Get PJ Media on your Apple

VodkaPundit

Here We Go Again

November 25th, 2013 - 7:23 am

flags_and_planes

Roger L. Simon has a must-read piece today on our temporary nuke deal with Iran, but he nailed it with this line:

No one believes Barack Obama about anything anymore. Why should they? The new Iran deal is Obamacare II, only worse, a thousand megatons worse.

I can tell you one person who doesn’t believe Professor Ditherton Wiggleroom, and that’s Saudi King Abdullah. The Kingdom — already moving away from the US — just took another step:

Arab states in the Persian Gulf have greeted the interim nuclear deal struck between Iran and the West in Geneva with sullen silence.

Despite their muted response, however, the Gulf states have watched the growing signs of reconciliation between the US and Iran with undisguised horror. As the Geneva talks rolled into Saturday night and a deal edged closer, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah summoned the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar to Riyadh for talks on how to respond.

OK, so that’s actually a bunch of people, who all just happen to be Arab rulers of Arab states which Iran wants to annex or dominate.

Actually, they aren’t all Arab:

Israeli personnel in recent days were in Saudi Arabia to inspect bases that could be used as a staging ground to launch attacks against Iran, according to informed Egyptian intelligence officials.

The officials said Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other Arab and Persian Gulf countries have been discussing the next steps toward possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Now I have nothing against Middle Eastern countries tending to their own affairs. And the fact that Wiggleroom has — at long last! — brought together Arab and Jew is a testament to a level of incompetence rarely seen even in Washington DC. But the fact is, the Wiggleroom-Kerry deal has made a general war in the Middle East more likely, not less. And the US is now so despised and resented there, that we will have very limited ability to influence or halt it diplomatically — which increases the chance that we will have to intervene militarily.

And the Russians, having tasted blood in Syria… well, there’s no telling what they might get up to now.

Maybe this is what the spring of 1967 felt like. Only with a much wider range of participants. And perhaps nuclear weapons.

I wonder whose side we’ll be on.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (31)
All Comments   (31)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"And the US is now so despised and resented there, that we will have very limited ability to influence or halt it diplomatically — which increases the chance that we will have to intervene militarily."

Not a chance. The Israelis and the Sunni Gulf states will mop the earth with Iran in about two weeks. The Iranians couldn't defeat the worst army in the Middle East, and their capabilities have only degraded since then.

The Qods Force AND Hezbollah can't defeat the jihadists in Syria. What chance does Iran have against Israel, Jordan, and the Saudis, who defeated the Iranian-backed Houthis? This will be over before you know it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
One of the great failures of liberal thought, because of it's race and identity-based political correctness, is that it routinely confuses intent with the ability to carry out that intent. The Palestinian Arabs and surrounding polities have been unsuccessful kicking Israel out, therefore Arabs are innocent of wanting that, and Israel are colonialist oppressors.

Let's be honest: were it not for America, Iran would own the Gulf, and Iraq the leftovers. There would almost certainly be some sort of empire in Africa and the Western Pacific Rim would be entering it's eighth decade of Japanese occupation with China an unknown factor as a rival.

The Soviet Union might or might not own all of Europe or be content with a Vichy-style mild despotism in some of it. Israel probably wouldn't exist and that area would be right back where it was during the First Crusade: a tug of war between Turk and Egypt with Iraq entering that conflict or not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And the US is now so despised and resented there, that we will have very limited ability to influence or halt it diplomatically — which increases the chance that we will have to intervene militarily.

No. Its all the more reason for us NOT to involve ourselves militarily in the region. Why not let the region blow itself to pieces? I'm all for it. It will provide some entertainment on the telly while I kick back and eat shabu-shabu and drink nihonshu.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Because, incompetent administration or not, we have obligations to a number of countries in that area, that we need to maintain.

We keep the peace, because noone else will. And we will, even if most of them are ungrateful little ****s who kick us in the shins, because they think us weak for not conquering and looting their nations.

We will keep the peace, because even if noone else in the world seems to want it, we do, and we have the force to make it stick.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Everybody here knows where we are going, but nobody _believes_,
and will not until after the fact, that nuclear weapons are that easy
to design and build, that the Iranian leadership really are apocalyptic
madmen, and that Russia is willing to precipitate a nuclear war in the
area for economic advantage.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Russia could very, very easily crap together some crude fission bombs, detonate them in any irritating mid east country and frame Iran. Doing so would:

Rid them of some extreme headaches,
give them a golden opportunity to seize bordering lands,
Nuke Kazakhstan and Afghanistan, and blame it on 'terrorists'.
watch the fallout blow over India and China.
Rid Russia of oil selling competitors.
They could roll in afterwards and just take the place, ruling it the same way Saddam ran things, and truthfully claim they were stopping further atom bomb surprises.

When I started typing this reply, I really doubted Putin would be willing to start a nuclear war. Now, I'm wondering why he hasn't yet. Perhaps because if they do nothing, Iran will 'frame' themselves.

Death cults with atomic bombs aren't good neighbors.

In any case, the Saudis have enough money to buy any weapons they like. China is always willing to sell. They could crap together some bombs too, and occupy the mid east with spare people.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So here's a little thought game.

Let's pretend that a Tea Party type president did exactly this. Then, what would we conclude? Well, let me tick off a few possibilities. We might conclude -

- That we are now or soon will be energy independent enough that we no longer need Arab oil.

- That we are now well and truly exhausted enough that we are tired of the lot of them and their endless nonsense.

- That we are seriously aware that militant Islam is out to put the hurt on us, so we now intend to return the favor, old Mission Impossible style, by making the targeted people go nuts and turn their wrath against each other.

- That, given the previous, serious and ugly war between Shia and Sunni would not necessarily be bad for civilization, or more cynically, at least the U.S.

- That if we could make the Chinese dependent upon and forced to get involved in the region, that might hurt them strategically more than help.

- That, however it may play out, all of a sudden Sunni Arabs have to accept that Israel is not the biggest threat to them, never really has been, and could even be an ally if they would stop being idiots about it for five minutes.

These are just a few things. Let me clear: I don't think this administration is even capable of, not to mention willing to, think strategically about advancing U.S. interests. To do so is inherently immoral in their book, so U.S. interests don't even cross their radar screen. So any benefit at all to us would be pure happenstance.

But I wonder how much of that will come to pass anyway?





1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I've got $100 that says King Barry I gets a Nobel Peace Prize for this one too.

Any takers?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I Don't take sucker bets!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We're gong to go back. We're going to go back when the lights are out and when we've lost a couple of cities. This is what idiot-educated Marxists have wrought. Remember it. Do not repeat it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Simon could use a physics lesson. IF, and it's a big if, Iran develops a primitive nuclear weapon, it would almost certainly be a gun-type uranium bomb. That limits it to maybe 5-10kt, or roughly what NK managed to pull off. This is a really crappy nuclear weapon. To put that in perspective-- if you set such a device off in southern Manhattan, those in Central Park would get a bit of a breeze, and that's about it.

Once you have your really crappy nuclear weapon, you need a method of deploying your 10,000 lb lump of uranium. Doing that either requires a heavy bomber (that doesn't get shot into fish food), or a relatively advanced SRBM. Iran has neither. Chinese castoffs that are themselves cheap copies of Russian vehicle mounted rockets aren't going to cut it.

Then there's the fact that Israel most certainly does have SRBMs that work pretty well, and also much lighter megaton-grade warheads.

Wiggleroom, much as in most other international matters, is irrelevant. Iran has perhaps one shot to make something relatively small glow if they can manage to weaponize a relatively small (yet very heavy) bomb. Within a few minutes of doing so, Iran is done, quite probably with Saud blessings.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mr. Lion's comment re weapon type/size is ok, that on delivery vehicle, not so much.

Container ships (or foreign-flagged smaller cargo ships), not to mention semi trailer rigs are a lot easier to get and operate, and quite a bit harder to monitor than are jet bombers and SRBM's.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

In the course of the Manhattan Project, it was not considered necessary to even test the Little Boy design. Little pile + big pile = worky bang. And it was radar-fused, no less.

Delivery can be by ship, container (road or marine), or air freight. Yes, a deception program is essential.

With the mechanics out of the way, it comes down to strategy. Nukes are not an asset after they are used. Nukes are an asset as a fleet-in-being. The way to demonstrate a nuclear capability is to sneak an explosive shipping container or air freight container into a major port of entry. You don't even have to set it off, just tell everybody where to look for it.

You may then engage in all sorts of nasty tricks, knowing that the nukes have your back.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That only works reliably when the people you're attempting to get into a mexican standoff with won't just portabella the hell out of you as they know your nuke program is in its infancy.

The "safe" way of rattling the sabre is testing the devices. "Problem" is, the second that happens, Israel takes off the gloves in this particular case.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

Like I said, testing a shotgun-style uranium device is redundant. Proving you can get one to the target is everything.

Israel's comfort level is one wild card in all this. The other is Iran's confidence that the U.S. can restrain Israel. When we reach the intersection of those two judgement calls, we'll know if we're to have war or peace.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
exactly
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There's nothing to prevent the use of Uranium in an implosion type device. Yes, implosion bombs are harder to engineer, but the Iranians aren't idiots, and they've had more than a decade to work out the timing requirements. With relatively straightforward technologies like tampers and D-T boosting, you can easily (for nuclear weapons definitions of "easy") make a nuclear warhead for an SRBM or IRBM powerful enough to be an effective threat. There will probably be a range penalty due to the 5x increase in critical mass over Plutonium, but that isn't going to be much comfort to Israel or Qatar.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have a hard time buying, even with help from the Ususal Suspects, that they have the technical ability to make D-T boosting work, or even implosion timing, when they can't even keep an F-14 flying or work out how to make thermal batteries for the AIM-54s they've been trying to use for decades.

Either way, even if they make a bomb work, figure out some way of deploying it, and they get a significant yield without testing (I'm willing to bet testing a bomb would bring about an immediate attack from Israel)-- they're still radioactive glass in very short order.

Is one sucker punch worth getting reduced to your component elements? Not even NK is that insane.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Last I'd checked, South Korea has never had a problem with suicide bombers. Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, on the other hand, have.

So while NK isn't that insane, Iran probably is.

Also, how many major drug arrests are made by accident? The easiest delivery system is a boat. Just keep sailing it closer and closer to ground zero. When they make you stop, turn the key. New York, Los Angeles, Vancouver, San Diego, San Francisco, Pearl Harbor.

True, you won't get the most effecient 1 km altitude air blast dynamics, but you'll still throw tons of highly radioactive (newbie bomb tech) fallout in mud, seawater and innocent bystander boat parts, all irradiated to hell.

Or use a cargo plane. Detonate on approach over the city of your choice. Then you do get your air blast, and you don't fly near any pesky roadside/ oceanside radiation detectors. No way on earth to fly close enough to inspect every cargo flight inbound.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Moving a bomb without detection via air, land or sea is not easy. Getting one close to a target of interest to said crazies is even less easy. There would have to be some pretty catastrophic intel and detection failures for that to happen.

As to Iran being that insane, I'm not so sure. No doubt Zero's utter incompetence has emboldened a number of crazies the world over, but that's a pretty big line to cross, even for fanatics.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"There would have to be some pretty catastrophic intel and detection failures for that to happen."

Fortunately, we have the intel structure in place to preclude something as awful as that, so that is of some comfort.

Oh yeah, just today Drudge is reporting that Eddie Snowden and his Merry Crew hold a "doomsday" detonator document package that would bring that entire house of cards down if released.

But I'm sure we will all be fine. The one thing we truly have going for us is the inherent smarts, savvy and morality of our leaders, and our fellow citizens who voted for them.

Sleep well.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
this is a frequently made argument. probably correct in most cases. it always leaves me wondering about alternate delivery modes, however. a ship sailed into a harbor, the panama canal, the suez canal just to name three possiblities. i'm not a nuclear physicist or a smuggler, but i suspect that given six bombs of the type you suggest, i could do a lot of damage, especially with suicide bombers at my disposal.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sure, though that assumes they can make six bombs (that's 800+ lbs of U235) that work, and move them around largely undetected.

If I were a naval officer, I believe my first reaction to an unannounced Iranian (or un-flagged) ship chugging into my waters would be to shoot it extensively.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
very true, but the type of bomb we are discussing was considered easy to make in WW II, as opposed to a plutonium bomb. iran has a huge advantage simply in knowing that it can be done. i'm not saying that my senario works. i'm saying that iran doesn't necessarily need big bombers or missiles to have an effect. i assume the DoD wargames this, too.

basically, as i understand it, a uranium bomb is easy to set off, but the uranium is hard to enrich. plutonium bomb is hard to set off, but easy to separate the fissile material. pay attention down the road to the plutonium breeder.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Easy" is relative. You can make a bomb, mechanically, without much difficulty. However 80+% enrichment in quantity, neutron initiators, electronics that don't mind being next to things that are hot, etc-- that is not easy. That's why you generally need to test the crap out of such things, lacking the technology and experience to model them electronically.

Long and sort of it is that it's not that hard to make a very heavy, very inefficient weapon that will mostly work as advertised. However, it is very hard to make a light, efficient weapon that is relatively easy to deploy, in complete secrecy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
understood. however, if the goal is destruction, not blast radius, a device encased in cobalt, in a ship, detonated in a harbor- Haifa or Rotterdam for example- would do damage that would rival Hiroshima, i suspect. end of the world? nope. but worse than even a really bad hair day.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
A salted bomb would be particularly unpleasant-- though in this case without a tested device, it's one more thing that can go wrong, and one more thing that brings about the end of your country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The end of WHO'SE country? The ship was Liberian flagged. The plane was identified as UPS air freight. The semi was ABF Freight. The pleasure boat was registered to Eric Holder.

All of them will quite honestly deny knowledge. Then Al Queda brags it was them.

Who you gonna bomb?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Nuclear forensics are plenty capable of removing quite a lot of doubt about the origin of a particular device, as is simple logic.

Iranian intel about their nuclear program goes quiet, or they're stupid enough to test a bomb. Six months later, a western nation has a bad day. The weapon used involved low grade materials and a primitive design. Odds are good it wasn't France.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Maybe this is what the spring of 1967 felt like." not how i remember it. it feels more like october 1962. except that the press is ignoring things.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I know a guy who, at the time, was a junior Air Force officer who's job included sitting next to the infamous red telephone.

And worry like hell about his family, 20 miles away, but NOT *not* 200 feet under ground.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All