Skip to comments.Defcon one... and rising
Posted on 01/04/2006 9:00:29 AM PST by pickrell
By their efforts and threats, the Iranian power structure has effectively stripped themselves of the most effective guarantees that their children will live to see tomorrow.
During any conflict, while opposing forces are prepped and equipped, the final trigger for conflict is tripped according to the graveness of the forces assembled in opposition. A mature and restrained father might turn the other cheek when a drunken or otherwise mentally incapacitated antagonist throws a glancing blow, because the father knows that the only damage done, and likely to recur, is insufficient to justify beating the drunk into submission or worse. And this restraint a father can afford, because his children's lives are not held in the balance. But a far different reaction will occur when the drunk approaches the children at play in their back yard, hurling imprecations about the grievous harm he intends to inflict on the children. Coupling this with the time the drunk has spent publically waving a new baseball bat around, and threatening great bodily harm, most likely will extinguish all remaining options. In such a case, the result could quite well be the death of the man, with many a modern jury unwilling to convict. Defense of children equals carte blanche on the father's actions.
During the cold war, the launch status of the U.S. nuclear arsenal varied according to the threat level, from launch-on-impact, when we felt it possible, to launch-on-warning, when we felt the threat had risen to that level. Fortunately for the Soviets and the entire world, we never quite reached the dark Armageddon of launch-on-threat. Much of the world, however, had no clue as to the complexities of the calculations involved.
A country under threat, which has sufficient room to disperse its weaponry around a 3 million square mile territory, and which can harden the launch areas against first strike by the enemy, can afford the luxury of delay, in order to avoid catastrophic mistake. It will not launch on threat, and perhaps not even launch on warning, realizing that computer systems and radar have given false indications of attack in our own past, but rather will steadfastly assure any who would think to annihilate it in a quick "Pearl Harbor" strike, that it has the survivability, the weaponry, and the gravest certainty to respond with overwhelming destruction to the aggressor, up to and including the capability of annihilation of it's entire civilian population.
This we could do because of the advantage we enjoyed by being many thousands of miles away from our enemies, and having the time and survivability to do so. This we could also do because we faced an adversary in the Soviet Union, irrespective of their brutality, nonetheless composed of fathers with their own children.
Israel has none of these advantages, being barely a few minutes from annihilation by missile attack, being small enough to literally allow a nuclear-armed Iran to wipe it from the survivable habitat of the earth, and by the disadvantage of lack of survivability of it's retaliatory systems. The most chilling disadvantage to the Israelis, is the known quantity of the Arabs actually strapping bombs onto their children and cheering as they immolated themselves. Distance, time, rationality... all missing from the Middle East. These quantities which served recently to enable avoidance of absolute destruction in the rest of the world, even to the extent of enabling India and Pakistan the time to realize the utter uselessness of the weaponry they so expensively acquired, and to back away from the brink... Do Not Exist in the Middle Eastern conflict.
In a nuclear strike on a country in such a situation, every strategist knows that it is "use them or lose them". Even submarine-borne missile systems have vulnerabilities, such as communications, authorization and exposure during launch phase. A delay of seconds means the death of an entire country and virtually all of its children, without cost to the aggressor.
What the world seems to forget is that trading the death of your entire race for the retaliatory incineration of the enemy may not be acceptable to fathers. Fathers will not wait until their children have been beaten to death by the drunk.. or vaporized by the mad clerics. And fathers have their fingers on the launch triggers. By striking first, the Israelis will have to trade total annihilation for trade embargo and U.N. sanctioned disapproval.
Guess how much hesitation the Iranians have bought for themselves, in their collossal stupidity? Those persians who wish for a life for their grandchildren may have only days to throw down the theocracy in their country and avoid immolation. The real ballot will be the actions of those who don't relish the coming return of the 12th Imam, and the end of their world. They have the first veto. The Israelis have the second. And we have the third.
The Europeans have chosen to avoid understanding the grave consequences of their business dealings with Iran. Either through ignorance or distance from a receding memory of the realities of the cold war, they have assumed that Israel will have to "do something" about Iran, and that afterwards the Arabs will be mollified by the stern reaction of the fearless Europeans to the Israeli action. Therefore, no harm comes from selling nuclear related tolling to madmen. Like a lynch mob steeling itself in a tavern to drink away the consequences of what they are about to do, and have already done, they assume that if handled properly, the Israeli children down the block are the only ones at risk, and after all- they're only jews.
Much like Clinton's reaction to the bombing of the Cole and other attacks on the U.S.military over a number of years- that of "Fortunately no people were hurt- only soldiers"-, the Europeans hope to avoid any risk, by threatening the Iranians with escalating negotiation, while privately praying for the Israelis to act. What they fail to understand is that the reaction of the Israelis will likely be more horrific that even Europeans can stomach.
The geography and fanaticism of the Middle East, have always precluded launch-on-impact and even launch-on-warning. The recent insanity of the Iranians is inching towards the precipice of launch-on-threat, and the results of 200 or more Israeli nuclear weapons being unleashed will have consequences unimaginable by Americans and Frenchmen busily exposing our most secret intelligence operations in the world media, and announcing to the press that, in Murtha's words, "no one should join the military now."
George Bush's gamble that "rather than kill all of them, we might be able to turn them towards democracy and co-existence", like we mastered in the cold war until the Soviets finally collapsed, might even have worked. It was the wisest, most compassionate, and least destructive gamble we have taken since the Marshall Plan rebuilt post-WW2 europe.
Who knows what the outcome might have been if the treachery of the liberals had not been so effective? Who knows how many deaths might have been avoided? No matter the outcome, over 2000 Americans and many others including Iraqis, gave their lives on the gamble that millions of children might live. Their nobility will live forever.
There are even threads of hope that it could still work and prevent tens of millions of incinerations across the globe.
But those threads have been so efficiently unraveled by treacherous Democrats who think themselves insulated from the harm they wreak, that the point of no return may even now be past.
The Iranians, and any others who threaten us need understand...
When you attack our homeland, you will re-awaken Yamamoto's nightmare. This sleeping giant that you mistake for weakness, will probably suffer body blows such as we have never known before, and are insulated from now, being a country suffering under a leftist controlled press. You may deliver weapons into the hands of terrorists, or make the mistake of leaving a return address on your launch. And as such, we will suffer hundreds of thousands, or even a few millions of deaths.
And then, the John Murthas and the John Kerrys and the Cindy Sheehans will be swept away in shame. And we will be forced to do that which we hoped, spent treasure on, and suffered Marine deaths, to somehow avoid.
We will annihilate you. And we will leave the Democrats, who thought to ally themselves in an unholy marriage of convenience to you, to explain to the world why they made that necessary.
That is, if the Israelis are not forced to do the same first.
For those who scoff that a hundred million deaths is a preposterous fear-mongering advanced by the worst of chicken-littles- read what was predicted to result from the worlds' inaction in 1932 when Japan invaded Manchuria, and a scant few years later when the Germans re-occupied the Rhineland.
A hundred million? "Yeah..., " smirk those who weren't even born yet, "we can spare that many... if it brings George Bush down...."
I don't ythink it is a quote. It is a paraphrase of many MSM and liberal pronouncements after such incidents..."
Thanks, Arthurus. It is a paraphrase that many have observed.
MonstersAndCritics.com (DEUTSCHE PRESSE-AGENTUR): Hamburg - "GERMAN INTELLIGENCE WARNS THAT IRAN HAS NEW MISSILES" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "German intelligence believes Iran has now bought 18 longer-range missiles from North Korea, giving Teheran the capability to attack targets in central Europe, the German daily newspaper Bild reported Friday. The study by the foreign intelligence service BND said the BM-25 missiles were being purchased from Pyongyang in the form of kit sets. The mobile missiles, which are based on the Russian SS-N-6 missile for submarine launch, will have a nominal range of 2,500 kilometres. However it was possible to upgrade them to hit targets 3,500 kilometres away, the Munich-based BND said. Iran already has Shehab-3 missiles with a range of 1,300 kilometres.") (Read More...) (December 16, 2005)
FOX NEWS.com (AP): Moscow - "RUSSIA AGREES TO $1 BILLION ARMS DEAL WITH IRAN" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Russia has agreed to sell more than $1 billion worth of missiles and other defense systems to Iran, Russian news media reported Friday, a move expected to draw a heated reaction from the United States." (December 2, 2005) (Read More...)
A Discussion on FREEREPUBLIC.com regarding a NOVEMBER 28, 2005 COMPASS article: "IRAN'S PRESIDENT: 'I WILL STOP CHRISTIANITY IN THIS COUNTRY' Secret police crackdown results in the torture of 10 other Christians" (November 30, 2005) (Read More...)
JIHAD WATCH.org (ASIA TIMES): "Ahmadinejad off the deep end: 'I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible'" (October 27, 2005) (Read More...)
WASHINGTON TIMES.com: Ramallah, West Bank - "IRAN LEADER PREDICTS ISRAEL'S DEMISE" by Joshua Mitnick (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday predicted a wave of Palestinian attacks that would erase Israel "from the face of the Islamic world," just hours before a suicide bomber killed five Israelis in a marketplace.") (October 27, 2005) (Read More...)
MEMRI.org - Special Dispatch Series - No. 1018: "IRANIAN ANIMATED FILM FOR CHILDREN PROMOTES SUICIDE ATTACKS" (SNIPPET: "The following are excerpts from an Iranian animated movie for children, which aired on IRIB 3 TV on October 28, 2005, at 8 a.m. Iran time. To view this clip visit: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=906 ") (November 3, 2005) (Read More...)
MEMRI.org - Special Dispatch Series - No. 929: "Al-Arabiya TV Report: Iranian Volunteer Suicide Bomber Organization of 40,000 'Time Bombs; Recruited to Target Americans in Iraq and Israel" (July 6, 2005) (Read More...)
MEMRI TV.org - Transcript - Clip No. 736: "ON THE IRANIAN MOVEMENT OF 'MARTYRDOM SEEKERS'" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "TRANSCRIPT SNIPPET: "The following are excerpts from a report about the movement of "martyrdom seekers" in Iran. Al-Arabiya TV aired this report on July 2, 2005.) (Read More...)
We could argue forever about the survivability of bombers that are a few minutes missile flight from an enemy. The Syrians put great faith in their air force in the sixties, until the Israelis wiped it out in an afternoon.
You see, it takes time to load ordnance, fuel, start engines, etc. I spent a few years on a TAC base, and I can tell you that nuclear deterrence by bombers are a tongue-in-cheek proposition at best, unless the bombers' mission is scheduled 2 to 4 hours ahead of time.
But this argument misses the point. Would you accept the annihilation of your entire family and nation, for the possible or even likely retaliation to be dealt out later? Would it then matter?
We ask the Israelis to suffer inhuman losses, then punish them with intervention once they begin to win. Will we say, "Well, let's let them first nuke a few U.S. cities, kill a few million of us, perhaps even my entire bloodline, and then let's dispassionately decide on legally acceptable retaliation that the ACLU might agree to."
It may well be that you would- I take no issue with your values or beliefs-but I admit that I will not be satisfied that we use Marquis of Queensbury rules, and let them hit us first.
When the kids are threatened, the gloves come off.
No no, I'm all for Israel taking any action necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I merely pointed out the impossibility of Israel's enemies being able to destroy the whole of their (triangulated) nuclear force during a first strike.
I wondered, too. I knew that Clinton was an idiot, but if true, this is beyond the pale...
You are right, of course, about that. Now Israel will need to win the same psychological battle that we in the U.S. face, and somehow convince the Iranians that their personal and familial survival is being unavoidably lost, by their persistence in this nuclear adventure that they seem obsessed with. A wise Israeli might also point out that a muslim who is imbedded as a few specks of dust, in a large Iranian crater of glass, is much less likely to fulfill his dream of spreading the word of the dark ones.
Yet, if certain Israelis in their cabinet announce to the world media that the Prime Minister is too dumb to float, that resisting terrorism is a "mistake", that only on their knees can they hope to survive, then they will provide just the wisp of assurance the Iranians need that they can "win" the nuclear exchange, with the survival of at least some of their population... especially the "important ones", like the families of the clerics.
The opposition had better think less about political points... and more about the immediate survival of the nation, in the days and hours ahead.
Perhaps we in the U.S. may learn from them... one way or the other.
Thanks for the exchange of thoughts!
"You are right. You can never be 100% accurate about anyones intentions so you have to interpret the actions and what they mean and what will be the consequences. All we have is history to go by. The Soviets in the beginning of the Cold War did not act rational. I feel after WWII till close to the late 50s the Soviets felt that the West didn't have the stomach nor will for conflict. Kennedy seemed to call the Soviets bluff during the Cuban Missile Crisis or kick them back to reality. Suddenly after that nuclear test ban and other nuke treaties were started. The Western world has not pushed back at all Iran since their revolution in the late 70's. I don't see Iran backing down. This last offer by the Russians looked to be a group idea. It seems that the West was getting anxious about what Iran was doing and saying and came up with the idea of calling Iran's hand. Basically if Iran is so into getting nuke technology for electric power then the Russians can do part of the process and you can still benefit. Now one can say that Iran just want it's own "nuclear independence" like the many other nations. The only problem is Iran has lost the privilege due to it's actions in the past. I always ask anyone who brings this subject up "Are you willing to let Iran have a nuclear weapon?" Plain and simple. I never hear anyone say a clear and definite "Yes." "
Speaking of the Soviets, the Russians are selling everything to everyone these days with zero global responsibility. Like all civilizations, they still want to be on top. Draining our resources on conflicts which Russia arms helps acheieve that goal, or so they seem to think. They are playing the worst possible scenerio by emboldening the mullahs. This ongoing strategy of arming our adversaries (we gave up on that after the Soviet Afghan invasion) will backfire on them and have severe consequences. I almost feel that we should do what Kennedy did and play chicken with them again by arming a Russian adversary but our ally with nuclear technology to develop a weapons program. Chechnya would be on equel level and perfect if Al Queda had not infltrated the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.