I don't have any strong objections to the idea of extending the US "nuclear umbrella" to protect Israel in case of an Iranian nuclear attack, but Charles Krauthammer is aware that Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal, right? I assume that an Israeli threat of a nuclear second strike is going to be a good deal more credible than anything a third party could offer. This is, after all, presumably why Israel went through the trouble of building the nukes.
« More Praise for HITS | Main | McCain as Burkean »
Deterrence
11 Apr 2008 01:41 pm
Comments (58)
Yeah -- read the article. I have a better proposal -- have Israel join NATO. If Albania can join, why not Israel?
Er, Matt. Krauthammer mentions that EXPLICITLY, saying that the trouble is that Israel's nukes are all land-based and could thus be taken out by an Iranian first strike (which is why the US went to the trouble of building all those nuclear subs during the Cold War).
The alternative, of course -- which he doesn't mention -- is Israel using the Launch On Warning strategy. But the US was unhappy about relying on that because of the danger of starting WW III by accident -- which our leaders were worried sick about at precisely the same time that they kept publicly assuring us there was No Danger of it -- and the danger of an accidental war is of course a lot greater when the distance between adversaries, and thus the response time, is a lot less than it was for the US and the USSR (which is also another reason to be scared shitless about the India-Pakistan situation).
So, for once, Krauty may have a very good case. But I'd say that any such guarantee of retaliation that the US gave Israel should also be given to any other nation (nominally on our side, at least) that Iran might threaten with nukes -- particularly Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing states, to keep Iran from blackmailing them into higher forced price rises than OPEC would otherwise carry out. This would also have the benefit of mollifying the Moslem world by making it look a lot less as though we were siding specifically with Israel against Moslems as a whole.
One other note: Krauty says he's not worried at all about a possible Iranian nuclear attack on the US. But surely the danger there -- which he completely ignores -- is a smuggled nuke, and especially a smuggled nuke if the Iranian government loses control of its own nuclear arsenal due to war or revolution. Which, of course, are the real primary dangers from ANY nuclear state -- and thus an even stronger argument to try to prevent Iran from acquiring the Bomb than Krauty says. (Not that I can see any practical way to do so at this point -- and there may well never have been one.)
Is there any logical reason we should not extend our nuclear umbrella to protect other countries as well? What if Costa Rica is attacked? Just shrug and let them die unavenged? I guess some people's lives are worth more than others. Maybe Charles should spell out exactly how much people's lives are worth, based on their nationality, to make his thinking clear on this. For example, is one Israeli worth more or less than 1,000 Costa Ricans?
These neocons are getting more and more totally deranged every day...
Who knows, maybe they really do BELIEVE that we need to establish those anti-missile sites around the borders of Russia in order to protect Europe (and Russia?) from conquest by Nuclear Superpower Iran.
Protecting Israel from an Iran bulging with a first-strike nuclear arsenal reminds me of the old joke "If I had ham, then I could have ham-and-eggs...if I had eggs".
But I still suspect that Krauthammer and all his friends are really just trying to lay the groundwork for an "insanity defense" when they're all rounded up and put on trial for treason. Mayb the Rosenbergs should have tried that ploy...
Iran doesn't even have a nuclear program much less first strike capability.
Maybe Matthew just didn't realize that there was a second page to the op-ed?
This logic - that a lot of people who happen to live in country A have to be killed because someone in that country killed a lot of people in country B - strikes me as morally insane. I don't doubt it would happen, but that doesn't make it right.
Thank you Kyle - small point huh?
Here's a better idea, perhaps we clearly state that any pre-emptive attack on Iran would mean an immediate reprisal from the US that would end Iran's desire for nukes.
Look, we got a US president declaring Iran part of the axis of evil triology, we got US soldiers on both sides of Iran, we got a top US general saying Iranians are behind the deaths of US troops in occupied Iraq, we got a well armed nuclear ally (Israel) not too far away, and we got a US presidential candidate who gleefully sings about bombing Iran. Gee, I wonder why Iran wants a nuke?
The idea Iran would nuke Israel is idiotic, even if you believe the Mullahs want to kill all Jews, there's millions of muslims in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon who would be killed, not to mention Iran would destroy one of Islam's holiest sites.
Krauthammer is a war mongering lunatic, who should move the f&ck back to Canada and stop cheering my nation to war.
sigh, i feel better.
Yeah, I was going to say, this is one of the very few times where I actually agree with old Chuckie... He's not advocating an attack on Iran, which is a pleasant surprise, and he even acknowledges that there are in fact "rational Iranian actors."
And to be honest, I'd always sort of assumed that we had Israel's back in the nuclear sense. Does anybody actually think that we would do NOTHING if Israel were to be attacked with a nuclear weapon? Why not make our intentions explicit? It seems to me that it would actually reduce the chance of conflict.
To Ikram:
Israel gets into a lot of wars, many of which they start. Meanwhile, Israel's borders are not well defined, even among Israelis. Not really a good canidate for a mutual defense treaty.
Besides, I strongly doubt that Europeans are willing to risk their soldiers dying to protect the West Bank.
But on the general topic, what makes anyone think a threat would be credible? Surely Russia and China would have something to say about this.
Actually, Hankest has a rather good idea. Why NOT provide guarantees to both sides in this case that the US will retaliate against an attack by anyone on either of them? (I've sometimes mulled over the possibility of our using a similar guarantee to try and cool down the India/Pakistan showdown -- although of course there are potential hand grenades all over the place where that one is concerned, given the limited controllability of both sides.)
George: "This logic - that a lot of people who happen to live in country A have to be killed because someone in that country killed a lot of people in country B - strikes me as morally insane. I don't doubt it would happen, but that doesn't make it right."
Er, George. That logic is exactly how the US kept West Germany and Japan from going nuclear to protect themselves against the Soviet Union and China. And, of course, your argument could also be used to say that it's "morally insane" for a country to defend ITSELF against attack -- or even to threaten that it would do so.
Actually, I do have a problem with this. One thing is to give a great deal of diplomatic and military assistance to Israel. Another thing is to treat it as we did our Nato partners. That was done as part of a strategic stance against the Soviets who actually were interested in world communist domination that included the downfall of the US government and economic institutions. OUR way of life was at stake as much as the Europeans (to what degree the Soviets were an actual risk is another question - but the risk, however great or slight, was there). While I do not wish to see Iran get into a nuclear tussle with Israel, I do not see it as an existential threat to us. Thus I see no reason to put us in the middle of this.
However, if we do this. I think that we should have at least a lot more say in how Israel manages the Palestinian issues. But I do not think Krauty would like that.
PS I will really be irritated if I read that my position is somehow anti-semitic.
As for "Russia and China having something to say" about any such defense pledge from the US: how could they object in any effective way to our simply announcing that we'd retaliate against any actual first strike by Iran? It would, after all, be far less provocative than the US or Israel trying to attack Iran preemptively to keep it from getting the Bomb in the first place.
Bruce, I was sort of joking, just pointing out that approach is more logical. You know, promising to protect the non-nuke armed nation rather than the promising to protect the nuclear armed nation.
Honestly, I don’t think we should promise to protect anyone. We, meaning the US, should do the opposite. Promise to never attack, invade, occupy or in any other covert/overt way interfere with the internal workings of other nations.
We want Iran to stop using its talent, wealth and resources building bombs? Make the bombs less valuable (i.e., less necessary), rather than more valuable as a deterrent. As I pointed out, Iranians wanting a bomb is completely rational, in fact if they didn’t want a bomb to protect themselves from us, I’d think them mad.
A good start would be meeting with Iran. A second would be to end the military occupation on each of its borders. A third would be to end military aid to ANY nation in the middle east.
Clearly Israel is completely capable of taking care if itself...
Let Israel, Iran, Iraqis and all the other middle easterners figure out solutions to their own problems. We haven't a clue, let's stay out of it.
Hey, I can dream.
You don't have any strong objections to putting the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal at the disposal of a tiny country that's nothing more than a heavily armed Club Med?
Funny, I do. I don't think I'm alone in this.
Er, Matt. Krauthammer mentions that EXPLICITLY, saying that the trouble is that Israel's nukes are all land-based and could thus be taken out by an Iranian first strike (which is why the US went to the trouble of building all those nuclear subs during the Cold War).
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Israel is believed to have some form of a 2nd strike capability. Anyone else remember seeing this?
Krauthammer's column is absurd - a verbal commitment by the US to a retaliatory strike on Iran just wouldn't be a believable deterrent. Would a future president really blow up Teheran if Tel Aviv was attacked? It's far from certain that really would happen. The best and far more certain approach would be to help Israel increase ITS deterrent: if the problem is their "land based" missiles, then help them develop other platforms, like a few subs or bombers. Believe me, that the Iranians would believe. But the larger problem with Krauthammer's piece is its fatalism - his belief that Iran can't be pressured to give up its program. He may be right, but we haven't really tried - at least not yet.
Newsflash: Joe Klein agrees with two of my points. (1) We should make simultaneous security guarantees against an Iranian attack to the Sunni Arab states, to avoid further alienating the Moslem world. (2) We should make at least some security guarantees to Iran itself against an unprovoked attack.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/krauthammer_bombs.html (via Andrew Sullivan).
Right, the problem is Israel doesn't have enough nukes to protect itself from a thermonuclear attack by a nation that has no nuclear capability whatsoever
That makes perfect sense.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Israel is believed to have some form of a 2nd strike capability. Anyone else remember seeing this?
Found it:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/index.html
Relevant section discusses how Israel posesses a small number of diesel-electric subs that could theoretically be modified to carry nuclear-armed cruise missles. Because Israel does not disclose their capabilities, it sounds like the open question is just whether Isreal already posess or will shortly posess true 2nd strike capabilities.
Long story short, Krauthammer is either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.
Krauthammer is deranged, just like the rest of the neocons. With regard to Israel and the rest of the Middle East, there's only one thing to say: its not our problem.
"With regard to Israel and the rest of the Middle East, there's only one thing to say: its not our problem."
Great. Stop sending us $3 billion per year (most of which is spent in the U.S.) and stop telling us to give more pieces of our tiny country to people who want to kill us. We'll deal with the Palestinians and Iran how we see fit. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Would a future president really blow up Teheran if Tel Aviv was attacked?
Nah. An Iran that's been nuked would be useless as a place to put the permanent American military bases necessary to dominate the world's oil supply -- er, safeguard against the existential threat from Afghanistan. Too unhealthy for the troops. Better to annihilate the place conventionally.
My understanding is that the consensus is Israel does have a submarine-launched nuclear capability.
I had a longer, reasoned post for why bothering to officially "cover" Israel didn't make much sense. Instead, I'll cut to the chase.
Israel's ability to hit back after an Irani first strike is threatened only if the Iranis have sufficient intel to know where the counter-strike is coming from, and the technical ability to hit it.
Assuming they do, the "solution" is to stick (or pretend to stick) a cruise or ballistic missile site on the Israeli side of the green line, but close to the Dome Of The Rock.
Chaim, sounds like a damn great idea to me.
So that makes three of us on here so far who feel that way.
Makes four of us on here so far who feel that way.
Chaim,
It sounds like a good deal to me too. But, there are too many busybodies at too many think tanks for that to ever happen.
Re hankest
"Let Israel, Iran, Iraqis and all the other middle easterners figure out solutions to their own problems. We haven't a clue, let's stay out of it.
Hey, I can dream."
The only problem with this approach is that most of the worlds proven supply of oil is in the Middle East. As long as the US is dependent on imported oil, we have no choice but to be involved in the affairs of that region and prevent unfriendly forces from taking over.
Excuse me, but weren't the nuclear guarantees we handed out during the Cold War based on the basic principle of self-defense. Namely, that an attack by the Soviet Union on Western Europe or China on Japan would and could only be seen as a step toward an eventual attack on the U.S. Does that principle apply in ANY way to the Iran/Israel situation? If not, what exactly would justify America nuking Iran, even if the Iranians nuked Israel?
Mike
Re Chaim
I think that Mr. Chaim is correct. That's why I favor phasing out the aid package to Israel. The main reason why it is still there is because, if it were phased out, Congress would demand that the aid package to Egypt also be phased out. Unfortunately, unlike Israel, Egypt probably couldn't get along without it and even the thought of an Islamic takeover in Egypt is enough to double the blood pressure of the poobahs in the State Department.
Chaim, I think that makes 6. Not sure what'd happen to the Israeli economy, though, if the US stops propping it up, but I think it's high time to find out.
Why not make our intentions explicit? It seems to me that it would actually reduce the chance of conflict.
That seems crazy to me. Krauthammer's plan seems like such a bad idea, especially given the justification.
SLC,
Do you really think Egypt is the reason we keep giving money to Israel? Come on.
If the supply of oil is threatened, then of course we should step in (in partnership with other industrialized nations). This would be done out of self-interest. Not due to our interest in other people's religious fantasies.
The importance of oil just underscores the insanity of our policies toward Israel. They don't have any oil.
That logic is exactly how the US kept West Germany and Japan from going nuclear to protect themselves against the Soviet Union and China.
I can't speak for Japan, but:
It is definitely not the case, as you imply, that West-Germany was dying to go nuclear on its own and that only a US nuclear 'umbrella' kept them from doing so.
Neither is it the case that the stationing of nuclear missiles was welcomed with open arms by the German populace - quite the actually: mass protests, demonstrators blockading US bases and infrastructure, the governing party almost falling apart, leading to the downfall of chancellor Schmidt.
So the next time you want to extend a nuclear umbrella, you might want to take the people it is supposed to protect into account.
make that: "quite the opposite actually"
Long story short, Krauthammer is either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.
BFR, I think you underestimate his ability to be both.
"Chaim, I think that makes 6. Not sure what'd happen to the Israeli economy, though, if the US stops propping it up, but I think it's high time to find out."
Considering that we have a GDP of about $150 billion and your economic aid amounts to about only about $500 million, I think we'd manage just fine. We may be small, but we have a pretty strong first-world economy here. Compare the performance of our top-25 industrial stocks (our Ma'of index) to your Dow over the last five years.
Re Jim W
"Do you really think Egypt is the reason we keep giving money to Israel? Come on"
The answer is yes. I can guarantee Mr. Jim W that if the aid to Israel was phased out, which by the way I am in favor of, the demand in Congress that the aid to Egypt also be phased out will become overwhelming. The fact is that the aid to both countries is a bribe to get them to behave themselves. Remove the bribes and the US may not like the consequences (e.g. application of Hama Rules in the Gaza Strip, collapse of the Egyptian Government and its replacement by an Islamic fundamentalist regime such as occurred in Iran.
BFR, I think you underestimate his ability to be both.
I presume he's lying here - it seems pretty unlikely that he wouldn't know what Israel's defense capabilities are, and know for certain that Iran lacks both a viable warhead as well as a mechanism for delivering it.
So, even if you think that Iran is an existential threat to Israel and you think that Israel doesn't yet have 2nd strike capabilities, you'd know that there was basically 0% chance that Iran would have a weapon + delivery system before the time that Israel converted their subs to be a 2nd strike option.
I assume this is about pushing for the recognition of a bilateral defense framework that would compel the US to respond to an attack on Israel - once that's in place then that opens you up to having negotiations on lowering the bar, making it far more likely that the US would get directly involved in Israel's low-level regional conflicts.
To Novakant: the US promise of "nuclear umbrella" protection for West Germany -- obviously -- long predated the actual stationing of nuclear missiles ON WEST GERMANY'S OWN TERRITORY. The German protesters objected to the latter precisely because they feared they might serve instead as an additional TEMPTATION for the USSR to launch a nuclear first strike on Germany. (The US never had any nuclear missiles stationed on Japan's territory, but Japan nevertheless also lived throughout the Cold War under the American nuclear umbrella.)
The German protesters objected to the latter precisely because they feared they might serve instead as an additional TEMPTATION for the USSR to launch a nuclear first strike on Germany.
This is simply not correct: the protests targeted the whole logic of deterrence and assured annihilation, precisely what you are advocating. The stationing of the Pershing II and Cruise Missiles merely brought into focus an already precarious system and provided a trigger for the mass movement against it. In retrospect we can consider us incredibly lucky that nothing ever happened, but it seems that some haven't learned anything and are again willing to use atomic weapons as a tool in political disputes.
MJ Rosenberg over at TPM has the right take on this: Krauthammer is a hater and a loony-tune.
This DOES bring up the point I made repeatedly over at TPM - until Josh Marshall decided this discussion meant I was an "eliminationist" (whatever the hell that is) and had me banned without warning after explicitly telling his readers he wouldn't do that to anybody at TPM Cafe - but I digress.
That is, the whole point of Israel's complaints about Iran's nuclear program is the notion that if Iran actually had such a program it would eliminate the concept of "regime change". And regime change IS the sine qua non of this discussion.
It works like this. Israel is a small country and cannot survive a nuclear first strike (at least not by more than one weapon depending on sizes and targeting.) Even having a nuclear second strike would not enable it to survive. That merely acts as a deterrent.
However, if Israel and the US intend to attack and/or overthrow the Iranian regime, clearly that regime would have nothing to lose in launching a "doomsday" nuclear first strike on Israel. In other words, a precisely "pre-emptive" strike since they knew they were going to be destroyed by Israel and/or the US anyway.
Now, if there was no threat of regime change, clearly Iran would never launch a first strike on Israel, first because of Israel's counterstrike capability and secondly because it is obvious the US would support Israel and likely counterstrike as well. So it simply isn't in the cards. There's no way that any Iranian nuclear weapons program would be used in a first strike, absent an immediate direct military threat to Iran aimed at regime change.
So the real point of all this posturing over Iran's nuclear energy program is to insure that Iran never has a reasonable defensive measure against regime change.
And really, it's irrelevant at this point because 1) Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, and 2) there is little evidence Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program. There might be "some" evidence (of questionable provenance) that Iran had a nuclear weapons DATABASE program - which any military of a country that size would have. Any country threatened by Israel and the US would obviously want its military to know everything about nukes and what they can do and how to build them. That doesn't necessarily translate into a program to build them.
The point of Krauthammer's piece is merely to lobby again for a war on Iran. There's no logic to it at all - there never is from a neocon or a Zionist. It's pure fear-mongering and propagandizing.
So it's pointless to discuss it as if it meant anything in the real world.
Nothing quite like a theocracy with nukes that continually denies it has nukes.
Israel is a bit different though... it also has the capability to build ICBMs (they have launched satellites) and are suspected (by people who should know like the CIA) of having at least a few ballistic missile subs.
Any country that launches nukes first at another country is going to be destroyed in retaliation by somebody because no one will be able to trust that country again (with the exceptions of the US, China and Russia, who are too big to nuke to death without destroying the earth via increased and rapid global warming). However, if we extend this to only Israel and not, say, Lebanon or just about any other country that would want it, we are adding more fuel to the Middle Eastern fire. If North Korea nuked Iran, we wouldn't exactly be happy about that, would we? If Cuba got nuked, we would be pretty pissed off because that would fuck up Florida's ecosystem, so why not extend that to Cuba as well?
Also, is anything stopping Israel from building subs for a second-strike capability? They don't care about any of the relevant treaties, they already have nukes in the first place, and they receive a boatload of money in military aid from us, so why not build or buy a few if they don't have them already?
Matthew doesn't even know what Israel DOESN'T HAVE a second-strike capability.
This combination of abject ignorance and pretend authoritativeness makes serious people puke.
Reality Man,
"(with the exceptions of the US, China and Russia, who are too big to nuke to death without destroying the earth via increased and rapid global warming)"
You must be too young to remember anything before 1989. The big threat from nukes wasn't "rapid global warming" but "nuclear winter". It was soon after the Berlin Wall came down, and that threat receded, that the global warming 'threat' was pumped up to take it's place (no coincidence there).
Israel has three Dolphin class diesel-electric subs it got from Germany, which presumably could be fitted with nuclear missiles. The question is whether the theocrats in Iran really care about dying all that much. If not -- if they'd rather die and hasten the return of the Imam that fell down the well -- then having a second-strike capability might not help.
There is no reason for the U.S. to protect Israel in any way, shape, or form. America's best interests are not served by its subservience to Israel and its Lobby in the U.S.
Israel is not part of the U.S. It is not the 51st state. In fact, as former CIA guy Michael Scheuer has said, Israel is not important to the U.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_oaTIH8g
"Israel has three Dolphin class diesel-electric subs it got from Germany, which presumably could be fitted with nuclear missiles. The question is whether the theocrats in Iran really care about dying all that much. If not -- if they'd rather die and hasten the return of the Imam that fell down the well -- then having a second-strike capability might not help.
Posted by Fred | April 12, 2008 4:04 AM"
Except that there is no indication that the regime is suicidal. Even the leadership of the likes of al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Hamas don't seem suicidal, but instead about holding onto what power and influence they have, expanding it and having other people die for their cause. If they were truly suicidal, they would be doing things like opening up relations with Israel and then blowing themselves up when meeting with high-ranking Israeli officials. Even Krauthammer is starting to admit to the existence of rational actors in Iran's leadership. Considering the fact that their nuclear weapons program is on hold or shut down right now, it seems like the leadership is more interested in following its national interest and preserving the regime than exporting the revolution throughout the Middle East. In addition, doesn't Israel just outfit their subs with nukes? The whole point of having nukes ever since the US's monopoly on nukes ended (unless you're a suicidal genocidal maniac) is to make sure nobody can nuke you without being nuked as well. It just seems half-assed to make only half of the deterrent.
Re Fred
Apparently, Mr. Fred is a global warming denier. His ignorance of the science behind both global warming and nuclear winter is rather profound. The causes of the two phenomena are totally different.
1. The theory behind nuclear winter was that the amount of dust inserted into the atmosphere from a nuclear exchange would block sunlight and result in a collapse of photosynthesis in plants and a reduction in global temperatures. This is exactly what happened 65 million years ago when an asteroid collision resulted in the elimination of the dinosaurs.
2. The theory behind global warming is that burning fossil fuels is resulting in an increase in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (there is no question that this percentage has tripled since CO2 was first discovered in 1825). If such an increase continues, it will inevitably result in an increase in global temperatures as CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One need only look at the situation on the planet Venus which has a much higher surface temperature due to CO2 in its atmosphere then would be expected from its location in the solar system.
I would suggest that before Mr. Fred comments on issues involving science, he obtain some education in the area.
Richard Steven Hack not only has a point, but a lot of people who talk about how we have to go to war to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons actually explicitly make the point that they think we need them so that Iran is not immune to regime change.
The only difference is that they usually try to justify this need for a regime changeable Iran by suggesting that without the prospect of regime change Iran will try to use terrorism to run the world or something to that effect.
There is also sometimes the pseudo-altruistic claim that if Iran has nukes, its poor people will not be able to overthrow the regime and wil have to live under tyranny (yeah, like the iranians would rather their country get forcibly changes by foriengers), ignoring the fact that nukes did not protect the USSR leadershiop from its people when the time came.
"It is definitely not the case, as you imply, that West-Germany was dying to go nuclear on its own and that only a US nuclear 'umbrella' kept them from doing so.
Neither is it the case that the stationing of nuclear missiles was welcomed with open arms by the German populace - quite the actually: mass protests, demonstrators blockading US bases and infrastructure, the governing party almost falling apart, leading to the downfall of chancellor Schmidt"
Actually, it was the Adenauer government in the 50's (especially defense minister F.J. Strauß) that seeked a German nuclear capability, in co-operation with the French. Adenauer famously said that (tactical) nuclear weapons where nothing more than an advanced form of artillery.
But then De Gaulle came to power, and decided to go alone. And since Germany's neighbors were rather uncomfortable with the notion of a nuclear armed Germany, and the US put pressure on Adenauer, and the idea was not exactly popular among the population at large - the social democratic opposition went practically apoplectic - the idea was dropped.
Patrick, that's all true, but West-Germany simply couldn't have gone nuclear on its own, 'nuclear umbrella' or not. And as you say, the opposition to such plans was massive, which is no wonder, since only a few years earlier it was hotly debated if West-Germany should rebuild a standing army at all.
Re Richard Steven Hack
On of the most interesting names on jailbird Hacks' list is one Lawrence Wilkerson, whom Mr. Hack has previously labeled a liar for having the temerity to state that the Government of Israel did not initially support the US Iraq adventure. I guess that to convicted felon Hack, Wilkerson is a good guy for signing a petition supporting talking to Hamas but a bad guy for stating that the Government of Israel didn't initially support the Iraq adventure.
Reality MAn - Any country that launches nukes first at another country is going to be destroyed in retaliation by somebody because no one will be able to trust that country again.
Not true. No one is going to declare war on a countryt that uses nukes 1st, no matter what their size, if:
1. They use nukes to end a conventional invasion they have reason to believe will end in genocide or imposition of a lasting, alien ideology on them.
2. If they are massively attacked by other WMD. Nuclear powers have generally forgone chem or bio weapons capacity with the understanding that use of tactical nukes or Greater yield is appropriate for enemy attacks on their civvie people or military using, say, nerve gas or anthrax.
Several nations retain chem and bio capacity. Their use in certain war scenarios is plausible.
****************
We should not put Israel under a nuclear umbrella unless:
a. Stable, Permanent Borders are agreed to as part of a Comprehensive ME Peace Plan.
b. Other key nations like Russia, China, UK, Germany, India agree Israel can be put under such an umbrella with acceptable treaty terms.
c. Israel gives up its nukes in return for a WMD-free ME, with other nations in the Region also agreeing to no chem, nuclear, bio programs and no war of genocide or eradication...
As things stand, Israel is not a vital strategic interest of the USA, just a portion of the US population for religious or ethnic emotional need. (That includes the Christian Fundies).
*********************
Moomaw - Krauty says he's not worried at all about a possible Iranian nuclear attack on the US. But surely the danger there -- which he completely ignores -- is a smuggled nuke, and especially a smuggled nuke if the Iranian government loses control of its own nuclear arsenal due to war or revolution. Which, of course, are the real primary dangers from ANY nuclear state
The danger of "smuggled-in" nukes is exaggerated or we would have had to go with global thermonuclear war and eradicate the Soviet Union, then China's nuclear capacity from 1950-1965, in the name of "self-defense". We didn't because we all knew that the danger of an AF and Navy capable of delivering thousands of bombs over enemy cities and eradicating nations was a far greater deterrent than "we have to attack the ChiCommies because they could smuggle in nukes!!" Just to be sure, in strategic deterrence, we also added the infamous "4th Protocol" which was that evidence that any nation smuggling in nukes would be considered but a prelude to a follow-on massive attack and uncovery of such a plot (and risks of detection were quite high) would trigger Global Thermonuclear War.
With Islamoids, the Neocon cry has been that the Islamoids are not rational actors, they cannot be deterred, therefore Bush-style preventative war is essential to block nations from getting WMD and giving them to "evildoers". The rest of the world, most military people, reject that argument. While Islamoids are not playing with a full deck, they are not suicidal. And oddly, the Neocons find their greatest backing in the "do-gooder" ranks who argue that if Miami, DC, Philly, Atlanta, Boston, and NYC got nuked - it would still be best left as a law enforcement matter to track down and give up to life sentences for "the criminals responsible" rather than "needlessly punishing millions of innocent brown babies". This is the Neocon argument that therefore, since we couldn't eradicate the nation responsible for such a smuggled-in nuke attack, the terrorists would be "undeterrable".
The Neocon case would be defeated with notation that such an attack would not be resolved in courtrooms but official strategic policy of turning the Muslim nation(s) responsible largely into seas of glowing radiocative glass. Whether or not it was just "rogue Islamist elements" seizing nuke weapons or bomb materials. Even if the attack is largely or completely thwarted - they still get some or a lot of thermonuclear incineration...or all out conventional attack to wreck their ability to wage such war in the future...
Same with the NORKS. Even if we splash nuke missiles launched at us or Japan or stop a try by the NORKS to smuggle a weapon in, the NORKS will still face overwhelming retaliation, not an arriving contingent of ACLU Jews offering to take the perps case pro bono in "International Court".
SLC: "On of the most interesting names on jailbird Hacks' list is one Lawrence Wilkerson, whom Mr. Hack has previously labeled a liar for having the temerity to state that the Government of Israel did not initially support the US Iraq adventure."
SLC is the liar. Reread any of my posts on Wilkerson and you will see that I never called him a liar. I am quite sure that he reported correctly being told by certain Israelis that they would prefer the US not attack Iraq in early 2002.
What SLC repeatedly ignores despite having been told numerous times is the evidence from Flynnt Leverett and others that at the time Wilkerson was talking to the Israelis, Israel was pushing the US to attack IRAN. Only after the neocons assured Israel that Iran would be next did Israel come around and push the US to attack Iraq.
SLC has been informed of this here numerous times. He ignores it because it doesn't fit his propaganda.
Therefore SLC is a lying POS, as usual. No Zionist freak is anything but a lying POS.
Comments closed April 25, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You didn't finish reading the article. It adresses your point.
"Redundant, it would be said, because Israel could retaliate on its own. The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that is largely land-based. Land-based retaliatory forces can be destroyed in a first strike, which is precisely why, during the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union created vast submarine fleets -- undetectable and thus invulnerable to first strikes -- that ensured a retaliatory strike and, thus, deterrence."
Israel has three subs that are capable of launching nukes, but no one is sure how many if any have them.
Posted by Dave | April 11, 2008 2:01 PM