« elisabeth wolff ... a person of conviction and rare courage ... she needs your support ... | Main | on tin horns and tin pots ... »

October 26, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54fcb708388340133f55a5d18970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this day israel ceased to exist ...:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

warlord

We in this country are as guilty as Israel, and will
join them in similar fate.
Good Lord! Look what we have for a Commander in Chief.
We have been attacked from
within by our own.

extropolitca.blogspot.com

Atomic (fission) Bombs are overrated. They are powerful, but Iran is not able to build more than a few (and upkeep them) without bankrupting itself. And they are already near bankrupted.

Israel homes have, near all, a bomb shelter. If the bomb don't hit directly and the people is inside the shelter, they will come out just fine.

Like in many other wars, who that blink and move first will be the probable loser. If Israel is attacked by Iran, they will be able to defend themselves with the Patriot missiles and with other in development tools (like lasers). Iran need much more than a few missiles and A-bombs to put Israel out. Not all missiles launched will arrive to the target and not all of them will explode.

This setting is similar to the Yom Kippur War, where Israel was intimated by Kissinger to not attack first or they will not obtain a nail from abroad.

Using nuclear weapons against Israel is a giant gamble for Iran (and the others Arabs/Muslims). If they fail, Israel will be free to exact bloody vengeance against them for the 10-20K people killed.
Iran will be virtually obliterated and any other attacker will be equally obliterated.
If they succeed in destroying Israel (Siria et al. attack and overcome the IDF), the EU, US and others will not be able to dismiss it as the definitive proof that Arabs/Muslims are dangerous and must be eradicated.
Anyway, Iran will be half destroyed and with it many other M.E. countries (I would reserve a couple of missiles for Makka and Medina then claim it was Iran to do it). This would put an end to the Islamic ability to finance terrorism and propaganda abroad.

Maybe I'm optimist, but any real open military confrontation with Israel will force the Muslims to use too much resources. Iran have not so many years available before demographic and economic collapse start to bit together.

john jay

extra:

where to begin?

it seems to me false to claim that fission bombs are "overrated." one each, of very low yield, destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki at the end of wwii.

were tel aviv to suffer similar devastation, i doubt that israeli's would emerge from it as undaunted as you suggest. people would not simply emerge from their shelters unscathed.

and, if, as you suggest, the financial burdens associated with such a weapons system were to threaten the fall of the mullah's theocracy, it strikes me that such would be all the more incentive for them to use the bomb before their own "demise" as a political entity.

but, finally.

you make the point that the west would retaliate against islam and the arab states at the destruction of israel.--

this seems of little solace to those israeli's who will have been killed or exiled from their homeland.

it also strikes me as a very poor plan to rely upon other countries to exact your revenge for you when you have been obliterated, history being replete with examples of countries assauging their guilt over such matters in relatively quick order, by doing nothing and accomodating themselves to a new reality.

it just is not a very reliable deterrant, nor a very likely scenario.

john jay

p.s. and as far as iran's demographics and economy converging to destroy iran, ... , think of how quickly israel could have brought this about by an attack on the nuclear facilities, plus a very limited attack on iranian oil fields.

by her timidity israel has rendered iran a power and absolutely hamstrung herself militarily and diplomatically.

it is a tragedy, that which we witness this day.

and, that which so few seem to comprehend. so much for the world watching.

Anthony

For goodness sake, it's a nuclear reactor to produce power, not a 'bomb'.

I know that there are certain negatives about it going on line, like the storage of nuclear weapons around it and making it difficult for the Israelis (Americans) to bomb them. However the Israelis are quietly sabotaging and destroying the Iranian nuclear weapons program, eg the Stuxnet worm and the blast at the Imam Ali military installation, a missile storage base, in the Zagros mountains. I'm sure there is a lot more we don't know about.

john jay

anthony:

i lived about 25 miles from the hanford reservation for the 25 years i practiced law in the state of washington.

i now live in milton freewater, oregon which is 60 miles or so from the hanford reservation.

they haven't made any fissile material out for a while, so far as i know.

you think the russians still don't have an ss-20 or two pointed at it? and, at oak ridge? denver?

anthony, where do they make bomb grade fissile materials, e.g., where is it refined?

you cannot made nuclear bombs without nuclear reactors, now, can you? now, you can be sophisticated and take out the centrifuges and the bomb assembly rooms, and stuff like that, but the easiest way to do it is to take out the reactors.

and, that possibility is gone. in my view.

for goodness sake, take your head out of the sand.

john jay

john jay

anthony:

do you seriously think that iran, having come this far towards attaining the nuclear bomb, is really gonna stop its efforts now that they have seen the israeli will crumple, have seen them stagger at the knees?

i don't.

i think having come this far the iranians are now emboldened to go the distance.

wanna put money on it?

john jay

Anthony

John Jay - My head is not in the sand, but quite obviously I have a better understanding of the difference between low enriched uranium and high enriched uranium and plutonium; how nuclear reactors work and the production of fissile material.

I also know that one can get plutonium from a nuclear reactor, but this requires either heavy water or reactor grade graphite - both of which are hard to resource.

Bomb grade fissile material can be, and is usually made by one of several other ways, ie:-
-Gas Centrifuge: spin uranium hexafluoride gas;
-Gaseous Diffusion: force UF6 gas through a membrane;
-Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS): accelerate uranium atoms in a magnetic field;
-Aerodynamic/Jet Nozzle: stationary wall centrifuge.

Iran is using the Gas Centrifuge method, the US uses gaseous diffusion.

Does where you live, Russia, SS-20's actually has anything to do with Iran's Nuclear Reactor and this disciussion? Not really.

However I do understand the threat posed by a nuclear armed Islamic Republic and will support any effort to prevent it, but ill-informed hysteria is not one.

Anthony

John Jay - Read the linked interview with Martin Kramer at:-

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2010/10/26/if-iran-gets-the-bomb/


john jay

anthony:

i am reading, but so far (put all the eggs in the basket of jerusalem so that the iranians don't dare destroy them for fear of destroying islamic shrines/holy places/assets/etc.) the logic of his argument does not convince me very much.

ayatollah khomeini once said he would pay the price of the destruction of the entire of iran if it meant the purchase of the destruction of israel, and the overall triumph of islam. surely, iran has some shrines and holy places as well, ... , yet khomeini often said he would gladly exchange pieces on the chess board, including himself and iran, to rid the middle east of israel and the jews. and, with the destruction of jerusalem islam would also benefit from the final expulsion of christianity from the middle east, which i am not sure your resident genius on the matter considers.

i will find out as i read further, but right now i have a project in the basement that is at the fore, and the guitar to practice later.

i think i anticipate my primary objection to kramer's position, and, by deduction yours as well, and that is you think that the iranians can be dealt with, and that classic lines of deterrent/mutual assured destruction/rational beings analysis will apply.

in my view, this is a leap of faith not justified given the pronouncements of the iranian regime, and the mullahs.

i take them at their word, and i take seriously their view that they are serious about advancing their religious views and visions of how to bring about the reign of islam.

i view the last "unpleasantness" involving the suppression of the iranian student protests as confirmation of how serious they are.

in an odd way i have a lot of respect for the muslims. that respect lies in my crediting them with meaning precisely what they say, and wanting to attain precisely what they say they want.

and, the lynch pin of all that is their focus on the destruction of israel.

for a number of geo-political reasons, they have not been able to achieve that. (primarily mountains, deserts and sea protecting israel, the arab lack of any ability to develop amphibious weaponry, and israel's air superiority. through in a generous dollop of arab ineptitude, and israel has had a pretty defensible position in conventional terms, e.g., egypt had to come over the sinai, and syria down the becca w/ takes, and hence very subject to air attack, and the deserts, mountains and river to the east.)

but, give them some missiles, some atom bombs, and a little bit of luck, and they will have the ability to do what they have lusted after for so many years.

i see no reason why they will hold back once they have the ability to launch a missile attack.

but, i see what i will be doing for the next week or ten days or so. laughing.

john jay

p.s. no, i don't find kramer very convincing. he is very smart, obviously, as i suspect you are, but he premises his thinking on delusion.

that delusion is that the iranians are just "human," and subject to "rational" constraints and motives.

i disagree.

joseph stalin was willing to crack a few eggs to make the omelette of "socialist man," (witness the liquidation of the kulaks because marx had not accounted for them in "theory," so they disappeared in "fact"), and i see absolutely no hesitation in the iranians to crack a few eggs to get rid of israel.

none whatsoever.

john jay

anthony:

martin kramer did get in one good line, however, very reminiscent of the old lawyer's saw/observation about clients willing to fight a case "down to the lawyer's last cent," when he said that iran would be willing to fight israel down to the last hezbollah or abbas fighter.

in other words, iran is perfectly willing to waste the proxies but not its own or its own resources to defeat israel.

a funny observation. trenchant.

and, utterly wrong, misleading and quite likely just a little intellectual cynical.

what would cause me to say such a thing?

well, historically it is a patently false picture of iran's willingness to go to the mat to achieve its geo-political ends. and, it falsely reassures the reader of the interview that iranians are constrained by cost/benefit analysis "like the rest of us."

that is a patently false picture, and kramer knows it.

he remembers, just as you and i do, the little conflict between iran and iraq over geo-political influence in the gulf, and over oil, which erupted from time to time is very savage, very protracted, and very costly conventional warfare in which 10's of thousands of iraqi's and iranians were killed and maimed.

iran under the mullahs has never been hesitant to spill iranian blood and expend iranian resources to achieve its end, and it has never shied from war.

there are lots of dead and crippled and wounded iranians who give testament to my assertions on this point. iran launched human wave attacks, some of the soldiers not having arms but expected to pick them up from dead and wounded comrades, against massive iraqi armor and tank formations, across battlefields littered with mines, with predictable consequences.

no, kramer is wrong in his assertions that iran will not be willing to pay the requisite costs if it has a chance to destroy israel.

dead wrong.

john jay

john jay

anthony:

and so smug and self assured is kramer about his argument that israel should cluster its strategic and economic assets around jerusalem, that he refuses to put upon the balance the fact that so doing makes attack with nuclear weapons against these assets all the more attractive to iran, and adds incentive to them to damage islamic holdings if only it assures the destruction of israel.

i haven't finished reading him yet, so maybe he factors this in, ... , but, if he doesn't, he has let the "weight" of his own argument blind him to other factors which he should weigh and consder.

anthony, i am not a "kramer fan" yet, and doubt i will be.

having supper, will finish reading tomorrow.

john jay

john jay

anthony:

how well does a well informed lack of hysteria work? laughing.

there's more than one way to skin a cat, for sure.

are you saying that the iranians cannot make a bomb with the approach they are taking, and the reactor they are bringing on line, and the centrifuges and processes that they have had working for some time now?

no. of course you are not.

you acknowledge that they are well on their way.

and, unless the u.s. and/or israel take that capability out, they will have a nuke, ... , seasonably.

other than saying i am hysterical, i do not see you venturing much opinion one way or the other how israel is going to deal with the reality of nukes on missiles capable of breaching israeli air space.

nor do i see you offering very much how israel preserves her national character in the face of an adversary quite willing to use nukes against her, even in the face of retaliation.

so, for right now, i view my "hysteria" of more service to the discussion than your well informed calm.

tell me, in all your technical erudition on how weapons grade plutonium/fissile material is made, is there any suggestion whatsoever that iran does not have the ability to build a weapon?

john jay

john jay

anthony:

to the obama picture in the kramer interview.--

what kramer says about keeping the near east (the london prefect) and the middle east (the indian prefect) makes good sense historically and analytically.

it is of course complicated by iran's influence in the near east w/ hezbollah and hamas, and by the american refusal to do its duty with iran instead of trying to fob it off on israel.

the c.i.a. report that crippled bush, and obama's stupidity have complicated matters, and i agree w/ kramer's observations here, and i would suspect that he would agree with mine, insofar as it concerns the bifurcation of the near & middle east.

see, i am agreeable.

john jay

marc in calgary

Once, someone in the west placed a virus into Iran's computers, it's out of the news now...
Now, nuclear material, capable of one day becoming a part of the destruction of Israel, has been loaded into the reactor in Iran.
When this reactor powers up, will "they" do it again? will it lead to another Chernobyl type event by turning off the cooling water? Who in the west will help? or will the prevailing winds simply poison Iran to the collective shrug of the west?

jj, your statement above, "no, kramer is wrong in his assertions that iran will not be willing to pay the requisite costs if it has a chance to destroy israel."

I recall reading of the Iranians sending kids into the battlefields wrapped in bed sheets, in order to lead a clear path through the mine fields... knowing this, I have no hope that Iran will see the light, and pull back from their madness.
Somewhere in Iran, there exists good people that don't deserve their fate, but they're surrounded by islamics that deserve theirs.
Somewhere in Tehran, mullas are tickled pink with the destruction they will unleash, blind to the retaliatory measures Israel possess'

I find it impossible to understand how a country can collectively hate another, more than love their own children.

North Korea found it possible to build a bomb, the Iranians will too. That it's crude isn't the measure, unleashing hatred is. Hatred drives their bus.

Iran holds about 15% of the worlds proven natural gas reserves, and has many areas that haven't been explored. The reactor is not for electricity. For the price of a reactor, about $!0 billion, they could have built many, about 20? figuring a cost of about $500 million for each natural gas burning electrical generating facility. It's far less expensive than nuclear, the only reason to go nuclear, is the added benefit of sating their hatred for the Jewish people.

Anthony

John Jay- I can see that you are a lawyer.

Firstly don't make assumptions about what I think or whether or not I subscribe to Kramer's views expressed in an interview. I simply posted it so that you could be exposed to a different point of view. Secondly, do not try to flatter me.

My use of the word 'hysteria' is simply related to the nuclear reactor which, by now you should have learned, is not for the production of weapons-grade fissile material. That is being acheived through the use of 'centrifuges', although I would not put it past the Iranians to use the partially spent Uranium from the reactor to produce plutonium. This is both costly and difficult....and easy for the Russians to keep tabs on. They step out of line and the Russians will stop any further supply of low enriched Uranium. Countries such as the USA, Russia and France have been providing nuclear fuel to others for some time so as to prevent them from starting up their own enrichment programmes - which could easily be altered, at a cost and with huge energy needs, to produce weapons grade uranium.

Kramer makes a lot of sense with his decentralisation of the Israeli strategic assets. This allows them more than one go in a MAD battle with Iran who are just crazy enough to think about it. Two American carrier groups and the various nations' nuclear-armed submarines lurking in the Indian ocean and Arabian sea must give them pause for thought.

How the ME plays out over the next while is anybody's guess but, to me at least, the stance taken by and weakness of your current President has turned it into a tinder box. The Israelis are in a difficult position since they are not guranteed American support in any military action and have already started dealing with the Saudis and the other Gulf states, who are unwilling to give any public support to them. However do not under-rate the Israelis, they are a cleaver nation and they are fighting for their survival.

john jay

anthony:

well, do you subscribe to kramer's assumptions & arguments? laughing. you can clear that up if you'd like.

here's a couple things trouble me with what you are saying.--

1.)the iranians can make weapons grade stuff with this reactor, difficult or otherwise.

2.)they can acquire fuel and yellow cake from anywhere, ... , north korea, china, south africa spring to mind. and, if obama can somehow stay in office what with the dept. of state being a bunch of hanky ringing arab symps, maybe even from the united states.

3.)m.a.d. doesn't work with israel and iran. neither can afford a prolonged "arms race," ... , hell, it broke the soviet union. if both states have the bomb, the pressure for one to use it before the other gets a tactical/strategic edge is irresistable.

4.)as caroline glick has noted, and as i absolutely agree, the iranians will "test" over jerusalem. they cannot "test" anywhere else, cuz the israelis will strike them. this likelihood is so strong, that it pressures iran to strike first (which is why they got the bomb, anyway, in my estimation).

all of this being the case persuades me that iran did not go this far to risk nuclear attack, and will not build the bomb simply to run the risk of nuclear attack, but builds the bomb with one purpose only, and that is to use it on israel.

iran cannot anticipate ever becomeing a nuclear power amongst the world's powers, ... , not enough money, not enough industrial base.

and, as you rightly note, not enough money and not enough industrial base to build the ones she will build.

which to my mind leads to one irresistable conclusion, and that is because iran builds the bomb to use it.

there is no m.a.d. involved here.

personally, i think ronald reagen would have put a stop to this a long time ago. (no damned reactors for khadafi either, those crazy f___king french.) but, i don't think hilary clinton or barack obama have the cajones to attack iran in retaliation for any attack on israel. fait accompli, once done, in my estimation. besides, it makes no difference to the iranians.

and, anthony, one final little small point. b. insane obama is not my president. i wouldn't walk across the street to piss on him, were his heart on fire. laughing.

in my view, there is no workable "solution" or "situation" once iran has a bomb and a delivery system.

which brings up one final point. why would the iranians have embarked on a ballistic missile system? to explore space? launch communications sats? to deliver conventional explosives? (now, that would be a very expensive way to deliver 500 to 1,000 lbs. of munitions, one at a time and one per rocket. laughing.)

all of the above is so silly as to preclude any rational other than the desire to have a rocket to deliver a nuke. what other reason for a country that cannot even get its helicopters off the ground to build missiles, other than the nuclear weapons delivery capability.

pretty expensive bluff, for no apparent logical end, otherwise.

john jay

p.s. you want a guest editorial here? you write it, i'll publish it.

you argue pretty straight up and down, and i would be interested to read a full exposition of your views.

and, we could argue over them. laughing.

Anthony

J J - Yes the Iranians can get plutonium from the low enriched uranium if they remove the rods before they are spent. This will be noticed by the outside world. As I said, it will be expensive and they need to get heavy water (they have tried once) or reactor grade graphite. It would always be easier to buy it on the black market or from someone else who makes it. BTW South Africa no longer has weapons grade material - it was destroyed before the Marxist ANC took over (with a bit of collusion from the USA). Mandela had a purple fit when he found out that he was not going to have nuclear armaments.

WRT MAD - if the Israelis have all their strategic weapons in one spot, they would have to ensure the complete destruction of Iran before they could do it back.

There can be no doubt that the Iranian ballistic missiles are to deliver a nuclear device. They have them but the range (2500km) is not enough to strike 'the big satan', but certainly could get the little brother.

My views are simple. Straight up and down conservative; anti islamification, progressivism (communism) and one-world government; for small government and freedom.

You might be interested in this site:-http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/

I most usually comment there.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment