Posted on 04/27/2008 5:35:51 AM PDT by knighthawk
One of the most terrifying possibilities the world faces is that al-Qa'eda, or some other Islamist group, gets hold of a nuclear bomb. Islamist terrorists are certainly trying to obtain one: Osama bin Laden has issued a document entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam", which insists it is "the duty" of Muslims to acquire a nuclear bomb in order to use "as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God".
The Foreign Office's senior counter-terrorist official has "no doubt at all" that Islamist terrorists are actively seeking a nuclear device. "There are people" he adds dryly, "for whom exploding a nuclear bomb in a city would be a triumph for the cause."
A 10 kiloton nuclear bomb would be a relatively small one by today's standards, but a 10 kiloton explosion in a city would mean that, from the centre of the blast for a distance of one third of a mile, every structure above ground level would be obliterated and every person would be killed instantly.
For the next third of a mile, the city would look like the weird moonscape which Berlin had become by the end of World War Two, after almost a year of Allied bombing raids.
And for a third of mile beyond that circle of hell, buildings and people would burn, both with flames and the effects of radiation.
To consider that outcome is to realise that it must be prevented. But how? Deterrence - the threat that if you detonate a nuclear bomb in our country, we will retaliate in kind on yours - has so far prevented nuclear war between nations. The only time nuclear bombs have been used, it was against a country without the capacity to retaliate.
Deterrence, however, depends on your enemy having cities and a population that can be threatened with obliteration.
The problem is that terrorist organisations have neither. They are simply groups of individuals with no responsibility for, and no control over, a state or its population.
Deterrence breaks down as a consequence. If they could get hold of a nuclear bomb, Islamist terrorists would have every incentive to use it to cause as much destruction as possible in an "enemy" country such as Britain or America - and there's no threat we can brandish to stop them.
Which means that the over-arching aim of the civilised world must be to ensure that they cannot get hold of a nuclear bomb, because that is the only way we can protect ourselves against nuclear terrorism.
The most powerful argument against allowing nuclear proliferation is that the more countries that have the bomb, the more likely it is that one will end up in the hands of terrorists.
Nuclear bombs are still, mercifully, beyond the capacity of terrorist groups to engineer for themselves: a terrorist organisation would have to get one from a government.
When the governments trying to acquire the technology for making nuclear bombs are known to train and supply Islamist terrorist groups - as Syria and Iran, for example, certainly do - the importance of preventing them obtaining the capacity to make such bombs is overwhelming.
That is why the Israelis destroyed Syria's "not for peaceful means" nuclear facility last September, and why the rest of the world acquiesced in the destruction, which broke international law and had no United Nations resolution.
It is also why the US continues to send signals to Iran that it will not oppose, indeed might even join in, any attempt by Israel to hit Iran's fledgling nuclear facilities: sending precisely that signal must have been at least part of the point of last week's very public announcement that the Israeli raid on Syria's putative nuclear bomb factory had been successful.
Governments can perhaps be deterred from leaking nuclear weapons to terrorist groups by the thought of what the Americans would do to them if there were a nuclear explosion in an American city and the construction of the fatal bomb could be traced back to, say, Iran or Syria.
The Americans have not been shy about letting those governments know what would happen. As one US official put it to me: "We would totally obliterate the country responsible" - a phrase echoed by Hillary Clinton when she said the US would "totally obliterate" Iran if that country was responsible for a nuclear attack even on Israel, never mind America.
Governments, however, are not always able to control all their members. Some members of the Iranian administration might not be deterred by the prospect of nuclear armageddon (indeed, some seem to welcome it). Which means that the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists it to keep them out of the hands of national governments who might give them to terrorists.
If Iran builds a nuclear bomb factory, you can be sure that Israel will try to destroy it. You can also be sure that, when it happens, the rest of the world will not object.
Ping
What I’ve said all along - Israel is the solution where an Iranian nuke is concerned. Does anyone think Israel will just stand by and let a madman bent on their annihilation acquire nukes? Didn’t think so.
What if the weapon was constructed from a hodgepodge of “stolen” devices... and no sole signature is apparent? Further... that the theft of these “devices” is made public well in advance of the nuclear event?
So, preemptively attacking a country that has not attacked anyone is now OK with the Left?
Hmmm .... North Korea is closer to nuclear bomb production than Iran, and every bit as irresponsible’ they even ALREADY have missiles that can reach the US, unlike Iran.
So I guess the author is really calling for an attack on North Korea .... clearly its bomb-threat must be eliminated now, for the safety of our cities ...
> So, preemptively attacking a country that has not attacked anyone is now OK with the Left?
A city doesn’t necessarily need be the target.
The nuke refining facilities are out in the boonies.
A small nuke there would be fine. Casualties kept to a minimum and the world learns that we will use a nuke if provoked. We haven’t used a nuke since 1945, nobody believes that we ever will. So, threatening to retaliate is not a threat.
Uh...the author is British. The Telegraph is published in the UK.
The Taepo Dong 2 can’t reach the UK.
North Korea is a bad actor to be sure, but they haven’t done anything close to what Iran has done in terms of sponsoring Jihadist terrorist groups for decades.
Attacking a person who is threatening someone else with death is not a “preemptive” attack. Other than Obama and Jimmah Carter, everyone left and right agrees that force needs to be used to prevent Iran from developing nukes. If we wait until they actually have them, it will be too late.
My comment was directed at people on the Left who hated Bush more than than they hated the necessity to protect the country from what at the time was considered to be an obvious threat. Indeed, even today, the Left (as well as Ron Paul) utter complaints about attacking Iraq, even though Iraq had not attacked us.
Yes, because we are going to be at overt war with Iran (we're already in a covert war that they started) sometime in the future. The longer we put it off the less our chances of succeeding without a more massive loss of life and the more time they have benefits those mad mullah mass murderers who want to murder more with atomic weapons.
Plus, we'd have the covert backing of most of the Middle East because they're all scared of what will happen when Iran gets the atomic bomb.
War is going to happen unless the Iranian people can overthrow their government and return to peaceful ways and that doesn't look likely since the people seem pretty powerless.
The other gulf states don't look like they're going to take care of the Iranian problem. Now, they might be able to stir up a lot more trouble in Khuzestan (oil rich province) which is trying to break away from the rest of Iran and return to or become an Arab country. Al-Ahwaz is one of the main groups and frankly, I don't think Iran or Khuzestan would be in better condition in their hands. They seem terroristic and claimed at least some of the bombings in Ahwaz.
It's up to us and/or Israel because Iran is as real and viable a danger to us and the Israelis as it is to it's neighbors in the region.
Don't you study your Machiavelli and Roman military history?
War shouldn't be entered into lightly but it shouldn't be feared or avoided either since it's going to happen sooner or later. Better sooner while we are the stronger force. And believe it or not, the West and the United States are primarily forces for good.
To: Mount Athos
So, a preemptive strike on a country that has not attacked anyone is now ok?
2 posted on 4/27/2008 5:54:24 AM by theBuckwheat
Sure they have - but they didn’t use proxies, they did it all themselves, which makes it worse:
- kidnapping neighbouring countries’ citizens
- widespread espionage
- sabotage
- threatening war
- nuclear prolifieration (to Iran, Libya, Syria, etc.)
- ICBM proliferation (to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc.)
In short, North Korea is the source.
Why would you attack the symptoms of the disease, and not the disease itself?
And what's even worse is that because a 10 kT improvised nuclear device will be detonated literally at ground level, it also means Ground Zero will be essentially uninhabitable for at least a couple of decades, because all the dirt and debris blown up from the blast will be dangerously radioactive. (People forget both Little Boy and Fat Man were detonated several thousand feet off the ground to maximize blast effect, but the actual fallout generated was relatively low because there was no significant cratering of the ground below the detonation point. A more accurate example would be the nuclear tests done at the Nevada Test Site, where the bomb was detonated only a couple of hundred feet off the ground on a tower.)
What is this "international law" and why should a country that must defend itself be concerned with it?
“Governments, however, are not always able to control all their members. Some members of the Iranian administration might not be deterred by the prospect of nuclear armageddon (indeed, some seem to welcome it). Which means that the only way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists it to keep them out of the hands of national governments who might give them to terrorists. {
“If Iran builds a nuclear bomb factory, you can be sure that Israel will try to destroy it. You can also be sure that, when it happens, the rest of the world will not object.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2007619/posts
Adm. Mullen: U.S. Preparing Strike Option Against Iran
newsmax.com ^ | April 26, 2008 | staff
Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:02:16 AM by kellynla
Making it crystal clear to Iran, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday that the United States is preparing for “potential military courses of action” against it if Tehran does not stop aiding insurgents in Iraq and fails to stop building nuclear weapons.
Admitting that a third conflict in the region would be “extremely stressing” for America’s military, he warned Iran that it was mistake to suggest the United States did not have the resources to strike Iranian military targets.
“I have reserve capability, in particularly our Navy and our Air Force, not just there, but available globally,’’ Mullen said. “There are lots of potential military courses of action.’’
Mullen made similar comments about the Pentagon’s ability strike Iran last November.
“From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don’t think we’re too stretched in that regard,” he said then.
Mullen’s comments, made during a Pentagon press conference, are aligned with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus, both of whom have stepped up the pressure on Iran. Gates said last week that Iran is “hell-bent” in acquiring nuclear weapons.”
You are in Canada. Your opinion is irrelevant. Since you have no military to speak of we should invade you and take some of your oil wells.
Calgary and Alberta would probably want to join the US anyway. Saskatchewan too. The Chinese can have British Columbia and the wise guys and Muslim lovers and socialists can have Ontario.
Ping on Iran and its nuke program. I finally got my ping list back off of my old computer.
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.