMO to make a dirty bomb is a nuclear device with suitable transmutable elements incorporated into the design. Dangerous isotopes suitable to make a geographic location uninhabitable are simply too lethal for the bomb assemblers. Uranium in the form of yellowcake (or DU or undepleted U) is not one of those…period. A suitable quantity of plutonium would suffice but then you might as well go ahead and contruct a nuke.
Saddam didn’t have a nuclear weapon. If he’d had one he would have used it on US troops during the invasion of Iraq. It would have stopped the invasion cold. Why didn’t he have one? He wanted one. He had Al-Qaeda contacts. He had lots of Russian contacts. He had billions to spend. If Saddam wasn’t able to acquire a working nuclear weapon by 2003 then probably neither was Al-Qaeda or Iran. Probably. So is there already a terrorist nuclear weapon inside the US? Probably not.
The US response to the 9/11 attack should provide deterrence to other countries. We changed the governments of 2 countries, one of which wasn’t even “responsible” for the attack. Is that a sacrifice Iran’s corrupt mullahs want to make? A US nuclear response is not even necessary. The US could invade Iran, destroy the mullahs ability to control their population and capture a lot of the mullahs. As long as the US doesn’t stay to occupy the country, the casualties might even be less than in Iraq. If the Iranian civil war results in a new Islamic Republic then we can do the same thing again then. Invade, kill the government, leave and repeat. Nobody ever said it would be easy to stay the world’s only superpower.
OT, I am all in favor of baiting actus. Arguing with him though is like pounding dirt with a sledge hammer. When you’re done you have to wash the hammer and the dirt is still just dirt. It’s also not a pretty sight for us side walk superintendents.
klrfz1 and others—no, you mustn’t ignore actus, certainly not on these matters, but you haven’t quite got the point, yet.
actus is a (relatively) sane member of a very large group of people whose position on a nuclear attack against America is simple: we should immediately depose all Republicans with prejudice and install Democrats. To the meager extent to which they have thought through the consequences, it is their position that the result will be an immediate cessation of all attacks (because the reason for the attacks would then be gone) and happy happy joy joy for the entire world.
It therefore follows that any discussion of “what should we do about it” that does not focus on the mechanics of appointing the Democratic Party as a noble class of arbiters over our lives and fortunes, e.g. impeaching Bush as a start, is “whacking off over killing brown people”.
I personally don’t join these threads, or the Iran ones, because to a close first approximation I have given up. It’s gonna happen. One or another of the Islamist groups is going to bomb an American city; it’s as inevitable as sunrise, although the schedule is much less determinable. And we’re not going to do anything about it, at least not anything effective.
There’s no real way to predict just what the target will be, although I lean strongly toward New York because there are enormous numbers of people whose only notion of the United States is New York City and hinterlands. This is at least partially because many, if not most, other countries see themselves that way—in Mexico, for instance, Mexico City is the country and the rest of the territory is just supporting actors. But it’s mostly because most of the world buys in, at least partially, to the Socialist rhetoric that the whole problem is Capitalist Oppression and Imperialism, and despite its excellent to marvelous moonbat credentials New York City is the home and center of that. It’s the reason the WTC was the original target.
During the Viet Nam war we used to joke, bitterly, that no enemy would bomb DC, because it would remove the circle-jerk bureaucracy that was the main limiting factor on our military effectiveness. It isn’t a joke any more. The Islamists might go after the Pentagon as a symbolic gesture, but they know who their allies are. Capitol Hill will be sacrosanct.
The one ray of sunshine in the whole thing is that I’ll be fine unless I’m on a business trip. The Islamists aren’t going to bomb pig farms in Iowa. Us Red Staters will be fine, except for those of us stupid and brave enough to go into the aftermath and try to rescue the people whose idiocy led to this. They’re going to go after population centers and spectacular death scenes, and all of those have one thing in common: they’re moonbat strongholds. West of Route 128, Massachusetts is actually a pretty reasonable place, politically. West and North of the City itself, New York is the same. A couple of suitcase nukes in the most likely places would immediately generate a clear Red State majority just by removing a substantial population of actuses (acti?)
The trouble there is that many of the Islamists are educated here and know what goes on. It’s entirely possible that they currently have nukes and have not yet exploded them strictly on the grounds that it would remove their allies and leave their enemies intact. actus is defending his country. How about that?
But as the Islamist attitude becomes more prevalent and virulent, all bets are off. Eventually people who do not put that sort of thing into their calculations will achieve power in the Movement, at least partially because our undercover actions are taking out the currently active (and much better informed) ones. At that point NYC is toast.
Worst comes to worst, I’ll still be fine. I’m a Christian, though actus will no doubt point out that my attitude makes me a rather defective one, and he’ll be right. Nevertheless, if it starts looking like that I can start attending church again. That makes me a People of the Book, eligible to convert to Islam and join the fun.
I can hardly wait.
Regards,
Ric
The operational problem with “extremly forward deployed” nuclear weapons is that they’re a huge risk that a state actor with second-strike capability doesn’t need. The only advantage over hardened ICBM silos and hidden SSBNs is that the warning goes from 45 minutes to nothing if they don’t find the hidden weapon. And if they find the weapon, they can reverse engineer it or start one massive diplomatic uproar.
The big risk factor with suitcase nukes is there is a bigger chance of it being discovered because it is out of your direct control. Your shipper has to be trustworthy, because he can make a pile of money by ratting you out. If he’s too trustworthy, there’s a chance he’s known, which causes intelligence and security agencies to keep a closer eye on him. Likewise, you need to have a way of keeping tabs on your agent once he’s in country with the weapon, but if you keep in touch with him too much it can raise the suspicions of the security agencies. The risk only increases if you have multiple weapons, because one accidental discovery might not stop you entirely, but it will point a finger at the culprit, and no one is likely to take that sort of provocation lying down.
Ric—I don’t disagree with your analysis. I made much the same point in my first post on this thread, although I do have some hope that the attack will be delayed long enough to deal some other major problems that we have.
I just want to point out (elaborate?) on the ”IGNORE ACTUS” meme.
He’s a troll that diverts the thread for whatever reason; you can tell this when the thread centers around comments made by actus; he’s taken charge of the thread. Rarely, and usually at random, actus makes an intelligent comment that might be related to the topic. In this sense, actus needs to ignored.
OTOH, as you rightly point out, actus serves as a counterpoint to the discussions here. He’s a good example of the large segment of the nation that refuses to accept the fact that we live in a world where problems can’t be solved by a good group hug every morning.
In the past, I’ve called for the ban of actus. I hereby retract that request, and suggest a new warning to be posted whenever actus pops up:
That is all.
I wouldn’t worry at all about any Suitcase Bomb.
As a person who has built and maintained nukes I can assure you that without the proper remachining of the fissionable material there is no way for it to achieve the proper mass. Nukes break down quickly. Any warhead more than a year out of the machine shop is suspect and a suitcase nuke that is decades old is shit. This isn’t turning disc brakes stuff. The geometry and fit has to be precise within a few ten-thousandths of an inch. You can’t just throw these things up on a lathe and start turning them either, unless you have a total death wish. It takes bunkered and shielded facilities on the state level to do it right. Then there’s the shavings. They are so hot they can be spotted from outer space if they’re not contained in a shielded bunker. Suitcase nukes are practically impossible to hide and you can’t just go packing one around without exposure and death.
It could start a VERY NASTY fire though.
The phrase “suitcase nuke” appears to be just a convenient (and evocative) label, applied to any nuclear warhead that would be delivered by other than an airborne platform (i.e., missile or aircraft). Incorrect, but convenient.
Given the transportation infrastructure that supports international trade, a rogue nuclear warhead need not fit into a suitcase, or even a trunk.
Ric, JeffS,
I disagree with you both re:actus. It isn’t that he’s insane or hyper-competent. He is not. He is a dishonest moron. He ignores huge swaths of facts, parses things just right and contradicts himself with every third word of his six-word ‘zingers’.
For instance on this topic of deterrance; deterrance requires a countervailing threat for it to work. That’s bare minimum theory, 2 + 2 = 4, F = ma and doesn’t include any realworld friction. You kill someone, you die. Fairly simple, yes non?
And, of course, the actus-idiot is against deterrance even in theory. We lose a city, and we’ll…hmmm…blue-ribbon panel…independant counsel…hmmmm. He’s against the very structure of deterrance, in which case we must go to preemption or unrequited slaughter. There is nothing moral about that, its the lesser sin that begs for the greater.
Actus is a hat-trick; woefully stupid, dishonest, and functionally brutal. Make fun of him. Lend me his IP address so I can order 10,000,000 pizzas to his house and sign him up for a NAMBLA sponsorship, amongst other goodies.
What I said goes for any nuclear device. Without maintainence, it’s a dud.
I disagree.
Hmmmm.
1. Maintaining nukes has to be difficult but, all things considered, there has to be thousands of individuals trained to do so, particularly Russian, available on the employment market. You only need a few to do the job.
2. I rather doubt anybody still has working suitcase nukes. *shrug* what would be the point?
3. It’s entirely possible that Iran has gotten ahold of Soviet nuclear artillery shells. Even if the shells are no longer working, the Iranians could learn a great deal from analysing the internals of it.
4. Is it possible that the Iranians already have the nuclear weapon technology but are still stumbling through the enrichment process in order to fuel the weapons?
5. What if Iran has working nuclear weapons, from the Ukraine perhaps, but is continuing this charade of attaining nuclear weapons as a maskirovika?
Once Iran is known to have nuclear weapons then any nuclear attack on America could be traced back to Iran. But if Iran is still “working” on getting nukes then a nuclear attack on America would be hard to pin on Iran.
6. A proportional response to a nuclear attack is a loser’s game and anyone who either plays it or advocates it is a fool.
good point
No argument, Verc. I merely want to use him as an example, sort of like telling the children, “That’s a dog turd. Don’t play with it.”
Making fun of him is gravy.
I was going to post, but it ran into great length and I do not want to highjack the discussion. So copied it elsewhere and leave things be here.
Thank you for doing a service for us all, Mr. Goldstein.
Which does raise the point that we have quite a bit more in this argument than you flyover country folks. But you’re going to save us city folks from the brown people and the gay people. I know. Thanklessly too.
Oh? Well, it’s called sacrifice, actus. Either give up the mocha-mocha-latte or kneel before the modern-day Aztecs…
Please, sir, keep up the chicken-dove theme…I am laughing my ass off at you sissy girls.
The facilities needed are their problem and no, there are not thousands of qualified individals.
This isn’t something you do in any old machine shop because just a few minutes of exposure and you’re roasted. That goes for #3 too, reverse engineering a nuclear artillery shell.
Iran has the capabilities and know how thanks to the ChiComs and Abdul Qadeer (A. Q.) Khan. This has been going on since at least 1988 and we know for sure that Lybia has the plans for a very advanced device. Chinese plans.
Here is the straight dope.
guinsPen
I welcome your disagreement. That’s what Jeff’s blog is for. We will just have to agree to disagree because I have absolutely nothing to go on but a gut feeling. But if you could see the size of my gut …
Ric Locke, I think actus and most of the leftie trolls are self refuting. I enjoy ridiculing them. Please let me have this simple pleasure.
ed, #5 if Iran has Ukrainian nuclear weapons, why didn’t Saddam? I agree completely on #6, the strategy should be to defeat the enemy, not to have some tit for tat nuclear exchange.
actus, you’re not reading this thread, are you? Tee hee, we can ridicule you mercilessly now! Here’s the link. Thanks Beto.
I know. Its not easy to live in a target city and get lectured about how patridiotic we ought to be. We do our part though, and help the rest feel better about themselves. We ship out I (heart) NY bumper stickers, so those who don’t really like smelly subways full of hipsters, transvestites and welfare mothers can do their part.
I know how you feel, actus. My buddy was in Somalia helping feed the poor, valiant black folk who, of no fault of their own, ran into hard times. Seems Amerikkka was oppressing them through the shadow Likud government.
We can’t have THAT now can we? Of course not. So the US went out and my friend went to Somalia so everyone could just feel peachy.
Oddly enough, one band seemed to take MORE than their share. Well, that is not cricket as they say, and things went downhill from there. Something about a obsidian bird, hmmm, a Black Hawk, oh, I can’t remember…
But, hey, I know exactly how you feel to put your life on the line in the abstract when some, decidely Red, guys do so everyday in the concrete and real. But cheerio, moron.
Oh. My life isn’t so on the line. Others tell me it is, due to the brown bomb, but Its easier to let their self-importance slide than to argue it.
Get an I Heart NY sticker for free from
[url=”http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/f/free2″]
StickerGiant.com[/url] in Colorado. Will there anything else, Sir?
tw:post
Wow. Well. You know, actus, I’ve already christened, ahem, mohammedized you as the World’s-Most-Fucking-Stupidest-Commenter. There isn’t much higher (lower?) an honor than that, sweetness. Just stop bucking for promotion when you are already behind.
For some of us, it’s only a dream. Never to be. Never to be(sobbing).
Beta, with competition this dominating, I don’t think we shall see the torch pass in my lifetime.
And you’ve also told me you volunteer DC as a punch in the gut to al-qaeda. But you’re still going to cry a silent manly tear when you watch Flight 93. There’s not much left to say right?
actus, I only stipulated DC IF somehow they could guarantee you would go out with it. That’s a guarantee; if UBL cannot put it into writing and no way, Jose.
Besides DC is just full of libruls and brown folk anyways. Bunch of ingrates, all of them.
[tear]
I’m here most of the time. Don’t have a car so don’t really leave town. I’m not too far from the white house or the pentagon. At least not as far as megatons of nuke are concerned.
Yes, actus, but we are only talking about fifty kiloton warheads here, if that. Maybe just ten…
I still need that guarantee. No deal.
A 10 on the white house would just about do. But I hope the war on terror isn’t IE only.
No sweat, asshole; we’re used to you jerking off on normal humanity’s instinctive reason-based resistance to your insanity fifteen times a day.
Practice makes
perfectself-loathing!I see there are some bad tempers here due to sexual frustration.
One has to keep in mind that if you do not have a partner currently, you absolutly must stop eating those cashews.
Cashews are known for building certain urgencies to intolerable levels, thus ensuring snappy bouts of impulse and temper.
Now you know.
To reduce the *terror in a suitcase* to the basics one has to keep in mind the poisons that nuclear detonations unleash.
Often a topic among tech types in the 50s & 60s..[my dad et all], was the possibility of an ongoing nuclear chain-reation. If, by some fluke that did occur, we would all be off to Red Lobster Land.
A possibility today as it was then. Not the ideal way to end concearns for global warming, once and for all.
Any tossing of Nukes spells suicide in any case. People are still dying early because of Chernobyl, and that was only a leak, not a bomb. A puff maybe, but no mushroom boom.
Our Hi-Tech conventional accuracy is so good now, we can take out *MadMaud Almondjeans* underground concentraters with no problem at all.
One thing different from Hiroshima however.
We have to give Iranian citizens 6 days fair notice to get well out of the target zone. No way that *MadMud can move his underground set up in six days.
And, we have no need to use Nukes, remember?
No need to kill Iranians. They are 75% western in dress and work ethic. They just got hi-jacked out of a fair election by *MadMud* and his gang of clerics.
Our beef is with *Almonjeans* and his mullahs, not with ordinary Iranian folks, who while fiercly national, never want to return to schooling by rote and women in gunny sacks.
TG
<objective, and important of any post on any political topic in the last number of years. This is the stuff of intelligence, not usual fodder for casual political bloggers.</blockquote>
Oooh! I can feel my head getting bigger. Seriously, though thanks for the good word. By the way, I’ve been tracking some of the issues raised here and should post on them before the end of the week.
Hmmm…”brilliant thinker”…yet…not so good with computers.
No problem Actus. You see, I’m not one of these pansy “People of the Book” who believe in the fundamental sanctity of life. I’m an old-fashioned pagan, and back in the day, pagan kings would often sacrifice themselves if they brought bad fortune to their people through their rule (or misrule). If they didn’t do it voluntarily, they were…”helped”. I’m more than willing to assist or leaders in following the example of those kings, for the good of the tribe.