Oh, really?
I just retired from a certain government agency whose sole purpose was to monitor and track nuclear weapons and technology, ferreting out the proliferators and potential proliferators. That's the first I've heard that there's a flood of former Soviet nuclear weapons materiel out there - perhaps you're working for the wrong guys, or need to call somebody in the Beltline and tell them they're going at it all wrong, you've got something conclusive to show them.
Heh, how many times have you rolled your eyes at those "suitcase nuke" stories? Try explaining to folks that nuclear weapons are fair complicated gizmos that are expensive and somewhat maintenance intensive.
Nukes have a short life span. According to the GUMO, the lifespan of some of the components in Russian nukes is six months. The entire weapon itself could not have a hypothetical shelf life longer than 12 years, even with the best of maintaince. (The reality is Russian nukes have a much shorter shelf life. I'd personally guess 8 years at the most with the best of maintaince, but that's just my personal opinion.)
The Soviet Union fell apart much longer than 12 years. And today's Russian maintaince programs are even more lax than during the USSR days.
As for the war, I just returned from Baghdad in December 2006. What nobody talks about, or even shows in the media, is all the native Iraqis who walk up to you and sincerely thank you for giving them their freedom. It just ain't newsworthy, and never will be.
My sentiments still are "You take the fight to the enemy". You don't have to be a scholar of Sun Tzu to figure that one out. By the time the enemy has brought the fight to your own soil, you're toast, or close to it, and will have to expend an exponentially larger number of men and machines to mitigate the threat than had you taken care of it offshore.
Most folks just want to live their lives. They want a decent job, enough food on the table, and enjoy life. It's just a small minority that ruin it for everyone else. Always has been, always will be.
That's assuming, of course, that the American people even have the stomach for war anymore, and I seriously doubt we do. I'll even say we deserve an ass-kicking every now and then, just to remind us it ain't all Kum-Ba-Yah around the campfire out there. We as a nation are considerably more "pussified" than we were in WWII or even the Korean War days. Hell, look how fast conspiracy theorists surfaced after 11 September 2001, saying it was a scheme engineered by the Bush Administration to create some sort of national hysteria. Can you imagine somebody coming up with a similar hairball scheme to explain what happened at Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941?
Depends. I personally have faith in the US. If we feel it's justified, we can and will stomp anyone that opposes us. Folks just disagree on justification. If our country was invaded, say by China, they'd be slaughtered to the man.
Me, I disagree with the Iraqi invasion because it used up resources that could be used to hunt down the folks that attacked us on 9/11. The best course of action, in my humble opinion, would have used our resources to track down anyone even remotely associated with the branch of the Wahabbi sect that attacked us. I think the best message to send would have been, "Those that attack us will be hunted down and slaughtered. Those that leave the US alone will be left alone."
1.
Ahmadinejad. Mind you, he was elected. More interestingly, he is not the most powerful politician in Iran.
Yes, I'm aware of that. (I can even pronouce his name finally, just not spell it worth beans.
)
I assure you, I was not mocking your spelling ability, as my own sucks. Rocks, glass houses, not good combo. Thank the Gods for dictionaries and Google.
Anyhow.. actions, not words.
If the Supreme Leader says it's forbidden to build nuclear weapons, and at the same time Iran is building
hardened secret nuclear facilities ... who's lying? The one who says the Supreme Leader is in charge, or the Supreme Leader when he says it's forbidden? Personally, I think the latter, under a somewhat stretched interpretation of al-Taqiyya. But to each their own.
Indeed, it would be prudent to keep a eye on things. I was just pointing out that Ahmadinejad gets all of the attention, but doesn't have as much power in Iran as most folks believe. The Supreme Leader is the guy to be watching, carefully. The problem is that under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, nuclear power is legal. See
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm for the full text of the NPT.
"Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States,
Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,"
Not saying I trust Iran with advanced nuclear technology, I'm not insane. But it'd be complicated to declare war on Iran for following the terms of the NPT, when they're allowing the IAEA to keep tabs on the state of their nuclear program. As of Nov 2006, the CIA has not found any secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. That could obviously change at any point, but at the moment, there it is.
Hardened facilities for working on nuclear technology again is not de facto proof that they're constructing nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology SHOULD be placed in hardened facilities, as far as I'm concerned. I grew up on a hill overlooking Three Mile Island.
Again, I am not saying Iran isn't a cause of concern. I'm just saying that their nuclear program as of yet does not justify military action on the part of the US. We definitely need to keep an eye on them and expand our options on how to deal with them should the need arraise.
Regardless -
It is not in our best interests to piss off Iran, at this point. We don't have the resources to take significant military action against them, and they could relatively cheaply cause us a lot of headaches.
As you said.. many degrees of suckitude.
Unchecked, I believe Iran
will build a nuke and
will use it.
Certainly their actions and their words to their own people (not the kissyface interviews on 60 minutes) bear this out.
Least painful I think is drop a few "bunkerbuster" tacnukes onto Arak, Bushehr, etc and pray it stops there... not that that's particularly likely. The fallout for us would still be nightmarish... but not as nightmarish as the alternative.
No offense, Kaylee, but first strike usage of nuclear weapons is something that should be thought of long and hard. We've never had a first strike policy, and I pray we never will. Going down that road is a nightmare. Tac nukes are still nuclear weapons, and dispite claims that deep penetrating nuclear weapons don't release surface radiation, I don't have such blind faith. As I previously said, I grew up a stone's throw from TMI. The reactor that had problems is still there, and no one is going to be touching it for a very, very long time.
Build? Perhaps. Use? No one has used nuclear weapons in anger since WWII. Things have gotten hairy, many times. Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapon, and dispite much hatred, have not used them in anger.
Quite true - which is one of the benefits of building coal-to-oil plants. It would allow us to use much of the existing infrastructure. Not profitable under $2.50/gallon or so last I heard though. Alternately shale extraction plants, though I don't recall the break-even point on that. Point is, last time we tried it (late 70's I think?) OPEC precipitously dropped the price of oil and bankrupted the builders.
Long term I'd love to see functioning nuclear fusion plants and hydrogen cell tech, but that's a ways off. The other stuff is already off-the-shelf tech, just not cost effective.
(and I cringe everytime someone mentions ethanol. I remember driving across the corn states where gas/ethanol blends was all there was on tap. Just as expensive at the pump, and my milage dropped by a third. Feh.)
Shale oil would be nice, and is a possibility as the technology gets refined. I'm iffy on hydrogen tech, current technology doesn't paint it in a pretty light. Hydrogen is not easy to work with. We do need more nuclear power plants. They're the best source of power we currently have. Coal plants produce much more radiation into the atmo than nuclear plants.
Straight ethanol would be better than the blends. I don't see it happening. The blends wouldn't be so bad if cars were specifically designed for it, and there wasn't price gouging.
3.
Contrary to what you have heard they dont hate us over there for our freedoms. They hate us because of our terrible foreign policy and constant medling in their affairs. You dont provide for your security by making enemies.
That's what I believed until I started doing some research. Different folk dislike us for different reasons of course, but the hard-core Jihadis
absolutely "hate us for our freedoms." I know it sounds like a cheesy speech soundbite, and I cringe every time
I hear it to... but as silly as it sounds to us - it's still very true.
Look up Qutb's book "Milestones" which was written by a hardcore fundamentalist Muslim man visiting American in the late 40's. His writings were the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself was foundation of many later militant Islamic organizations.
The though process is basically that the law of man (as evidenced in free elections, among other things) is a sin, and only the law of God (as practiced through
sharia law interpreted by Imams) is a tolerable foundation for a people. Further, it advocates the violent spread of the faith until all the world is under one Caliphate.
Yes, it sounds nutty. It IS nutty. Completely irrational.
That doesn't mean they won't do a hell of a lot of damage in the trying though.
Not quite nutty, the caliphate lasted from the time of Muhammad until the Ottoman Empire. Many Muslims see the caliphate as the "glory days" of Islam. Disagreement over the line of succession caused the Sunni/*expletive deleted*it rift. The Sunni Wahabbi/Salafism sect want to formally institute the caliphate, strict adherrence of Sharia, Qur'an and hadith and theocracy. They don't as much hate our freedoms as believe that such freedoms are a violation of Sharia.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyya produced the most important work according to the Wahabbi sect. Reading their work, they sounded just as nutty as the Puritans and some of the Calvinists.
That's assuming, of course, that the American people even have the stomach for war anymore, and I seriously doubt we do....
Unfortunately, I rather fear you're correct. At this point it'll take a hell of a lot bigger attack than 9/11 to wake up the bulk of the populace again, and to be honest when (not if) that does happen, the reaction won't be "well, I guess it's time to get serious" but rather "It's Bush's Fault!/It's the Democrat's Fault!"
I know I'm in a minority as I see other threats as being greater than the Wahabbis. Compared to the Soviet Union, the Wahabbis are a joke. The Wahabbis don't have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, nor a standing army in the millions. A study by Wilson and Thomson (2005) showed that the annual average death rate from road injuries was approximately 390 times that from international terrorism. In 2001, U.S. road deaths were equal to the number of people that died on 9/11 every 26 days.
Is terrorism a serious concern? Of course. But it is not the ONLY concern. Personally, I see China as our greatest future enemy. Possibly bigger than the Soviet Union. Even compared to a united Calphite, China could cause us a lot more damage. Central Eurasia will be the next Middle East.
