(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)
Posted on 01/29/2014 6:35:45 AM PST by SoConPubbie
(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)
Sen. Ted Cruz said after the State of the Union address that President Barack Obama’s Iran policy could lead to a nuclear weapon being detonated over a major U.S. city.
“I thought that was one of the most dangerous things in the entire speech,” Cruz said of Obama’s commitment to veto new Iran sanctions as talks continue with the international community. “What I fear is that we’re making the mistakes of the past — the same mistakes the Clinton administration made with North Korea. With North Korea, we relaxed the sanctions in exchange for amorphous promises, and the billions that North Korea received in relaxed sanctions, they used to develop nuclear weapons.
“The risk is unacceptable. When you have the leaders of a nation who have said, among other things, they intend to drive Israel into the sea and wipe them off the face of the map — if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the risk is unacceptable that that weapon will be detonated over the skies of Tel Aviv or New York or Los Angeles,” Cruz said. “The results could be hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost.”
That kind of rhetoric will get attention, with Cruz explaining his case about how the North Korean regime controlling nuclear weapons is less of a threat than Iran.
“What makes this much, much more dangerous than North Korea is, at the end of the day, Kim Jong Un wants to stay in power more than anything else, and for someone that wants to stay in power, deterrence is possible,” Cruz argued, saying the same may not be true of the Iranian leadership.
Cruz did find some areas of agreements with the president; he agreed with Obama on “streamlining red tape and reducing regulations.” But he did go on to mention that the president had “used that rhetoric before.” Cruz also mentioned a program Obama discussed: myRA, which, the president said, was “a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings.”
Obama described the program as a new savings bond that would encourage Americans to build a nest egg.
“I am a passionate supporter of anything that enables people to save on their own, to have assets that they own, that they control, that they can bequest to their kids,” Cruz said. “And so, depending on the details, that could be something that he could find a lot of support.”
Cruz was holding court with a collection of reporters in Statuary Hall long after most of his Senate colleagues had departed. Cruz also spoke with a large number of national and regional TV crews.
Asked what one word he would use to describe the speech, Cruz said: “disappointing.” Not surprisingly, he criticized the way the president spoke about health care and economic policy.
“Throughout the entire of the hour-plus-long speech there was no acknowledgment that the Obama economic policies are not working, that they have produced the lowest labor force participation since 1978, that millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance,” Cruz said.
Will they target Hollywood?
Two lumps please
The nukes the Iranians are capable of building in the short term won't do the trick for widespread EMP. To really nail large chunks of the US you need multi-hundred KT warheads. All this is not to say we shouldn't worry longer term!
Here's a good link regarding Soviet EMP testing over the mainland USSR(!).
I don’t see such a wish. I see someone pointing out the irony of the fact that those most responsible for electing the person that made it possible for this to occur would be the first victims.
“In a federal program, that’ll be bad news. It will end up being like an enhanced Social Security, an annuity type situation where when a person dies the money is gone. It’s all about not passing wealth to the next generation.”
Good point. I hadn’t thought of that, but it only makes the proposal less appealing. If they don’t get your stuff through medicaid, they’ll just do it via the new government retirement plans, I guess.
NYC or LA?
Can we at least have a vote on it first?
Maybe add a few cities.. ? Please. :-}
I know .
How about another ‘Outreach to Islam’ campaign?
uhhh.. forgot this.
(/sarcasm off)
Hi NSA!
Maybe they could aim for San Francisco instead? During a congressional recess?
Cruz is correct about this.
Think about it: If Iran only gets one bite at the nuclear apple before it gets destroyed, would they attack “The Little Satan” or “The Great Satan?”
Israel = “Little Satan”
US = “Great Satan”
Iran is not building a bomb to use on Tel Aviv, they’re building it for New York City.
Don’t think so...a nuke would only be effective if launched from a ship and detonated in the air...just like the missile that took out that passenger jet over long island some years ago.
“Another interesting point to consider (I have been trying to find some info on this) in regards to an EMP; lots and lots of older homes in the U.S. with old school plaster walls and ceiling. Inside that plaster is metal mesh; kind of like a Faraday cage.”
Even if that would work (I doubt it) only disconnected devices would be spared. Your electrical lines will bring in the pulse very nicely, and fry all attached devices.
Devices inside a metal box, such as a safe, should be fine.
Those who are cheerleading for the president's policy on Iran appear to hold two fundamental beliefs: (1) War with Iran is so utterly unthinkable as to make any alternative preferable; and (2) the best way to avoid war is through appeasement.
The first premise, I believe, is mistaken; although reasonable people may debate its merits.
The second premise, however--i.e. that appeasement is the best way to avoid war--is just downright silly. If the experience of Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" did not demonstrate that conclusively, one has to wonder just what might do so...
“Maybe add a few cities.. ? Please. :-}”
DC/Baltimore, Gay Frisco, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Houston and any other big Blue City.
You don’t a ground burst would do any damage? Especially with a dirty bomb. New York City might be uninhabitable.
And this would be a problem because.... why?
This will actually be fairly easy to discern. If it's a city in the midwest, it's an internal action. If it's New York, LA, or Seattle, it's probably enemy action.
If it's Detroit, would anyone even notice?
I wonder what size tonnage would be needed to restart the Yellowstone Caldera? ... I notice fedzilla didn’t do any of the atomic bomb testing in places like Yellowstone ...
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.