The last day (Israel:Iran)

[hoepoe]

A very powerful clip made by Israeli amateur film makers. This is not what happened, but a good clip of what could happen.


http://youtu.be/c5T5CF1jhTg

[DevilSide]

I tried to watch, but youtube says "malformed video ID :/"

[hoepoe]

Originally Posted by DevilSide

I tried to watch, but youtube says "malformed video ID :/"

Indeed it was. Fixed now.

Apologies.

H

[Richard]

FYI - those of us who won't establish an account with Google can't view the video on YouTube/Google.

I'll look elsewhere for it.

I found it viewable on LiveLeak - looks like the highway pass which cllimbs up past the West Bank when traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

And for those of us who grew up during the MAD era - memories of 1983's The Day After...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2a...ayer_embedded#!

Richard

[hoepoe]

Originally Posted by Richard

FYI - those of us who won't establish an account with Google can't view the video on YouTube/Google.

I'll look elsewhere for it.

Richard

Sir

You can see it here, half way down the article:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4197624,00.html

No login required.

H

[Sigaba]

Is the worst possible outcome that Iran will use nuclear weapons or is it that Iran will not use nuclear weapons <<LINK>>?

[Barbarian]

Is the worst possible outcome that Iran will use nuclear weapons or is it that Iran will not use nuclear weapons

Since I'm interested in your question, and it is likely I won't read that particular book in in time for this discussion, could you elaborate on that question? Thanks.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Barbarian

Since I'm interested in your question, and it is likely I won't read that particular book in in time for this discussion, could you elaborate on that question? Thanks.

I think that many Western observers are getting caught up in the "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut job" while losing sight of the possibility that even a nut job can calibrate means to ends. A state with even a modest arsenal of nuclear weapons might advance its interests more effectively by rattling the sabre than by drawing it and using it.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I think that many Western observers are getting caught up in the "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut job" while losing sight of the possibility that even a nut job can calibrate means to ends. A state with even a modest arsenal of nuclear weapons might advance its interests more effectively by rattling the sabre than by drawing it and using it.

Boy, you got that right. In this case, motivation is not a problem, either.

[Barbarian]

@Sigaba

I suspect Ahmedinajad is smart enough not to directly attack Israel or the U.S. with ICBM's. Sabre rattling is one unpleasant variable created by a functional Iranian nuke program. It seems to me that continued nuclear proliferation should be the big worry among observers, though, if it isn't already.

Boy, you got that right.

Lol.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I think that many Western observers are getting caught up in the "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut job" while losing sight of the possibility that even a nut job can calibrate means to ends. A state with even a modest arsenal of nuclear weapons might advance its interests more effectively by rattling the sabre than by drawing it and using it.

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 . . .

[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.

[tonyz]

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.

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.

[The Reaper]

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.

One middling-sized nuclear weapon and a SRBM and they can put this nation back in the 1800s, at the least.

We can glass them over (if we can figure out who did it) and we can bounce the rubble twice, but it still won't change the situation here, if they pull the trigger.

I would not count on the Iranians, or any Muslims, frankly, to be rational actors as we understand the term.

TR