Getting ready for the Islamic bomb

[akv]

EDITORIAL: Getting ready for the Islamic bomb

The White House should prepare for a new Mideast war
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES 10/29/09

The White House believes there is an Islamic bomb in your future. Associated Press reported Tuesday that the Obama administration is "quietly laying the groundwork for long-range strategy that could be used to contain a nuclear-equipped Iran and deter its leaders from using atomic weapons." Granted this could be routine contingency planning, but it's believable that President Obama is pursuing an acquiescent policy given his foundering efforts to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear capability.

American planners are pondering whether Iran can be deterred from using nuclear weapons. This is the wrong question. They should instead examine how the United States will be deterred should Iran go nuclear.

Even under the current equation (the United States has nuclear weapons and Iran does not), Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorists, supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with rockets and conventional weapons, and gives materiel, training and intelligence support to extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of more American military personnel than any other country since the Vietnam War. Tehran does not lack the will to stand up to the United States even without nuclear weapons. It's chilling to consider how much more bold Iran will be with an atomic arsenal.

A nuclear Iran would not immediately launch a full-scale war. At the very least, Tehran would need time to enlarge its nuclear stockpile. But testing a nuclear weapon would give the Islamic Republic an instant insurance policy against regime change. They know that the United States would not respond to their new capability with vigor, so Iran will use nuclear leverage to pursue conflict at the lower ends of the conflict scale.

This is the most important lesson of Cold War-style nuclear deterrence: preventing warfare at the nuclear level encouraged conflict by other means. This was demonstrated by the explosion of unconventional wars from the 1950s to the 1980s.

The United States maintains that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be "unacceptable," but this is empty rhetoric. Witness the case of North Korea. On Oct. 21, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told an audience in Seoul, "We do not today - nor will we ever - accept a North Korea with nuclear weapons." News flash to Mr. Gates: The United States has accepted a nuclear-armed North Korea since Pyongyang tested an atomic bomb in 2006. The U.S. government took no concerted action to back up its "no North Korean nukes" policy.

Saying a course of action is unacceptable and not imposing serious consequences once the line is crossed is irresponsible and encourages other countries to test the same limits. Hence, when the United States declares that Iran "will not be permitted" to achieve nuclear-weapons capability, Tehran's response is: Says who?

The United States should be planning for the more probable contingency of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program. When Israel says something is unacceptable, it means it, and Israel is not afraid to back up its statements with force.

Israel has consistently taken military action against nuclear threats from their hostile neighbors. An Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program will have significant consequences for the region, and Washington will be required to demonstrate strong leadership.

The coming conflict will require more than another goodwill tour of the Middle East by Mr. Obama or a tart comment from the secretary of state. A war is brewing, and the United States should get serious about which side it wants to be on.

.

akv, Cite your source with a link. This is not a request. TS

[rubberneck]

The White House believes there is an Islamic bomb in your future.

I guess the Pakistani's "Islamic bomb's" don't count somehow.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

He is deep in Strategic planning to see if he wants to send troops the Afganistan...AND wanting to "pay" "moderate" Taliban to switch sides for usome big time strategal planning...Make that man a general for life. Aman or Awmein, or something like that.

[Team Sergeant]

I don't recall this was ever confirmed by anyone as an atomic weapon that was detonated in N Korea.

I still believe it was one hundred tons of TnT or something similar. As I recall no radiation or any other type of fallout was ever detected. But it's a great way to make your enemies believe you possess nuclear weapons.

Want to take bets Irans first nuclear "test" will also be below ground.......

TS


The United States maintains that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be "unacceptable," but this is empty rhetoric. Witness the case of North Korea. On Oct. 21, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told an audience in Seoul, "We do not today - nor will we ever - accept a North Korea with nuclear weapons." News flash to Mr. Gates: The United States has accepted a nuclear-armed North Korea since Pyongyang tested an atomic bomb in 2006. The U.S. government took no concerted action to back up its "no North Korean nukes" policy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/29/getting-ready-for-the-islamic-bomb//print/

The United States should be planning for the more probable contingency of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program. When Israel says something is unacceptable, it means it, and Israel is not afraid to back up its statements with force.

Israel has consistently taken military action against nuclear threats from their hostile neighbors. An Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program will have significant consequences for the region, and Washington will be required to demonstrate strong leadership.

The coming conflict will require more than another goodwill tour of the Middle East by Mr. Obama or a tart comment from the secretary of state. A war is brewing, and the United States should get serious about which side it wants to be on.

We, the US, once were capable of drawing the line in the sand and having others believe we meant it. We are no longer good poker players.

Until, unfortunately, we have a clear attack on this country, IN this country under the curret POTUS, we shall never know how he will react and that scares me more than the threat of an attack. I used to tell my hippy friends, "turn the other cheek and get that one slapped too." I fear that is what will happen in that particular scenario. We had no idea how GWB would react either for that matter. But his past history indicated he would do what he did. This current guy makes me think other thoughts.

What side shall we be on? I believe the current regime in Washington has, numerous times, inferred where thier sentiments lay and it ain't on this side of the pond from my perception of the things said in the past ten months since taking office.

[Five-O]

If the United States does have the adequate self-preservation gene in its DNA then I hope our Hebrew friends do.

[Richard]

"The Sum of All Fears" - the book, not the movie.

Richard's jaded .02

[akv]

TS,

As per your request.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...-islamic-bomb/

[Soak60]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I don't recall this was ever confirmed by anyone as an atomic weapon that was detonated in N Korea.

I still believe it was one hundred tons of TnT or something similar. As I recall no radiation or any other type of fallout was ever detected. But it's a great way to make your enemies believe you possess nuclear weapons.

Want to take bets Irans first nuclear "test" will also be below ground.......

TS


The United States maintains that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be "unacceptable," but this is empty rhetoric. Witness the case of North Korea. On Oct. 21, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told an audience in Seoul, "We do not today - nor will we ever - accept a North Korea with nuclear weapons." News flash to Mr. Gates: The United States has accepted a nuclear-armed North Korea since Pyongyang tested an atomic bomb in 2006. The U.S. government took no concerted action to back up its "no North Korean nukes" policy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/29/getting-ready-for-the-islamic-bomb//print/

Personally, if I see something that looks like a cockroach in my kitchen, I squash it and tend not to worry about whether it was a cockroach or just a beetle. Either way, it shouldn't have been dumb enough to run around where I could see it.

This can't translate entirely to a world situation like this, since the US simply can't project that much power. But I'm also beginning to believe we need to prepare for more than just appeasement. North Korea would make a nice example for the Iranians, considering how even China has taken a step back from them.