The WSJ describes What a Single Nuclear Warhead could do and seemingly makes the case for some sort of missle defense simply because — let’s invoke the Precautionary Principle here because after all once introduced into the argument it should cut both ways — it’s just too dangerous not to have one. “Seemingly” because it is really making an argument for a whole new attitude towards the threat of WMD attacks in the West. It’s just irrational to keep believing that “it can’t happen here”.
Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors — including Ronald Reagan — he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable. …
Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.
But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.
The twenty first century will present extraordinary opportunities but also throw up unprecedented dangers. It will be interesting to watch how bureaucrats forged during the Clinton and Bush years, now slated to head the Washington establishments, can cope.
Tip Jar
It’ll be OK.
Obama will talk to them.
The American argument against Iran’s government acquiring dual-capabilty nuclear power has never amounted to much more than ‘us versus them,’ especially regarding our opposition to their duplicating what we have already accomplished. Until the argument against Iran’s government developing dual-purpose nuclear technology includes the rational “grounds” for Iran–in particular–not being permitted to have what America, France, England, India, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan already have, the world blinks at the sight of our double-standard and yawns at our arguments against Iran.
Our argument is unnecessarily weak, and Iran’s government knows it. A better argument can be made, one which would elicit world-wide support. But so long as we continue to argue about Iran’s “defiance of Security Council resolutions” or “past promises broken” or “suspected illegal activity by a NPT signatory,” the world will likely merely continue to nod and note the similarity of these arguments and our justification for the invasion of Iraq.
They are very bright people at the Claremont Institute; one wishes they had a respected scholar at the Institute who is an expert, both in Khomeini’s ‘learned jurisprudent’ and in Mussolini’s “Doctrines of Fascism,” writing about an imminent nuclear incineration from Iran.
All the Arab countries can just as easily think up scenarios where Israel drops a nuclear bomb on them.
Therefore, part of the effort to minimize concerns about such scary scenarios everywhere might be to try to ban nuclear weapons everywhere in the world — including the USA and Israel.
What good is the missile defense even if they build them (the missiles) they are putting them in Euro, Alaska and Cal, East coast is wide open for this, the other side of this is it can be anywhere over or near the US to do more harm the twin towers did, think about it, what one nuke over the east coast of Florida would do, kiss allot of seniors good by, just look at the local unrest sparked by hurricanes in N.O. now take a state that is crippled and a cities the size of Miami, Orlando, etc…Oh that’s right, I forgot about “0″, my mortgage is paid and magically gas will appear in my gas tank, the “CSF” (Civil security force) will march down to Florida a fix it all up over night, the MSM will tell us there was no terrorism it was disgruntled white racist devils trying to destroy his, Opps Americas future….
Oh gee, what if, while an estimated 5 mill people where in DC a nuke went off even close to its air space, the horror of it all….the whole reason for taking Iran out will have made a pointed point at that moment (they do have enough for one!) Les twist it a little, now Russia could deniable use one and point its finger at Iran, Russia did supply Iran with the “U” so it would have a Russian finger print but they (the Russians) can easily throw blame at Iran, who wouldn’t believe Russia? why it would be better that everyone did fall forit, just think of how bad things would get if the US chose to blame Russia compared to blitzing little ol Iran….Folks Oppertunity rears its ugly head all the time….
Sorry for the mispelling, kids are getting up and I hit the submit button before completely reading it over.
Here’s one answer to the conundrum: start taking hostages. “If anything happens to us, then [fill in the blank] gets it. End of story.”
Crude? Yes. Blunt? Definitely. Effective? Probably.
Three hundred miles over Chicago? The ISS orbits much lower than that. The development of the capability to put that much mass that high, even suborbital, would be a bit hard to hide.
Ban nuclear weapons?
This brings to mind the alternative to missile defense seriously suggested by a think tank back in the early 90’s: just require everyone to put command destruct radio receivers on their missiles and if one comes our way we will just transmit a signal and blow it up.
Now completely aside from the very real technical difficulties associated with that concept, the obvious question is what do we do if someone does not put command destruct capabilities on his missiles? Well, then, I guess that he would be In Trouble. As Col Batguano said in “Dr. Strangelove” before he shot the Coke machine, “You’re gonna be in a lot of trouble with the Cocoa Cola company.” There would be SUCH a lawsuit.
Back in the summer of 2001 when such frivolous things were a bit more in vogue, a law firm sued the USA on behalf of the victims of Auschwitz, claiming that the US could have bombed the railroad lines leading to the camp and put it out of business. The lawyers apparently did not reflect for a moment on the fact that had the Axis won WWII, or the Soviets the Cold War, there would have been no such lawsuits.
Between Lawyers and Lasers to stop incoming missiles, well, I’ll take the Lasers, with a side order of our own nukes. The Lawyers can sue the other side’s radioactive rubble.
The real defense is to place thyristor type surge protectors into all devices needing protection from an EMP.
Ban nuclear weapons? How big an Army do you want to maintain without nukes? We have fewer brigades now than we had divisions during WWII. Last time I checked, the PLA was pretty damn large and without the threat of tactical nukes against massed formations, our troops would be heavily outnumbered. Instead of banning them, we should be investing in newer, less damaging mini- and micro-nukes with reduced blast that we could employ near the FLOT to even the odds, so to speak. Every Cold War scenario in Europe had us going to nukes within 3 days and I shudder to think what the landscape would’ve looked like if we had fought WWIII with Honest Johns vice the brilliant ordnance we have now…but perhaps I’m just an unrepentant Cold Warrior…
Many kinds of weapons are banned. Many warfare tactics are banned.
How long has it been against international military law to harm envoys bearing messages between waring sides? At least 2,500 years.
Chemical and biological weapons are banned. But if someone suggests that nuclear weapons likewise be banned, there are always people who will pop up and ridicule the suggestion as naive and impossible.
Chemical and biological weapons are banned, but you want to bet your future that they don’t exist in actuality. We know non-state actors are developing them. Trusting despots and rogue regimes to not develop weapons of mass destruction is naive and foolish.
“All the Arab countries can just as easily think up scenarios where Israel drops a nuclear bomb on them.
Therefore, part of the effort to minimize concerns about such scary scenarios everywhere might be to try to ban nuclear weapons everywhere in the world — including the USA and Israel.”
“Chemical and biological weapons are banned. But if someone suggests that nuclear weapons likewise be banned, there are always people who will pop up and ridicule the suggestion as naive and impossible.”
… and chemical weapons are still made, deployed, and used by various nations – Iran among them. Prohibtions against various tactics and weapons are broken routinely. (by our current enemies, I might add).
Such rules in warfare only exist because two sides feel they can win without using the banned weapon or tactic, and agreeing to a rule takes care of the worry that said weapon or tactic would be used against them. This completely breaks down in the context of nuclear weapons, since such weapons are often specifically developed and deployed for scenarios where a nation simply cannot win by conventional means.
The word “fool” comes to mind. Anyone who can look at this problem and honestly talk about Iranian and middle eastern fears about being nuked by Isreal or the US is, frankly, out of their freakin’ mind.
I suppose someone breaking into my house with a gun to rape my wife and kids is also worried about being shot… but that doesn’t mean that a gun ban would compel them to give up on breking into my house for nefarious purposes. Neither Iran nor the other usual arab suspects have given up on their goal of destroying Israel simply for the sake of destroying Israel; stop being ethically and morally obtuse.
12. Mike Sylwester: How do you plan on enforcing the ban? The EU has been trying to talk Iran out of bomb-making for half a decade now without success, the UN won’t pass the needed sanctions. Bans have historically been enforced by the victor of a conflict.
The problem with nukes is that even the winner loses big.
Mike:
Did not Iran trash our Embassy a few years ago, and parade our emissaries in chains?
“Many kinds of weapons are banned. Many warfare tactics are banned.”
In many jurisdictions in the US guns are banned from schools–gun-free zones. These bans work until they don’t.
Banning nuclear weapons is practical because most countries don’t have them and because their development and maintenance require a large infrastructure that is difficult to conceal.
No international ban of weapons is perfect. The essential question is whether the international community will be safer with our without a ban of particular weapons.
If an international ban on nuclear weapons caused all known nuclear-weapons infrastructures to be dismantled, then I think the world would be safer. Of course, someone somewhere might be violating the ban, but nevertheless the world would be safer. The international community, committed to enforcing a world-wide ban, would have to deal with rogue violators.
I think the Obama Administration will move toward a world-wide ban on nuclear weapons, and I think this effort will be popular inside the USA and across the world.
Of course, some people will continue to argue that such a ban is naive and impossible, but those people will find less and less support. They are losing the argument far and wide.
It’s too bad we can’t divide the country into two parts: one which will defend itself and one which won’t…that way all of us can be happy. Send me a postcard from the other side when you are being overrun or broiled or poisoned or tortured…just don’t ask for my help. Some folks remind me of the Belgians who refused to allow the Brits and French onto their territory in 1940 for fear of antagonizing der Fuhrer – lot of good that did them, but I guess they thought dear Adolf would play by the rules because I’m sure that international military law, for at least 25 centuries, says that you can’t attack another country who is neutral and is not bothering you to some degree. At least the Swiss were willing to defend themselves to the last mountain pass and bastion…though I’m sure Hitler would’ve eventually dealt with them after he established hegemeony over the rest of Europe. As the greatest man of the 20th Century once said after Munich, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war.” I guess some agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. The only reason Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons was his fear of retaliation in kind which is why we had a ship full of mustard rounds in Bari, Italy in 1943…just in case.
To enforce a ban means exactly that enFORCE. The EU, UN and Nato all lack the will to take such steps. Russia and China have no desire to see the tin-pot dictators that worry us so much forced to give up their toys. The first part of enforcement is that the enforcer poses a creditable threat to the transgressor. A radar cop on a bicycle doesn’t get much respect.
If an enforcement action were to be undertaken we (i.e. the USA) would have to do it. And when (if) we did we would be roundly condemned by those other nations that we were saving from the threat – as well as our own intelleigensia and media. I do find it darkly humorous that, if such an attack ever occurs on US soil, it will most likely target the home towns of those who (through their endless hampering of our efforts to stop the terrorists) have made the attack possible.
Do we want to live in a world where some crazy can assemble a nuke under the UN’s nose and then use it to blackmail everybody within 1200 miles? All the while thumbing his nose at all the powers that be.
Oh, wait a minute we already live in that world!
Nuclear weapons will be banned only after one country has the power, and the will, to ban them and then to enforce that ban against the wishes of the other parties. A missle sheild is a defense against that form of delivery and lessens the chances of that mode of delivery. A nessecary first step to protecting our interests, but only a first step.
Mike! put the kool-aide down, you’ve had enough. Ammo Guy your Mikes designate driver, get his keys, strike that, take his keys, Mike if you’re not thru with college yet, quit! it ain’t doing you no good and your wasting your mama’s money… Give us a break, give up nukes, ya right, the only country that would honestly do that if the UN passed a decree would be the US under a “0” administration, everyone else would hide it in plain sight, NoKo style….
The primary reason why nuclear weapons are not banned is that some countries have them and don’t want to stop having them. One of those countries is the USA.
The enforcement problem is a secondary problem.
If the USA were to decide to give up its nuclear weapons and join a ban and also helped convince other nuclear-weapon countries to do likewise, then the enforcement problem would become the primary problem. I expect that the Obama Administration will try to reposition the issue in that manner.
The enforcement problem is indeed a difficult problem to solve satisfactorily. But where there’s a will there’s a way.
Nukes cannot be uninvented.
For years, owning nukes was used to deter the use of nukes.
The problem with Iran owning nukes of any kind, whether they can be delivered by missile, container ship, truck or donkey, is that Iran is likely to use them to provoke massive retaliation, the resulting crisis ushering in the age of the Hidden Iman.
The Iranian first strike might be launched in secret so as to arrival at the target, but afterwards the Iranians would want everyone to know who had done the deed.
Wow. Comment #16 by BillS totally eviscerated Mike Sylwester’s claim in comment #12. Mike, go home.
What countries have them but don’t want them?
“If the USA were to decide to give up its nuclear weapons and join a ban and also helped convince other nuclear-weapon countries to do likewise, then the enforcement problem would become the primary problem.”
That makes no sense. If the US gave up it’s Nukes, why would anyone else do it?
It has always been mankind’s tendency to use a weapon once it has been invented. I’m sure some posters would sympathize with those nobles who complained about the introduction of the longbow and crossbow because it allowed some peasant to knock off some aristocrat from long range without closing to fight him like a gentleman. I loved the scene in “The Patriot” where Cornwallis was arguing with Mel Gibson’s character over our forefather’s propensity for sniping at British officers during a battle because it just “wasn’t done”. Then damn that George Washington for sneaking across the Delaware on Christmas of all days to surprise the Hessians – veddy bad form old chap. And that haberdasher from KC – how dare he drop the big one on Imperial Japan without so much as an appropriate warning of the havoc he was about to wreak on Mother Earth…that being said, I suppose I am about to get lectured about all the alternatives available to HST that would’ve ended WWII more gently and humanely; all I know is that my old man was on his way to the Pacific theater to participate in Operation Olympic as a glider company commander in the 13th Airborne Division and I wouldn’t be here today arguing about nukes if old Harry hadn’t pulled the trigger – God bless him.
Mike S. was thought by some to be a Russian agent provocateur commenting during the Georgia invasion as he relentlessly spewed the Russian propaganda line. His current posts make him out to be really a naive dope who doesn’t have a clue about the nature of evil in the world. Counting on the international community to enforce nuclear bans on rogue states and non states is breathlessly stupid. What record has the world community ever had of enforcing anything.
Our nukes ,if nothing else give us the satisfaction of enacting a pound of flesh from whoever drops the Sword of Damocles on us. Even in the event of an EMP attack, the sub-based nukes can ruin someone’s whole day. Sad that is how the world is ,but it is . Unilateral disarmament represents national suicide. Hopefully even Obama isn’t that foolish.
Weapons and tactics have been outlawed? Successfully? Name one!
In WWI there was great sensitivity to the use of explosive bullets. For aircraft they were “outlawed” except for attacking balloons, and pilots carried special permission cards saying that they were authorized to have the bullets in case they were captured. But in WWII explosive rounds fired from aircraft were more common than not, 20MM, 37MM, 40MM, 45MM, 50MM and even 75MM being used and no one got special permission.
Naval treaties of the 20’s outlawed guns above a certain size in warships as well as the number of battleships. That had no discernable effect on WWII.
Gas warfare was outlawed in WWII for the nations that had signed the treaty. But the Germans did not use their admittedly superior gas weapons because they were more vulnerable than were the Allies and feared response in kind. After the war one German general said that our intelligence people were “complete asses” for not realizing the German vulnerability to gas. By the way, Japan and the USA were NOT signatories to that treaty but still did not use them; despite an approved plan to attack Iwo Jima with gas, FDR nixed it. I think that chemical weapons would include the rat poison the terrorist in Israel pack in their bombs, but I guess the PLO and Hamas misplaced their copy of the treaty.
Biological weapons? Japan used them in WWII. They have not been used since because they are useless against military units and effective only against civilians.
The INF Treaty outlawed theater missile-launched nukes in Europe. Hooray! And the Soviets promptly cheated on it, pulling out the SS-22’s and putting in SS-25’s.
As for not shooting people under flags of truce, that is simple self-interest, not the force of law. Everyone recognizes the need to talk to the enemy on occasion. Almost everyone, anyway. Talk to Daniel Pearl’s widow.
It is true that glass bullets have been outlawed and do not appear to be used. But I have no idea why anyone would want to use them anyway.
None of the people we are likely to fight, not Al Queda, not Iran, not North Korea, have even a basic concept of the Rules of War except as a joke. They do have self-interest.
“”"”"East coast is wide open for this,”"”"”"
We eat-Coasters are tough as cockroaches, and — like those much-maligned critters — can probably survive nuclear blasts.
Also, we east-coasters know that — while the effects of a likely neclear blats form the likely yield of weapon available to rogue states and terrorists would be devastating to some locality — the catacllysmic effects of a nuclear blast are somewhat overstated. For instance, I have no idea where this “1 million casualties” notion comes from when talking about a single strike.
Finally, us folks in a potential ground zero know that we would be vaporized instantly, so there.
Also, we “EAT-coasters” can’t type worth dick, especially when confronted by the specter of “neclear blats.”
ONE nuke set off 300 miles above Chicago would take out the ENTIRE U.S. electrical grid?
Seriously?
How about: “one nuke at 100 miles altitute over Chicago takes out the entire electrical grid for the greater Mississippi/Missouri valley and South-Central Canada?” Yes, my scenario is still devastating, but probably more accurate.
What are the range and payload for this “Sahab” missile, anyway?
“Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter…A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. … There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.”
Are nuclear weapons really this “generic”? That is to say, are they wholly lacking in radiological signatures that could uniquely identify said weapon’s developer? If so, isn’t there something about the mode of delivery which, when combined with information about capabilities of the usual suspect, would make identifying the culprit(s) possible?
Mike-
Case in point. Iran right as we speak, I believe, is thumbing its nose at the IAEA with its nuclear programs. Europe, China, Russia, and most of the UN don’t give a crap. We can’t get even meaningful sanctions to work.
If it were so easy to enforce a world wide nuclear free zone, why can’t we get Iran to stop its nuclear program? Why would it be easier in the future to stop every tin pot dictator in the world from getting nukes, even when we don’t know they have a known nuke program ( like Libya), when we can’t even stop Iran now?
Most Treaties that inhibit the power of scoundrels need to be enforced with vastly superior force and a hardened unblinking ruthless resolve. It is questionable whether we still have the force necessary, but with at least 52% of the US, and most of Europe, we have surely lost anything close to the resolve necessary to enforce any nuclear treaty.
Mike is the best example of magical thinking.
A “ban” on nuclear weapons will only work with a huge, global fascist state running everything and everyone. A massive conventional force and total brutality to enforce the ban. Otherwise it is like Prohibition. A few lunatic groups might unilaterally surrender and find themselves at the mercy of a new Black Fleet as Japan, unarmed and defenseless, did wrt Commodore Perry.
More relevant, is Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, and Czech Republic deciding to “nuke up” to deter the larger, more powerful Russia from swallowing them. Nukes are the ultimate deterrent, preventing small countries from getting swallowed by larger ones, and with the end of the Cold War and mutual defense umbrellas of the USSR and US, nukes will owned by EVERYONE.
This is human nature. Even YEMEN will have nukes.
So they WILL be used.
You can’t outlaw technology any more than you can drugs. Mike’s thinking is typical of the elites, who want a fantasy fascist world government where everyone “gets along” like a Disneyland ride, but can’t work without global war to create a global, fascist government with extreme brutality.
Roderick O’Reilly!
I slalute yew fir bringing SANITY ot this dang forum! LMFAO!!!
Slalaaam Eleikum!
I’m still laughing and can’t type either.
Magnificently beautiful!
Seriously, Salaam Friend!
The Indian Defense Minister, post “first” Gulf War, when asked what he learned from that episode: when dealing with the U.S. “you need nukes.”
Ammo Guy said:
“At least the Swiss were willing to defend themselves to the last mountain pass and bastion…though I’m sure Hitler would’ve eventually dealt with them after he established hegemeony over the rest of Europe.”
I’m reminded of a poem that was popular amongst the Wehrmacht:
“Die Schweiz, das kleine Stachelschwein, das nehmen wir auf dem Heimweg ein.”
Translation:
Switzerland, the little porcupine, we’ll take you as well on the way home. (poems almost never translate well)
Marzouq:
Peace be with you as well.
“Mike is the best example of magical thinking.”
Mike is a Russian spewing propaganda, trying to convince us to disarm so Putin can have his way with the world.
Whiskey:
“A “ban” on nuclear weapons will only work with a huge, global fascist state running everything and everyone.”
It has occurred to me that this is the logical follow-on to Wretchard’s Second Conjecture. After all the bad guys have been blown away, the last guy standing would demand that only he be armed with nuclear weapons. Almost by definition that last guy would have to be some sort of fascist or a democracy that morphed into fascism.
The scenario is flawed. I am not worried about a freighter launching a weapon at NYC from 100 miles off the coast. I am worried about a freighter entering the harbor with a weapon in a canister deep in the hold and blowing itself up halfway between Liberty Island and Battery Park or under the Brooklyn Bridge. Remember most containers never get inspected and most that do only get opened after they unload in America. Even if we could invent some huge drive through offshore inspection platform it would become a percentages game, like airport luggage inspections only worse. Would a forensics team probably find the guilty party after Armageddon? Probably yes, for all the comfort that is.
The EMP threat is very real.
Back when the H-bomb was being developed, Edward Teller tried to create an operational concept for the designs then believed to be workable which were physically huge. He came up with a gigaton — yes, 1,000 megaton — design that could be delivered by ship to the Soviet coastline. But even with fallout factored in, he could not find ways to effectively strike at the interior of the USSR. Only when warheads became deliverable by air and missile, was it truly possible to “kill” the USSR because you could lay down the weapons anywhere.
While a container-delivered bomb is deadly, it is not nearly as flexible as a missile system and moreover, must leave positive control to be delivered. It must be entrusted to someone for a period; the slower the delivery system, the longer it must be entrusted. Missile systems on the other hand, are under command and control until a few minutes before impact. A container bomb by contrast can be stolen by its’s minders at any time along the slow sea voyage and requires a huge and slow delivery ship to deploy.
If I were a thriller writer, I could imagine a scenario where Abdul and fifty others are sent on a container ship to destroy New York Harbor. Why fifty? Because you need watchers to watch the suicide men; but watchers are suiciders as well because they will share the fate of the ship. A lot of men must keep the resolve to kill themselves or crack in the security results. They must guard against the temptation by backsliders to steal the bomb. Imagine if you could, an Iranian nuclear weapon in the possession of young men full of the desire to live who know they can take that bomb and divert it London and blackmail them into paying him 500 billion dollars. That’s what watchers must prevent. But what if the watchers themselves plan on hijacking the device? What if ten men among the fifty minders secretly decided they didn’t want to die martyrs but live like kings in Europe? Why some thriller writer could go somewhere with that plot.
The thriller writer could imagine another scenario. Suppose the container ship bomb is detected by Israel who plan to turn the bomb around and detonate it in Teheran? Make it blow up in their own faces. If the Iranians are are blasted by their own bomb it could bring down the ayatollahs.
Now imagine you were an Iranian targeteer intent on killing, not just maddening America. That mean you had to provide positive control over not one, but dozens of warheads. One of the attractions of a working missile system is that the precious nukes stay under the control of the jefe maximo until the button is pushed.
One of the attractions of attacking Israel instead of the US is that there is very little of it to kill. It’s ridiculously small. But I digress. The fact is that while container bombs are deadly there is a lot of benefit to checkmating a missile delivery system.
Unsk:
“If it were so easy to enforce a world wide nuclear free zone, why can’t we get Iran to stop its nuclear program? ”
———-
Because the USA, Israel, Pakistan,India and a lot of other countries have nuclear weapons.
@Wretchard,
The strategic problem of attacking the Russian heartland is asymmetric with the problem of delivering a crippling blow to America. Russia is a continental power with primitive interior communications and few critical nodes. As both Napoleon and Hitler learned even the loss, or compelled evacuation, of her chief city is not disabling. America is a coastal civilization. We can not withdraw inland to survive.
On 9-11 the muscle probably did not know that they were on a suicide mission. The number of actual people on the ship who would need to know is small. Maybe as few as four, two technicians and the Ship’s Master and one Mate.
Without trying to insult Mike Sylwester any further, there is another specter to a world without nuclear weapons.
It is then a world that is safe for a large conventional war.
The last big conventional war (WWII) killed 60-80 millions? Still uncounted numbers in China and the old USSR; generations of men, women and children defenestrated in Easter Europe and Germany, not to mention the Holocaust of the Jews and other undesirables by the Third Reich.
A world without nukes is a world of a few big true military powers and many small nations now fearful of being dominated. Treaties and alliances will start to matter again. Nations arming with modern ‘smart’ munitions and powerful conventional weapons. Our defense budget may actually have to go up.
And then if a war REALLY does break out, how costly will that be?
Since the end of WWII, there have been any number of skirmishes, some costly, between the Great Powers; Korea, Viet Nam, the Arab-Israeli wars; ugly civil wars in the Congo, Nigeria, Angola, China, etc., that have killed millions. But no world-wide conflagration that has wrecked nations such as WWII.
Yes, nuclear weapons are pretty scary, but the fear of nuclear reprisals has kept the avarice of the big powers and those similar minded in check.
Over the last 20 years, we have seen more countries try to enter the nuclear club; Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, South Africa and now Iran. What’s needed is a real non-proliferation strategy to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That is lacking, and wishful thinking about the US zeroing out its arsenal of nuclear weapons will not persuade those of ill intent to suddenly become model world citizens.
“There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.”
That is why states with loose nukes need to fear GOD — Guaranteed Obliteration & Destruction (a sort of one-sided successor to MAD).
The US could announce that, 60 minutes after an anonymous nuclear detonation on US territory, all of the following states will be obliterated: North Korea, Iran, …
A country that does not like being on the GOD list could follow Libya’s example and demonstrably abandon its nuclear program.
This could maybe become an international effort, with Russia, UK, France all piling on.
The nuclear genie can not be put back in the bottle — any more than the technology to make lethal knives. What we can do is make the risks of irresponsible nuclear weapon development high enough to give some people second thoughts.
Maybe not so one sided. What if the Russians suddenly said ‘enough’s enough’? Or the French? Once the Big One goes off, maybe the popular lists of ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ will need some revision. I dunno, but I think that the idea of strategy, or rationality itself won’t make sense any more. Everything we’re so sure of might suddenly become the opposite of what we expect. Or worse, just some things. But which?
Remember that when the Iranian “students” invaded the US embassy they cam very close to doing the same thing to the then Soviets’. Moscow’s man in Tehran explained to the right person exactly what would happen in that event. He did not use obscure diplo-speak.
I remember. The actors in Beirut at the time were also made aware that the USSR didn’t have any rules restricting them. The use of a nuclear device by a ‘rogue’ state would, I think, put the major parties of the world in ‘condition red’, to cite Jeff Cooper. No time for treaties, fix the problem now.
Wretchard #43 has the essence right.
Delivery systems are as important as
the bombs.
Ballistic missles are the only practical
way of real-time delivery and they are also
the only method by which the instigator can retain control, deliver when he wants to and so forth and so on.
Ballistic Missle Defense is the critical, and neglected, and maligned, element of national defense.
Attempting to ban nukes in the manner proposed would inevitably lead to a “Planet of the Apes” scenario.
A single “enforcer” bomb which when (not if, when) detonated would destroy the whole planet.
How to build just such a device was described back in the 1950s It was not difficult then, It would be even easier now.
Dear Mike Slywester,
I know an expert who could tell you how a
non-national/supra-national body could enforce
a ban on nuclear weapons, WITHOUT, having nukes of their own.
His name is Mycroft Holmes IV. Soon as you can locate him and gain his trust, he will
tell you how. Then maybe you really will become a Loonie.
#47 The nuclear genie can not be put back in the bottle — any more than the technology to make lethal knives. What we can do is make the risks of irresponsible nuclear weapon development high enough to give some people second thoughts.
Exactly…the best deterrent to a nuclear attack by a missile launched nuke, would be for the US to put a DEW line in space…it would consist of a geosynchronous satellite based orbiting antenna farm (OAF) that could instantly detect any launch, anywhere (we’d need three OAF’s to cover the world). On board the OAF’s, would be a nuke tipped missile system that would triangulate and target the launch site location and then minutes later…boom, boom…instant justice. Starwars with a vengeance!! …Probably would cost less than the bailout of the Big Three.
One part of the problem of legislating universal nuclear disarmament involves the unproved assumption that other people will see their self interest pretty much as I do, that they can be reasoned with and persuaded to act in moderation. Not everybody thinks like I do, is motivated by the same things as I am, makes the same risk/benefit assessments I do. There are insane people in the world, and people who are truly evil. And no, Mike, it’s not the USA’s fault that they are that way.
A little over twenty years ago there was a serial killer on the loose here in Los Angeles. Turns out that his name is Richard Ramirez. Now Mike S’ argument is that if guns had been banned at that time Richard Ramirez would not have killed all those people he did. After all, why would he? Since all the people around him would not have had guns he could feel safe and have no need to attack anyone. So my best defense when confronted with a Richard Ramirez will be to lay down my gun and defuse the threatening environment. The Richard Ramirez will see the error of his ways, relent, repent and become a positive force in society.
In fact, none of those people had guns. But strangely, he killed them anyway. Again and again he killed, until he was caught by men with guns.
Nations, like individuals, can be insane. Some are only temporarily insane, like India and Pakistan were a few years ago, whole populations crying out to let the nukes fly. Their basic attitude seems to have been, “Yes, we’ll all die, but we’ll die happy knowing that the enemy will be dead too.” Totally nuts. Some are permanently deranged, such as North Korea.
Given the nature of Man it will always be necessary to have the strong defend themselves and those under their protection. The moment he ceases to do so he becomes the weak man open to exploitation by another strong man waiting for the chance. This is the lesson of history.
As President, Barack Obama will be the chief legal enforcer of the land. Additionally, he will be the first legitimate U.S. President. He is African. He has no ties to slave-owning families, exploitive corporations, racism or any U.S. policy or law that has murdered or oppressed people.
America’s history is one of lies, death, exploitation, racism, oppression, greed and war. Obama will confront this history and he will change the course of history by bringing America to justice.
The crimes of America are many and the most recent crimes include:
* The Hurricane Katrina attack of 2004. Estimated number of dead: 5,000 to 20,000
* The war on Iraq and Afghanistan. Over a million dead.
* The poisoning of African communities by the CIA with crack and cocaine.
* The campaign of political intimidation of African leaders
* The creation of the AIDS virus to kill Africans
* The economic terrorism aimed at all African peoples
* The creation of consumer products designed to create African sterility
* The murder of Khalid Muhammad, the leader of the New Black Panther Party
* The assassination of Malcolm X
http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com
Mike’s fantasy is just a fantasy because Poland, rather than “agree” to a nuclear arms ban is likely RACING to them. As is Czech Republic, and Hungary, and Ukraine, and Saudi, and Yemen, and Egypt, and Morocco, and Algeria, and Turkey.
Nukes are the great equalizer. With Nukes Poland can tell Russia to stick it, and make it stick. So too can Ukraine, and Czech Republic, and Hungary. With Nukes Turkey can pursue it’s own ambitions against Russia AND Iran, it’s two traditional enemies, and tell them both to stick it, where, and how far up.
Nukes allow even a tiny state to survive around hostile neighbors as long as it can launch enough to destroy a few major cities where most of the enemy population will live (and cannot be realistically evacuated). No ruler wants to rule over rubble. Even Israel IF they have survivable weapons that can hit back from a first strike can destroy Iran’s cities.
For one of the few times in history, the balance tips more to smaller nations than large ones. Mike doesn’t get it. NO SMALL NATION will EVER give up nukes, now that the specter of Barack Hussein Obama and the sell-down-the-river is staring them in the face. Better your own nukes than the questionable promise of American forces that will be withdrawn at any moment for “peace.”
Truth First: Obama’s father’s people were slave traders and owners. Hurts I know, but there you have it. Most Africans were slavers. Again, uncomfortable reality.
Truthfirst: Obama can not confront America’s sordid history. He is part Kansan, part Kenyan, part Hawaiian. He has no slave ancestry and no understanding of the African experience in America. Look at his cabinet and his advisors. Where is Barbara Lee? Maxine Waters? John Lewis? Harold Ford? Jesse Jackson (Jr. or Sr.)? Jocelyn Elders?
I think the greatest utility of nukes, currently, is the threat of their use (given the belief in the genuine determination to actually use them). Once used, they become a very serious liability.
Missile delivery may be more destructive (and therefore effective) but the source is more immediately easier to trace than a bomb smuggled in (where a bomb was made can be determined, I think, from radiation traces after the fact).
The 9/11 attacks were meant to be more than symbolic. What method of attack would be used depends more on what the perpetrators believe than what would actually be more effective. And, there is an element of risk management involved (as strange as that sounds).
#58 Jim in Virginia.
“America’s sordid history” ???
Yea, right.
Not a supportable statement.
whiskey:
“For one of the few times in history, the balance tips more to smaller nations than large ones. Mike doesn’t get it. NO SMALL NATION will EVER give up nukes, now that the specter of Barack Hussein Obama and the sell-down-the-river is staring them in the face.”
———–
I presume you’re talking about Israel. Now that Moslem countries are able to develop their own nuclear weapons, it’s time for Israel to rethink its position.
Will Israel be safer in the future if it agrees to a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons?
Or will Israel be safer if it keeps its nuclear weapons and therefore justifies the efforts of Moslem countries to develop their own nuclear weapons?
Neither choice is perfect. Each choice involves risks to Israel’s safety and security.
The problem with the concept of a “world wide ban” on nuclear weapons is (a) not everyone will agree to it and (b) several of those who do agree to it will cheat and either build or retain nuclear weapons anyway.
“”"”"”"If so, isn’t there something about the mode of delivery which, when combined with information about capabilities of the usual suspect, would make identifying the culprit(s) possible?”"”"”"”"”
Yes. There are indeed “signatures”
“”"”"”"56. Truth First:”"”"”"”"
Come on Gerard, we know it’s you. At least, I’m fairly certain this is Vanderleun doing a screamingly funny parody of a total lefty Moonbat. I mean, look how “Truth First” tossed in every major lefty boogieman into his bulleted list.
Or maybe it’s one of those goofs from “The Onion.”
Whiskey, Nukes alone mean little, with ICBM they become a equalizer, with sub luanch ability you can tell people to stick it! JiV, is lost as Mike S, “Sordid” history, learn history, US is a very clean country, please point to one that is better, better yet Move There! You can’t find one and you to chicken shit to move there, ain’t no one stopping you here or gonna miss your kind!
I don’t believe I’ve seen a real live moby before. Sock puppets, yes, but Wretchard has managed to put together a blog where you get sock puppets AND Russian spies AND moby’s!
Oh my.
It’s important to remember not merely the economic effect of EMP nuclear attack but also the sheer destruction and misery possible as the result of direct attack intended to annihilate an enemy. The best description of the effects of such an attack is still Jonathan’s Schell’s “Fate of the Earth.”
Stock up on iodine for your family.
REFLECTIONS describes the consequences of a full-scale nuclear war and writer’s views about how to avoid the extinction of mankind, which would be the result.
There was a ban on certain aspects of military ship building prior to WWII. The Japanese signed on but ignored it and we all know the result of that wishfully thinking by the West. Hitler performed the same thing with his war machine in violation of the treaty from WWI. I may be called dumb but I am not stupid since I learn from history so as not to repeat it.
HA! “we must ban nuclear weapons, comrade, then there will be peace! (you first!)”
idiots. nuclear disarmament is a soviet disinformation campaign. you would rely on Putin’s compliance? the Chinese Communist Party’s compliance? then it is obvious you have never considered the issue as it exist.
a good deal of bad thinking arises from the proposition that international relations can be reduced to a set of moral propositions that any sensitive 15 year old would recognize.
as a beginner student of disinformation campaigns, or intelligence media campaigns in general, i have to wonder: what’s up with all these articles about EMP lately? Cliff May at NRO has written a couple. there’s this article. and i believe i saw another one at a big journal or newspaper, although i can’t remember which one.
funny thing is, prior to these articles, i always thought EMP was more science-fiction than science. is this possibly a signal to us outside the military-intelligence complex that plans for such an attack have been detected?
South Africa developed and maintained at least 6 nuclear weapons, but destroyed them before the end of apartheid to keep them from falling into the hands of the black government.
You got a link or a citation on that over-the-top claim, Mikeeeeeee?
So how’s that ban on murder coming along? Or that ban on rape, theft, drug abuse, etc… This is the best counter argument to almost any ban-the-bad-thing debate. Bans are almost universally failures. Invariably they are used to control the compliant and create opportunities for the non-compliant. Prohibition serves as a general example.
Perversely to me, people’s reliance on law to protect them suggests that they don’t necessarily believe in crime, or criminals.
@ Nahncee (72): You got a link or a citation on that over-the-top claim, Mikeeeeeee?
Check wikipedia. South Africa’s disarmament was mentioned many times in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
They do have bans on the testing of nuclear weapons- the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty for one- but all you need to do is withdraw from the treaty and then you can start testing. An effective ban needs to be enforced. The reason why states have not used chemical or biological weapons is because they know that if they did, the reprecussions would be too great. What are the reprecussions from getting a nuclear weapon? The US will negotiate with you? Obama will have a stern ‘no-preconditions’ talk? You will get more food aid? If you were serious about putting a ban in place, you’d have to talk about how you would enforce that.
The question is, is Mike Sylwester an idiot or a paid agent of Russia, China, and the Islamic power structure? If Mike Sylwester is just an idiot, then he is a symptom of the kind of thinking that pervades the Western Brahminate (look up Mencius Moldbug’s posts on the “Cathedral”),-ie the publik skools, “official” media, and Ivy League University power structure- then it’s about time that action must be taken to destroy the Western Brahminate completely and totally. When your ruling class starts to ignore reality, it must be overthrown and destroyed. It is quite apparent that Mike Sylwester -who apparently is a member of the Western Brahminate- is denying the implications of evolution by natural selection. Humans are part of the animal kingdom and are subject to the rules of predator and prey. Mike Sylwester, humans are animals, period!