The last day (Israel:Iran)

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Right, like why would someone be a suicide bomber when they can just threaten to do it? Surely these people are rational enough to know that blowing yourself up isn't the best way to accomplish their objectives . . .

The way I was taught it at a public school dominated by lefties in courses taught by professional officers in the armed services, terrorism--even state sponsored terrorism--is not as dire a threat to regional and global security as a nuclear strike by a sovereign state.

And, IIRC, Bush the Younger's approach to GWOT emphasized this view point.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The way I was taught it at a public school dominated by lefties in courses taught by professional officers in the armed services, terrorism--even state sponsored terrorism--is not as dire a threat to regional and global security as a nuclear strike by a sovereign state.

And, IIRC, Bush the Younger's approach to GWOT emphasized this view point.

I think that is a relevant point, but I wonder if the thinking is a little dated as technology and access to these types of weapons by unfriendly nations becomes more common.

What I'm talking about is this;

What happens if a state backed terrorist groups successfully detonates a nuclear device inside a western nation?

Traditional thinking (cold war era) seems to side with the thinking that if a sovereign state launches a nuke we must then launch a nuke going blow for blow until we reach a definite endgame I.E. the end of modern civilization. This thinking also seems to have a side benefit in that everyone knew the stakes so nobody ever really wanted to play the game.

Traditional wars also have the benefit of usually having some well defined goals, be it land, resources, wealth etc. Where as with the mixing of modern technology with very extremist views people could now cause major damage without really having a goal other than causing harm. So in the past simple saber rattling might have been enough to reach your goal because your goal was something similar to those traditional motivations. But we as a nation and really as a western society seem to have a hard time with someone that is motivated solely on death/disruption.

Fast forward to today. If Iran happens to misplace or have stolen even a low yield nuclear device which is then detonated inside of a western nation what do we do? We certainly can't just nuke Iran because it wasn't "them." So are we then drawn into a shooting war on the ground? Where do we go, who do we kill, what if the group is tied to many countries etc?

Which goes back to problems with sovereignty, agents of the state vs. non-state agents. Which we haven't really worked out yet.

Think about the instability of global markets right after 9/11 and how for days the world was kind of at a stand still. Now imagine the panic inside major metropolitan areas if even one nuke were to go off. Without a well defined enemy and course of action the uncertainty will wreak havoc on the global economy as well as wide spread panic.

I guess my point is that in some ways it seams that modern terrorism depending on its scale could be more devastating than traditional nuclear threats because of its inherent uncertainty.


Sorry for the long winded post.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by fng13

I think that is a relevant point, but I wonder if the thinking is a little dated as technology and access to these types of weapons by unfriendly nations becomes more common.

What I'm talking about is this;

What happens if a state backed terrorist groups successfully detonates a nuclear device inside a western nation?

Traditional thinking (cold war era) seems to side with the thinking that if a sovereign state launches a nuke we must then launch a nuke going blow for blow until we reach a definite endgame I.E. the end of modern civilization. This thinking also seems to have a side benefit in that everyone knew the stakes so nobody ever really wanted to play the game.

Traditional wars also have the benefit of usually having some well defined goals, be it land, resources, wealth etc. Where as with the mixing of modern technology with very extremist views people could now cause major damage without really having a goal other than causing harm. So in the past simple saber rattling might have been enough to reach your goal because your goal was something similar to those traditional motivations. But we as a nation and really as a western society seem to have a hard time with someone that is motivated solely on death/disruption.

Fast forward to today. If Iran happens to misplace or have stolen even a low yield nuclear device which is then detonated inside of a western nation what do we do? We certainly can't just nuke Iran because it wasn't "them." So are we then drawn into a shooting war on the ground? Where do we go, who do we kill, what if the group is tied to many countries etc?

Which goes back to problems with sovereignty, agents of the state vs. non-state agents. Which we haven't really worked out yet.

Think about the instability of global markets right after 9/11 and how for days the world was kind of at a stand still. Now imagine the panic inside major metropolitan areas if even one nuke were to go off. Without a well defined enemy and course of action the uncertainty will wreak havoc on the global economy as well as wide spread panic.

I guess my point is that in some ways it seams that modern terrorism depending on its scale could be more devastating than traditional nuclear threats because of its inherent uncertainty.


Sorry for the long winded post.

Originally Posted by tonyz

To follow fng13's observations, it seems to this rube that terrorism might or might not be as substantial a threat as a state sponsored nuclear strike - unless and until a non-state terrorist group gets access to a nuke or nukes. That, IMO, might throw regional and global security - and all relevant economies into a tailspin. Are we really that far away from such a possibility?

And, it also seems that it's not necessarily about warheads and missile deliver systems in this world so much as it is about cargo containers, oil tankers and various other low tech delivery devices.

The words plausible deniability scare the he'll out of me with either the introduction of - or proliferation of - the nuclear component to certain regions and regimes of the world.

fng13 and tonyz--

MOO, you both are raising important points that our national political leadership failed to debate adequately after 9/11 and continues to avoid debating to this current day.

In regards to your concerns, I do think that our own post-World War II experiences provide guidance (but not necessarily "lessons") on how to respond to rogue states using terrorism.#

By referencing Brodie's Strategy in the Missile Age, I'm not endorsing all of his conclusions. Rather, I'm pointing out that the possession of nuclear weapons introduces levels of complexity to strategic planning. The Islamic Republic of Iran will to wrestle with many of these issues. No matter how irrational its political leadership seems to us as Westerners, there remains an underlying rationale to Iran's behavior. Even the Soviet Union--a regime that embraced an ideology predicated on violence--figured out that atomic weapons are not a magic carpet that one can ride to global revolution.

By referencing the "spectrum of conflict," I'm suggesting that even if they do learn how to build nuclear weapons, rogue states of all stripes will encounter similar learning curves.

During these intervals, Western states, if they can avoid panic, profound strategic miscalculations, and intelligence failures, will have advantages in military capabilities but also (and more importantly) in armed service professionalism. (Other advantages include the Westphalian system, liberalism, market capitalism, and cultural values centered around the primacy of the modern self.)

That is, while some may argue that we're in a new age of warfare that requires entirely new ways of thinking, Western nations, especially the United States, have already put in a lot of thought on how to deal with the threats we face today. In the years following the Vietnam War, SMEs debated fiercely the best way to fight the Soviet Union in a general war. Over arching questions throughout these brawls centered around the impact of technological change on modern warfare and the vicissitudes of regional conflict. Consequently, in addition to the Soviets, these SMEs also spent a considerable amount of time talking about terrorism and regional conflict sparked by third world governments.* (I would say "surprising" but that would be an ahistorical observation. Historians are never surprised by the past.)

While not all of the proposed solutions were implemented, not every contingency was foreseen, and no consensus was reached, I think the emphasis on alliances, diplomacy, deterrence predicated on "escalation dominance," and holding to the values and best practices of western civilization still fit in today's geostrategic environment.

Here's why. Even if a "nightmare scenario" along the lines you two eloquently painted out were to occur, our armed services would still have the means and the professional expertise to identify, to engage, and to defeat decisively the perpetrators. And while the will of "we, the people" and of our political leadership are hot button issues these days, I think that even in a nightmare scenario--which I think will occur at least once--we'll still be "us" and, equally significant, they'll still be "them."**

MOO, we do ourselves a disservice and we may even play into the hands of our opponents--be they radical Islamcists, communists, or fascists--when we allow them to dictate the terms of conflict, or when we fall into a "this changes everything" frame of thinking, or when our thinking about nightmare scenarios overshadows our understanding of our own historical experience.

My uncaffeinated $0.02.


_________________________________________________
# FWIW, one could make a very strong argument that the American military experience has had relatively few examples of "well defined goals".
* In this regard, the Carter administration was ahead of its time. However, its modest contributions to these debates do not get the man from Plains, GA off the hook. During the Cold War, military effectiveness required modern capabilities across the spectrum of conflict--not just the first third. He needed to be a Cold War president, not the first "post-Cold War president."
** With all due respect to the memory of Edward Said--one can blame the west and Israel all one likes, but at some point, responsibility for the fact that much of Arab "street" has open sewage trenches eventually devolves onto the people who live there.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, we do ourselves a disservice and we may even play into the hands of our opponents--be they radical Islamcists, communists, or fascists--when we allow them to dictate the terms of conflict, or when we fall into a "this changes everything" frame of thinking, or when our thinking about nightmare scenarios overshadows our understanding of our own historical experience

A fair point, complexity increases, but how much of a deterrence is moderate nuclear capability? We were going in to get UBL once we found him come hell or high water, and frankly I am guessing any Pakistani elements who opposed or fired on our forces during the raid would have simply been obliterated. Now Pakistan is of course an "ally", but we still militarily violated the borders of a nuclear armed country, and frankly if UBL was in North Korea we would have gone in to get him there too.

I keep thinking of Mcnamara's Fog of War, in which he tells how rationality can fail in the face of nuclear weapons. Between JFK, Kruschev, and Castro all making rational decisions for their countries we were lucky to escape nuclear armageddon, I don't think this roulette table needs expansion, even if Alf was perfectly rational.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by akv

A fair point, complexity increases, but how much of a deterrence is moderate nuclear capability? We were going in to get UBL once we found him come hell or high water, and frankly I am guessing any Pakistani elements who opposed or fired on our forces during the raid would have simply been obliterated. Now Pakistan is of course an "ally", but we still militarily violated the borders of a nuclear armed country, and frankly if UBL was in North Korea we would have gone in to get him there too.

I keep thinking of Mcnamara's Fog of War, in which he tells how rationality can fail in the face of nuclear weapons. Between JFK, Kruschev, and Castro all making rational decisions for their countries we were lucky to escape nuclear armageddon, I don't think this roulette table needs expansion, even if Alf was perfectly rational.

So. Nuke Teheran?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by akv

A fair point, complexity increases, but how much of a deterrence is moderate nuclear capability?

The most vexing question students of the Cold War face is How does one evaluate the efficacy of deterrence? Does the fact that the U.S. and USSR never fought a general war mean that deterrence worked? Or does it mean that the Soviets never intended to expand its sphere of influence in Europe by using military force? Or does it mean that the most closely guarded secret of the Cold War presidents was that they'd not have authorized a nuclear strike?

MOO, the fact that India and Pakistan have not really gone after each other says something about the deterrent value of a "moderate" capability.

Originally Posted by Dusty

So. Nuke Teheran?

IMO, the American government should have restarted the testing of nuclear weapons after 9/11. Official statements should have phrased the tests in terms that would have invited "deniable" comparisons to potential targets in the Islamic world.

Q (Helen Thomas): Mr. President, it sounds like you're saying the warhead the navy tested destroyed an area roughly the size of Qom.

A (President George W. Bush): No, I didn't say that.

Q (Thomas): Well, then what did you say?

A (Bush the Younger): You tell me.

Q (Thomas): Are you winking?

A (Bush the Younger): Helen, I'm not winking. I had grapefruit for breakfast and got some pulp in my eye. Also, (a) I'm spoken for and, (b) if I weren't, I'd wink at Soledad O'Brien, not you. Next question?

[Dusty]

BiBi, Bro-don't deal with this character-hold off 'til the middle of January...

How intimidated could the BG's be, anyway, with all the bowing and scraping and apologizing?

And have you seen the picture of the guy on a bicycle? Oy Vey. Somebody send him some Ageless Male.

[tonyz]

I sure miss this man.

IMO, many aspects of this speech are as applicable today as they were back then - merely the players change.

Keep the faith.

http://criticalpolitics.wordpress.co...-we-surrender/

[tonyz]

Sigaba, you present some interesting points.

MOO, essentially, to the extent that we allow rogue regimes (and in this situation their proxies) to obtain nukes we unnecessarily limit favorable potential outcomes (for us, Israel, and many others). If it were up to me - Tehran does not get the bomb. I assume that the regime means what it says and radical islamists are folks that strap bombs on women and children.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

During these intervals, Western states, if they can avoid panic, profound strategic miscalculations, and intelligence failures...

That's a lot of "ifs" and there are many more...

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Here's why. Even if a "nightmare scenario" ...were to occur, our armed services would still have the means and the professional expertise to identify, to engage, and ....

I'm not so sure we can really identify them and if we do the horse has left the barn - and we may be in the 1800s and economically crippled.

IMO, there is too much at stake to gamble with Iran learning world lessons on the nuclear issue. The region is currently too unstable and the actors are arguably equally unstable from any number of perspectives.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Entire post

FWIW, I agree, and the "value of deterrence" is the 64K question: On the one hand, it is understandable to get caught up in the trap, as the Shi'ites do believe in a man-made apocalypse which will bring about the return of the twelfth Imam[1]. On the other had, up until recently, Iran has been relatively cautious about what is directly attributed to Tehran, while most people know that Hezbollah is generally controlled by Iran, there is still some level of plausible deniability, if in name only. Then again, the political winds in Iran may be shifting[2].

IMHO: As nuts as Tehran may seem, politics is a lucrative business, and I am sure there are many who would like to keep it that way. Lobbing nukes at nuclear armed countries doesn't really work for the status quo. Saudi Arabia on the other hand... (My signature not withstanding )

Of course, as pointed out many many previous posts, we can always circle back to the "suitcase bomb" and Iran: "We didn't do it."

MOO, considering Pakistan's (in)stability, I would worry more about their established nuclear program falling into the wrong hands[3].

Another point to consider is Israel's nuclear policy, if anything, they may be just as guilty of setting the "trap"[4]. What is known of Israel's "Samson Option" was built around the fact that none of its mortal enemies had nuclear armaments[5], if this were to change, whats to guarantee that Israel's pre-emptive or subsequent strike(s) will not be nuclear?


[1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/07/battle_hymns_of_the_madmen_in.html
[2]http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/irans-conservatives-grapple-power
[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13507767
[4] Israel's Nuclear Opacity: a Political Genealogy
[5]http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/razdel.php?article_id=101&id=15

[scooter]

The US appears to have the capability to detect the country of origin of any nuclear device detonated on US soil, so deniability won't really come into play.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nuke.html

As far as Iran acting rationally, I'd stipulate that regardless of what rhetoric they throw out there most of their actions to date have been fairly calculated and rational in recent years. Using suicide bombers doesn't mean the one employing them is off their rocker, any more than the kamikazes in the pacific meant that Japan was an irrational actor fighting blindly.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Dusty

So. Nuke Teheran?

No, there is no need to fry 7.7 million people. The Iranian regime needs to coerced to end nuclear proliferation, or be replaced with a regime that is convinced. If we have to use force to deny them nukes, we use force.

If Iran is allowed to go nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others will soon want the same capability, given human frailty and error, this path likely ends up in glowing piles of rubble...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by scooter

The US appears to have the capability to detect the country of origin of any nuclear device detonated on US soil, so deniability won't really come into play.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nuke.html

As far as Iran acting rationally, I'd stipulate that regardless of what rhetoric they throw out there most of their actions to date have been fairly calculated and rational in recent years. Using suicide bombers doesn't mean the one employing them is off their rocker, any more than the kamikazes in the pacific meant that Japan was an irrational actor fighting blindly.

Okay, let's play into that assumption.

We lose our national electric grid from an EMP and discover that the fissionable material was Russian in origin. Half this country will die in the next year.

Do we then nuke them, and enact MAD?

What if it turns out to be Pakistani?

North Korean?

TR

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

entire post

.

Sig, you voice a valid argument, but IMHO the one thing you left out is the "Sunni Bomb". There is no way on God's Green Earth that Saudi Arabia is going to allow the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, and they don't have one. So now on top of the lunatics in Iran getting a nuclear weapon, we have to worry about the crazies in Saudi Arabia getting a nuclear weapon. And you will never be able to sell me on the fact that Wahabbi's can be rational actors.

So now we have a situation where a Nation publically states that it wants to erase Isreal off the map. Then we have an opposing national that has already proved it is willing to bring about the destruction of the United States by its actors that were participants in 9-11.

So is the doomsday scenerio that Iran has the bomb, or is it that once they get one they will bring about a nuclear arms race in unarguably the most unstable region of the world???

[hoepoe]

Originally Posted by afchic

.....once they get one they will bring about a nuclear arms race in unarguably the most unstable region of the world???

A fairly likely scenario.