Saturday, February 18, 2012

Iran and Its Nuclear Program

Over at The Wall Street Journal is an 18 February opinion piece by Author Edward N. Luttwak, discussing military options for dealing with a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program.  I say possible because the leaders of our Intelligence Agencies tend to put the reality in the future and tend to avoid saying it is a certainty.  The title of the article is "The President Has Been Given A False Choice On Iran:  The Joint Chiefs have said a massive, sustained air campaign would be needed to set back the nuclear program. Not so."

It is my assessment that an attack on Iran's nuclear program would set it back, but not end it.  Iran is not Syria.  It is bigger, prouder and more confident that it is following God's path for it, as they understand God.  It is a theocracy, after all.  An attack would be a setback, but the program would resume in time, with the Government and the People even more determined.

I believe Mr Luttack agrees.  Here is the last sentence in his article:
In fact, given the probability that an attack could only delay Iran's nuclear efforts by several years, the only one worth considering at all is the small, overnight strike.
This question of dealing with Iran is complicated by Iran's promise to wipe Israel off the map.  Given the number of pogroms that have been conducted against Jews, this should not be considered an idle threat.  That said, I favor the cold war strategy of deterrence via Massive Retaliation.  We promise the Iranian Government that we will return them to the stone age if they use nuclear weapons against Israel; if their own people don't throw them out first for their crimes.

The problem is further complicated by the Presidential candidates on both sides, who promise to deal with this issue.  All except Ron Paul, who apparently still believes in the concept of nation sovereignty.  I am particularly disappointed in Candidate Newt Gingtich in this respect.  He is smart enough to think through this issue.

Our political leadership has been failing us on this issue.  A classmate of mine, from UMass Lowell, Pat, sent me a link to the latest Pew Poll.  Pew says:
Nearly six-in-ten (58%) of Americans say it is important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action.
This is not good.

The often asked question is "how much is enough".  There are a couple of ways to cut this.  For Iran there is the question of how many nuclear weapons Israel has.  The estimates range from 75 to 400.  A point to keep in mind is that with Israel we are probably talking thermonuclear weapons.

By way of comparison, the US nuclear inventory grew fairly slowly, being 2 in 1945 (plus three expended, two on Japan), 9 in 1946, 13 in 1947 and 50 in 1948.

Then there is the question of what Iran would need.  With one nuclear weapon, on Tel Aviv, Iran might be able to kill 100,000 people, Jews and Arabs combined.  Fewer if it is a ground-burst, but then more nuclear fallout to the East.  To avoid Muslim casualties, smaller weapons would be best, but requiring more weapons.  Then there is the question of "counter-force".  What would it take to neutralize Israel's retaliation ability.

Not having the "Green Book" in front of me, I am only guessing.  A couple of weapons for testing.  A dozen weapons for counter-population.  A dozen weapons for counter-force.  Then a dozen weapons to cow the various neighbors who might take advantage of the Israeli (and US) retaliation that would ensue.  A devastated Iran might be relatively easy pickings for Saudi Arabia and others.

Iran faces the fact that it is one thing to use a couple of nucs on a nation without a nuclear capability.  It is quite another to go toe to toe with a like armed nation.

Regards  —  Cliff

4 comments:

  1. Strength....nuclear or conventional.....exists only if a potential target regards it to be intimidating.....if not deterrent. This is the greatest failing in our current and recent past foreign policy. W/r Iran...we have done one stupid thing after another to include yanking the Shah out and turning the entire cesspool over to the Ayatollahs. These are a bunch of Muslim tribesman who (I would argue...genetically but certainly culturally) regard any sort of "statesmanship" or "diplomacy" as a sign of weakness. Turning the other cheek, or inviting "discussion" is simply an opportunity to buy more time.

    I am not advocating that we launch a nuclear strike......but we need very badly to convince the Iranian "leadership" (in quotes simply because I don't believe that the leaders are in any way the popular choice....but instead are in "power" simply through force and extreme intimidation) that we WILL turn their country into a sea of green glass. We need to do this most urgently as we don't want to introduce the term "mutual" into assured destruction.

    We are going to have to deal with Iran from a position of overwhelming power and force....now...or later.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cliff, I caught this op-ed in the WSJ today and thought of you...and it looks like you're already all over this. One thing I'll challenge is the 6-in-10 poll about the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, even if it means military action.

    That's one of those classic poll questions that's so far removed from the nuts and bolts of HOW something would happen. I am always skeptical of those sorts of things...I'm not sure what they mean, just like I'm not sure what POTUS means when he refers to a nuclear-armed Iran as "unacceptable" or words to that effect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Greg and Neal, sort of.  I meant to mention in the blog post the Administration proposed drastic cut in nuclear weapons.  I believe that at this time that would be a very bad idea.  Neither Iran nor North Korea will be impressed.  On the other hand, there might be some benefit to running a couple of weapon seeing courses for Iranians.  We are dealing with mere physics here.

    I do believe that demographics are in our favor, since the younger classes in Iran are not nearly as radicalized as the older generations.  I am against alienating those younger people.

    Regards  —  Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why would it be worse than Pakistan having nukes? Because Iran agitates Israel?

    Attacking Iran, we get a nuclear capable enemy in the near future? Containing Iran, we get a nuclear capable nation, likely reformed and looking to the West for help?

    I think Iran is more important in American/Israeli relations and presidential politics, than anything else.

    "Iran" is demogoguery at its worst.

    ReplyDelete

Please be forthright, but please consider that this is not a barracks.