Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Two things seem clear now: Iran will soon have the Bomb, or at least the capacity to build one quickly, and no one has the first clue how to prevent this. By "quickly," apparently, we mean "within 62 days." By "no idea how to prevent this," I mean that I hold out not a shadow of a hope that even the most stringent sanctions will dissuade them, and every plan for aborting the program militarily looks to me insane and unfeasible.
So, looks like I'll have a new nuclear neighbor! Some people might say a lot of pessimistic things about this--like "There goes the neighborhood," and that kind of racist thing--but you know me, I have a positive attitude.
One thing that does strike me, though--seriously--is that there seems to be a paucity of planning for this. I've seen tons of reporting about unfeasible plans for preventing Iran from acquiring the Bomb, but not much suggesting what our strategic doctrine might be once it's got one. Will we provide convincing extended deterrence to the Saudis and the Egyptians? (If we don't, I assume they'll both race to develop their own bombs.)
Might be time to make some plans, no? Give this some thought?
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Don’t worry, Claire. Turkey has zero problems with the neighbors.
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
The Zero Problems jokes seem really 2010 to me now.
Mar '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
A few years ago Charles Krauthammer suggested that the US could deal with one rogue nuclear state by announcing a policy of "zero tolerance/full retaliation" (my words, not his, which I'm sure were better); i.e., the US would guarantee that a terrorist nuclear attack on a US city or interests would result in a massive retaliatory response against the one rogue state with nuclear capabilities. But (the Hammer warned) such a strategic posture only works if there's only one rogue nuclear state to deal with; if there are two or more, the certainty of the retaliatory response couldn't be maintained. Where the heck is the North Korean nuclear program these days . . . ?
May '10
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Would've been nice to have had a moon-shot commitment to missile defense. Ah well. Maybe we can roll out some 12th Imam impersonator to tell them to behave.
I get the feeling Netanyahu considers the military option both sane and feasible -- and that the whole course of his life has been leading toward it. Not sure if that's heroic or nuts, but I just can't imagine the world's #1 alpha male is going to let this happen without a fight, consequences be damned.
Jan '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
We move from timid, ad-hoc tactical bowing to the bolder and more strategic kowtow.
Edited on Nov 7, 2011 at 10:21pmRe: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Well, here's the relevant passage from the big Atlantic/National Journal report on ally-from-hell Pakistan:
Oct '10
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Having nukes is one thing. Using them? Problematic when you have a known return address. More than just one leader will have to subscribe to this hidden Imam lunacy and really not care terribly much if they or their nation survives. It’s possible they have a leadership consensus on national martyrdom … just not probable. Giving nukes to terrorist groups? Sounds easier than it is … new nuclear powers don’t tend to have the sophistication or rate of production to produce viable man-portable nuclear weapons. I’m not suggesting complacency … just that the 62-day figure addresses only the first part of the weaponization problem facing Iran.
Yes, we do we have a new defense doctrine. It’s called “nation building at home” (apparently measured by the amount of deficit spending we achieve) and “leading from behind.”
Feb '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
a) they missed so it doesn't matter
b) let's not make things worse
c) it's an Israeli plot to get the US to take out Iran
Feb '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
The Iranian regime has been making war against the US to the best of their abilities ever since they took over that unhappy land.
They've only suspended these activities in the relatively brief periods of time during which they suspected we were inclined to make war back against them.
This is not one of those times.
Worse, the general consensus seems to be that the US will not attack a state armed with nuclear weapons.
So I conclude that the Iranian regime will soon intensify their war-making activities against us, believing that their nuclear weapons give them sufficient cover.
Be afraid.
Oct '10
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
anybody still thinks it's a good idea to nominate somebody who is clueless on foreign policy?
Aug '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Scott Reusser:
I get the feeling Netanyahu considers the military option both sane and feasible -- and that the whole course of his life has been leading toward it. Not sure if that's heroic or nuts, but I just can't imagine the world's #1 alpha male is going to let this happen without a fight, consequences be damned. · Nov 7 at 9:13pm
Well... Netanyahu has done a lot of things lately that go against the macho anti-terrorist superhero image he built for himself in his youth, like the Gilad Shalit deal and freezing settlement construction for 10 months. I wouldn't be surprised if the chest beating over attacking Iran is just bravado and a bluff. I certainly don't expect Israel to do anything without the full buy-in of the US and probably Saudi Arabia et al as well.
Aug '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
I was thinking of something clever to say when I came across this wonderful passage from Nabokov's "The Gift" - the setting is Berlin around 1926:
[I have to spread this over two posts because I can't bear to cut it.]
"And Shchyogolev launched on a discussion of politics. Like many unpaid windbags he thought that he could combine the reports he read in the papers by paid windbags into an orderly scheme, upon following which a logical and sober mind (in this case his mind) could with no effort explain and foresee a multitude of world events. The names of countries and of their leading representatives became in his hands something in the nature of labels for more or less full but essentially identical vessels, whose contents he poured this way and that. France was AFRAID of something or other and therefore would never ALLOW it. England was AIMING at something. This statesman CRAVED a rapprochement, while that one wanted to increase his PRESTIGE. Someone was PLOTTING and someone was STRIVING for something. In short, the world Shchyogolev created came out as some kind of collection of limited, humorless, faceless and abstract bullies, and the more brains, ....
Aug '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
.... cunning and circumspection he found in their mutual activities the more stupid, vulgar and simple his world became. It used to be quite awesome when he came across another similar lover of political prognoses. For example, there was a Colonel Kasatkin, who used to come sometimes to dinner, and then Shchyogolev's England clashed not with another Shchyogolev country but with Kasatkin's England, equally nonexistent, so that in a certain sense international wars turned into civil wars, although the warring sides existed on different levels which could never come into contact with one another. At present, while listening to his landlord, Fyodor was amazed by the family likeness between the countries mentioned by Shchyogolev and the various parts of Shchyogolev's own body: thus "France" corresponded to his warningly raised eyebrows; some kind of "limitrophes" to the hairs in his nostrils, some "Polish corridor" or other went along his esophagus; "Danzig" was the click of his teeth; and Russia was Shchyogolev's bottom."
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
I find it extraordinary that anyone could think otherwise.
May '10
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Of course there is a military option that is viable. It it because people are unwilling to entertain it and call it things like, "insane" that we don't do it.
Iran has been at war with the US most of my life. What if, we got "insane" and actually took them at their word and went to war with them. We could wipe them out without the loss of one American life.
You know, if we put that question to our parents in WWII, they would have been pleased as punch to press a button and wipe out Germany and Japan without the cost of one American.
We have gotten very, very soft.
May '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
The Obama Administration's response is predictable. Once Iran builds its bomb, Obama will declare that the situation is "unacceptable" and call on the International Community to do something about it. After which, nothing will happen.
That Israel could successfully engage in some preemptive action is a fantasy. Israel's air force consists of fighters - mostly F-15's and F-16's. Israel has no strategic bombers nor (so far as anyone knows) cruise missiles. Israel simply lacks the capability to destroy a dispersed and fortified nuclear program located nearly a thousand miles away. That Israel will launch a retaliatory nuclear strike, however, is a certainty.
Edited on Nov 8, 2011 at 5:05amMay '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
Thought Experiment: Terrorists smuggle a nuke into the US and detonate it in Wall St. (Maybe in D.C and L.A too.)
Who would we blame? Iran, Syria, North K., Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Al-Qaeda, Hamas?
Against whom would we retaliate?
There is a large group of US citizens (99% et. al.) that would say, "Good! We deserved it."
We would be inclined to determine exactly where the nuke material was born and trace it to a responsible party. It could take weeks or months. Meanwhile, we shout, rant, rattle sabers and do nothing.
This is how Iran will use nuclear weapons if they do at all. They know us.
Oct '10
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
jonorose
. I certainly don't expect Israel to do anything without the full buy-in of the US and probably Saudi Arabia et al as well.
I expect that the Saudis would be more than happy to have the Israelis take action against the Iranian nuclear threat and are almost certainly communicating that to the Israeli government.
Edited on Nov 8, 2011 at 6:38amJun '10
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
I hope we have at least 364 more days before Iran detonates their first nuke. At that point the new C-IN-C could call the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and tell him to prepare “options” for implementation on Jan 21, 2013. There is an old saying that I will slightly modify, “ The Arabs [Muslims] are either at your feet or at your throats”. It is time that we put them at our feet and we have the firepower and the capability to do so. We have minimum yield nukes so let’s use them. Japan has not fallen of the map after our first use of nukes and there are places in Iran remote enough to withstand the blasts. The only thing I ask is that we not use the poor guys who have been rotating in and out of Iraq/Afghan for the last 10 years. If a war is important enough to fight, then EVERYBODY fights!
Apr '11
Re: Do We Have a New Defense Doctrine?
I don't know. If I ran has a nuke it means any military conflict they may think of starting is already on a larger scale. This means that US response to their aggression will be more fierce and absolute if it were to occur. Thus by building weapons they can guarantee we will not attack them for the purposes of regime change or just because they kill some protesters, but it also means we are more likely to wipe them all out if we do get into a real war. They have no way of wining a fight with America conventional or nuclear. A conventional fight though they might survive, now the threat of WMD means if we fight them we fight for keeps.
I think that is where we are at with DPRK. Any fight between us means North Korea turns into a crater.
I think a nuclear Iran will mean our war of proxies will have to intensify. We will start funding and arming groups that oppose Iranian backed groups. It will be like the Cold War in a way.