Israel Must Invade Now

 

As the decision to invade Gaza drags on, it’s becoming clear that there will be many losers in this war. We hope that Hamas will be the biggest loser by losing the bulk of its people. But it may not be an exaggeration to say the entire Middle East, if not the conditions of the world, may be at stake.

Israel is not going to make its decision freely. They now have to bow to the demands of the United States, which has pressured them not to invade. Apparently, they hope Hamas will release more hostages, and everyone should be satisfied that progress is being made. Meanwhile, we don’t know how many hostages are actually alive. Also, they have had to agree to humanitarian aid delivery, which up to this point is not subject to visual inspection and could include arms; the aid could also end up in the hands of Hamas. Israel is apparently complying with the U.S. requirements, since they have been told the U.S. could withhold essential armaments otherwise.

The United States believes it has the optimal viewpoint on dealing with Hamas, a group that has no intention of cooperating on anything unless it sets the terms. No matter how badly they are wiped out, they will never give up the fight. Never. They will never agree to an unconditional surrender and everything that would entail. But the United States, married to the idea of negotiation, will also never give up. Our leaders don’t realize that they have sacrificed their reputation and credibility on their own failed military actions. I suspect Israel is only going along with their demands because they think they must. The U.S. is also still trying to maintain a balancing act with Iran. It refuses to call out Iran, actually applying sanctions and starving the mullahs. (After all, they might get upset with us.) And there are rumors that the U.S. wants to manage the war jointly with Israel.

Give me a break.

There are no good solutions to this horrible situation. But Israel must prioritize the best options in this war:

It must invade Gaza sooner rather than later, taking out as many tunnels and terrorists as possible, knowing that the hostages may die as will many IDF soldiers.

The consequences will be terrible. The entire world will call them monsters. The U.S. will be furious, but once Israel goes in, I think the U.S. will finally give them the weapons they need; the U.S. doesn’t want to cause another Holocaust. Many people on all sides, including the hostages, will likely die.

But we have to ask the simple question: do we want Israel to survive? The main issue is existential, and all the other arguments and justifications are secondary. Israel jeopardizes its future if it does not destroy Hamas. The longer it waits, the more opportunities Hamas has to re-arm.

Israel must go in now.

Published in Military
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 91 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    We’re not fighting in Ukraine. We’re giving them materiel and intel and training.

    We’re fighting in Ukraine.  We are at war with Russia.  If our goal in this war (as stated by President Bidet) is to remove Putin from power, we’re at war.

    I gotta disagree a bit here.  We can be “at war” in a philosophical sense (the unwinnable war on poverty, say) without being “at war”.

    We are not currently at war with Russia.  Things would look very different.

    • #61
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):
    Yes, but why would the US fund Iran, and then take part in bombing it? Except perhaps to control Israel and introduce the kayfabe

    Why would we want to control Israel? How could we even attempt such a thing?

    I should have said “temper” Israel.

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    On the other hand, someone says that Russia, Iran and China all want the US to get heavily involved in and committed to this war, and they want it too to be long and drawn out.

    Of course they do, but it’s already long and drawn out. It’s been going on since ’48.

    I’m talking about the current war. Which is a real war. There have been a handful, and this is one.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    We’re not fighting in Ukraine. We’re giving them materiel and intel and training.

    We’re fighting in Ukraine. We are at war with Russia. If our goal in this war (as stated by President Bidet) is to remove Putin from power, we’re at war.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    If we wanted to really get involved we would win, by MOABing the mother-loving lot of the mobiks, hoping the overpressure detonates enough mines, demolishing the logistical-capacity in a three day campaign, blowing up the Kerch bridge in six points, and then MOABing the front line again for good measure. But that would cause . . . complications.

    No, that would just escalate the war.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Likewise Israel: a full-strength attack on Iran, weapons-free, would be short, but also unacceptable to contemporary sensibilities.

    No, it wouldn’t offend Israel’s sensibilities. They would see it as a tragedy, but an unavoidable one short of suicide.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Then again, the “world community” has been tacitly groping towards a hopeful scenario where Iran and Israel are locked in MAD, hoping that it freezes the conflict as it did with the US and the USSR.

    Not so. Everyone has known for decades that MAD will not work on Iran, that Iran would suffer self-immolation if it would hasten the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.

    And that’s why Israel knows it had to strike first or die. Which death the world, I’m sure, consider regrettable.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    We can’t fight a protracted war over Taiwan, but we can backchannel to Xi the certainty that we gave them a hypersonic nuke, so, your call, dude.

    I don’t think so. Xi knows that the Biden administration would never use nukes first. Neither would any other president. Except, perhaps, Trump may be a wild card in Xi’s eyes.

    If we’re at war with russia, how come don’t we have soldiers and fighter pilots there? If Russia can tell the difference I bet you can,  too.

    • #62
  3. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    In WWII, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis were SS.    We still killed them off pretty indiscriminately until they gave up.

    Also, factories and factory workers were fair game.  In Dresden, Germany in 1945, bombing killed 25K of the 368K residents and multiple factories. 

     

    • #63
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):
    Also, factories and factory workers were fair game.  In Dresden, Germany in 1945, bombing killed 25K of the 368K residents and multiple factories. 

    Good to get another context for the casualties of war.

    • #64
  5. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    Modern squeamishness about civilian casualties in actual war is why we don’t win wars.  We are unwilling to engage in actual war.

    This may be a fantastic thing and a great leap forward for mankind — it’s hard to cheerlead for death.  Yet, this must be balanced against the “War is not the worst of things…” line of thought, and a people does indeed have the right to not be oppressed, preyed upon, or wiped out.  Yes, this applies to Palestinians (whatever those are) as well as Israelis, and and of Group A as well as Group B. 

    Fortunately, as people on both sides of the current war-like thing are fond of saying, events do not occur in a vacuum.  Context sometimes provides the information necessary to resolve the otherwise unsolvable dilemmas.  The context of the current “war” upon Israel makes it pretty simple for me.  Israel is not responsible for the conduct of Hamas or the people among whom it resides.  Israel’s hand is pretty wel forced.  The long history of actions short of war demonstrates that this was hardly the goal.

    No, genocide will not be necessary, nor will it happen.  Wiping out those who implacably terrorize and prey upon you is not genocide.  That’s just war.  That group is a small subset of the geneme.

    • #65
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    BDB (View Comment):

    Modern squeamishness about civilian casualties in actual war is why we don’t win wars. We are unwilling to engage in actual war.

    This may be a fantastic thing and a great leap forward for mankind — it’s hard to cheerlead for death. Yet, this must be balanced against the “War is not the worst of things…” line of thought, and a people does indeed have the right to not be oppressed, preyed upon, or wiped out. Yes, this applies to Palestinians (whatever those are) as well as Israelis, and and of Group A as well as Group B.

    Fortunately, as people on both sides of the current war-like thing are fond of saying, events do not occur in a vacuum. Context sometimes provides the information necessary to resolve the otherwise unsolvable dilemmas. The context of the current “war” upon Israel makes it pretty simple for me. Israel is not responsible for the conduct of Hamas or the people among whom it resides. Israel’s hand is pretty wel forced. The long history of actions short of war demonstrates that this was hardly the goal.

    No, genocide will not be necessary, nor will it happen. Wiping out those who implacably terrorize and prey upon you is not genocide. That’s just war. That group is a small subset of the geneme.

    A very profound comment, BDB. Thanks.

    • #66
  7. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    BDB (View Comment):

    Modern squeamishness about civilian casualties in actual war is why we don’t win wars. We are unwilling to engage in actual war.

    This may be a fantastic thing and a great leap forward for mankind — it’s hard to cheerlead for death. Yet, this must be balanced against the “War is not the worst of things…” line of thought, and a people does indeed have the right to not be oppressed, preyed upon, or wiped out. Yes, this applies to Palestinians (whatever those are) as well as Israelis, and and of Group A as well as Group B.

    Fortunately, as people on both sides of the current war-like thing are fond of saying, events do not occur in a vacuum. Context sometimes provides the information necessary to resolve the otherwise unsolvable dilemmas. The context of the current “war” upon Israel makes it pretty simple for me. Israel is not responsible for the conduct of Hamas or the people among whom it resides. Israel’s hand is pretty wel forced. The long history of actions short of war demonstrates that this was hardly the goal.

    No, genocide will not be necessary, nor will it happen. Wiping out those who implacably terrorize and prey upon you is not genocide. That’s just war. That group is a small subset of the geneme.

    This is a fantastic comment that is worthy of being it’s own post.

     

    • #67
  8. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):
    Also, factories and factory workers were fair game. In Dresden, Germany in 1945, bombing killed 25K of the 368K residents and multiple factories.

    Good to get another context for the casualties of war.

    Yes, the problem with asymmetrical warfare is the people don’t see it as “war”. Innocence is a legal concept involving an  individual and the State. War is the ultimate collective state where individuality becomes nonexistent. The Laws of War involve a series of multinational treaties, with signatories, that try to provide some protections to “non-combatants”. But even the slightest connection to war-making capability and support generally excuses attack. And while you can argue for  avoiding “collateral damage” the reason for such an argument is the frequency with which non-combatants are killed and injured when any military operation is proximate to them. The doctrine of retaliation excuses deaths of non-combatants when responder to one actor’s deliberate attack on non-combatants. In short, any demand to avoid death or injury to non-combatants in Gaza is based on personal preference and not international law.  Hamas is the government in Gaza. Hamas targeted non-combatants on the theory that all Israelis are legitimate targets. The doctrine of retaliation permits Israel to target non-combatants. Retaliation is supposed to be proportional, but that is an inexact measurement. And how, exactly, is someone to be proportional to rapes, beheadings, and baby killing? Pick whatever justification you need — retaliation, collateral damage in pursuit of military targets — and proceed. The best security is mutual respect and peace with your neighbors. But nothing in the history of the Jewish State suggests this is achievable until Israel makes the facts on the ground to be that warfare is too costly for anyone who attacks it. 

    • #68
  9. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    BDB (View Comment):

    Modern squeamishness about civilian casualties in actual war is why we don’t win wars. We are unwilling to engage in actual war.

    This may be a fantastic thing and a great leap forward for mankind — it’s hard to cheerlead for death. Yet, this must be balanced against the “War is not the worst of things…” line of thought, and a people does indeed have the right to not be oppressed, preyed upon, or wiped out. Yes, this applies to Palestinians (whatever those are) as well as Israelis, and and of Group A as well as Group B.

    Fortunately, as people on both sides of the current war-like thing are fond of saying, events do not occur in a vacuum. Context sometimes provides the information necessary to resolve the otherwise unsolvable dilemmas. The context of the current “war” upon Israel makes it pretty simple for me. Israel is not responsible for the conduct of Hamas or the people among whom it resides. Israel’s hand is pretty wel forced. The long history of actions short of war demonstrates that this was hardly the goal.

    No, genocide will not be necessary, nor will it happen. Wiping out those who implacably terrorize and prey upon you is not genocide. That’s just war. That group is a small subset of the geneme.

    It would be nice if the Palestinians would agree to run an actual military so that we could target it. 

    But they don’t.

    They hide among their women and launch missiles from their children’s schools and wail and ululate for the cameras when their women and children die. “How could this happen to us? How could they do this to us?” 

    Well, Mr. Work-From-Home Soldier, it’s because you painted the target on your own civilians and attacked Israelis until they returned fire. 

    • #69
  10. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    By way of general comment, I have come to realise that Hamas can always count on a vast number of useful idiots in the West- politicians and media figures who parrot Hamas’s numbers of casualties; who blithely make allegations against Israel of war crimes, carpet bombing, targeting civilians, etc; who allow pro-Hamas/Palestinian panel members to speak freely, while interrupting the sole pro-Israel panellist (BBC an hour ago); and who, most egregiously, make sure to “condemn Hamas atrocities on October 7th”, but always followed with a giant ‘BUT…” (like the Secretary-General of the U.N. yesterday). 

     

    • #70
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Charles Mark (View Comment):
    By way of general comment, I have come to realise that Hamas can always count on a vast number of useful idiots in the West-

    They can indeed count on them. They’re not interested in the truth, just appealing to the Leftist audience.

    • #71
  12. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    BDB (View Comment):
    Wiping out those who implacably terrorize and prey upon you is not genocide.  That’s just war. 

    I like to see the mention of “just war”.  Christianity has spent a 1000 years debating the idea of just war and I accept the wisdom that has emerged.   The criteria read like a checklist for Hamas.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:

    • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    • there must be serious prospects of success;
    • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
    • #72
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    Wiping out those who implacably terrorize and prey upon you is not genocide. That’s just war.

    I like to see the mention of “just war”. Christianity has spent a 1000 years debating the idea of just war and I accept the wisdom that has emerged. The criteria read like a checklist for Hamas.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the conditions for just war in paragraph 2309:

    • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    • there must be serious prospects of success;
    • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

    I think in that context, “just” meant “only.”  or “simply.”

    • #73
  14. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Likewise Israel: a full-strength attack on Iran, weapons-free, would be short, but also unacceptable to contemporary sensibilities.

    No, it wouldn’t offend Israel’s sensibilities. They would see it as a tragedy, but an unavoidable one short of suicide.

    No, it wouldn’t. I’m talking about the rest of the world, which is categorically incapable of putting themselves in Israel’s shoes, and whose first and last instinct is to castigate Israel regardless of what they do. Iran could nuke Tel Aviv out of the clear blue sky, and after a day of sadness of monuments lit blue and white there would be a concerted effort to condemn anything that looked remotely like tit-for-tat. 

     

     

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Then again, the “world community” has been tacitly groping towards a hopeful scenario where Iran and Israel are locked in MAD, hoping that it freezes the conflict as it did with the US and the USSR.

    Not so. Everyone has known for decades that MAD will not work on Iran, that Iran would suffer self-immolation if it would hasten the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.

    I’m talking about what the “world community” – the foreign services, the State Department, the chattering classes – believe will happen. I’m not saying it’s a correct or possible outcome. 

     

    And that’s why Israel knows it had to strike first or die. Which death the world, I’m sure, consider regrettable.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    We can’t fight a protracted war over Taiwan, but we can backchannel to Xi the certainty that we gave them a hypersonic nuke, so, your call, dude.

    I don’t think so. Xi knows that the Biden administration would never use nukes first. Neither would any other president. Except, perhaps, Trump may be a wild card in Xi’s eyes.

    We wouldn’t be the ones using it. 

    • #74
  15. db25db Coolidge
    db25db
    @db25db

    It sounds like the US is still setting up anti ballistic missile defense batteries and Israel is waiting out fuel supplies in Gaza.  There are risks in both inaction and early action.

    • #75
  16. Globalitarian Misanthropist Coolidge
    Globalitarian Misanthropist
    @Flicker

    db25db (View Comment):

    It sounds like the US is still setting up anti ballistic missile defense batteries and Israel is waiting out fuel supplies in Gaza. There are risks in both inaction and early action.

    Did you know that two dozen US soldiers were lightly injured in three attacks in Syria and Iraq while Biden was dozing at the beach.

    (VIA NBC) -Two dozen American military personnel were wounded last week in a series of drone attacks at American bases in Iraq and Syria, U.S. Central Command told NBC News on Tuesday.

    The Pentagon confirmed the attacks last week, but the number of U.S. casualties has not been previously disclosed.

    Twenty American personnel sustained minor injuries on Oct. 18 when at least two one-way attack drones targeted al-Tanf military base in southern Syria, CENTCOM said.

    One of the drones was shot down. All of the wounded personnel were returned to duty, CENTCOM said, and there was no damage to any military installations.

    On that same day, another four American personnel suffered minor injuries during two separate drone attacks against U.S. and coalition forces stationed at al-Asad base in western Iraq, CENTCOM said.

    • #76
  17. Globalitarian Misanthropist Coolidge
    Globalitarian Misanthropist
    @Flicker

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    And that’s why Israel knows it had to strike first or die. Which death the world, I’m sure, consider regrettable.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    We can’t fight a protracted war over Taiwan, but we can backchannel to Xi the certainty that we gave them a hypersonic nuke, so, your call, dude.

    I don’t think so. Xi knows that the Biden administration would never use nukes first. Neither would any other president. Except, perhaps, Trump may be a wild card in Xi’s eyes.

    We wouldn’t be the ones using it.

    Who would be shooting a hypersonic nuke at China then?

    • #77
  18. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The Israelis have made a major incursion into Gaza. It appears to be setting the stage for a major assault. Prayers, please.

    • #78
  19. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Israelis have made a major incursion into Gaza. It appears to be setting the stage for a major assault. Prayers, please.

    Best I can do is some swear words while jumping up and down pumping my fist.  Get ’em, boys.

    • #79
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    BDB (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Israelis have made a major incursion into Gaza. It appears to be setting the stage for a major assault. Prayers, please.

    Best I can do is some swear words while jumping up and down pumping my fist. Get ’em, boys.

    That’ll do!

    • #80
  21. Globalitarian Misanthropist Coolidge
    Globalitarian Misanthropist
    @Flicker

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Israelis have made a major incursion into Gaza. It appears to be setting the stage for a major assault. Prayers, please.

    Where can I best read about this?

    • #81
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Israelis have made a major incursion into Gaza. It appears to be setting the stage for a major assault. Prayers, please.

    Where can I best read about this?

    I first heard about it on Fox News, and then just searched the internet. I don’t think Israel is putting out much information yet, understandably.

    • #82
  23. Globalitarian Misanthropist Coolidge
    Globalitarian Misanthropist
    @Flicker

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Israelis have made a major incursion into Gaza. It appears to be setting the stage for a major assault. Prayers, please.

    Where can I best read about this?

    I first heard about it on Fox News, and then just searched the internet. I don’t think Israel is putting out much information yet, understandably.

    Thanks.  I’ll google it.

    • #83
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The U.N. is in emergency session. An Israeli is speaking live at this moment 11:00am

    https://www.foxnews.com/video/6339902807112

     

    • #84
  25. Jack Mantle Member
    Jack Mantle
    @JackMantle

    Moderator Note:

    This mocking will not be tolerated. You seem to have a creepy obsession with the post author, Jack.

    Redacted

    • #85
  26. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):
    Also, factories and factory workers were fair game. In Dresden, Germany in 1945, bombing killed 25K of the 368K residents and multiple factories.

    Good to get another context for the casualties of war.

    Yes, the problem with asymmetrical warfare is the people don’t see it as “war”. Innocence is a legal concept involving an individual and the State. War is the ultimate collective state where individuality becomes nonexistent. The Laws of War involve a series of multinational treaties, with signatories, that try to provide some protections to “non-combatants”. But even the slightest connection to war-making capability and support generally excuses attack. And while you can argue for avoiding “collateral damage” the reason for such an argument is the frequency with which non-combatants are killed and injured when any military operation is proximate to them. The doctrine of retaliation excuses deaths of non-combatants when responder to one actor’s deliberate attack on non-combatants. In short, any demand to avoid death or injury to non-combatants in Gaza is based on personal preference and not international law. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Hamas targeted non-combatants on the theory that all Israelis are legitimate targets. The doctrine of retaliation permits Israel to target non-combatants. Retaliation is supposed to be proportional, but that is an inexact measurement. And how, exactly, is someone to be proportional to rapes, beheadings, and baby killing? Pick whatever justification you need — retaliation, collateral damage in pursuit of military targets — and proceed. The best security is mutual respect and peace with your neighbors. But nothing in the history of the Jewish State suggests this is achievable until Israel makes the facts on the ground to be that warfare is too costly for anyone who attacks it.

    I heard a really interesting interview with Matt Waxman and one topic was proportionality of response.  I learned that the actual concept has nothing to do with hurting the enemy on a similar scale as he hurt you.  This is a common misconception.  A proportional response is defined as “are my action proportional to the results I will achieve by those actions”.  For example if there is a single sniper in an apartment complex full of civilians, destroying that complex and killing all the noncombatants to eliminate one sniper would be judged as disproportionate.  It’s more a sense of scale than a body count thing.  If you take out a missile launcher that is purposely placed next to a civilian structure, that may be judged as proportionate.  

    • #86
  27. Jack Mantle Member
    Jack Mantle
    @JackMantle

    Moderator Note:

    personal insult

    Jack Mantle (View Comment):
    Redacted

    Is there a list of approved Ricochet members we can have a conversation with?  I would love to see it.  I never denounce anyone personally.  I merely engage with their ideas.  Is there a list of ideas which can be posted but not responded to?  I would love to have that also.  Might I suggest an indicia be placed next to certain member posts indicating that it is understood that nothing in the post is to be taken seriously.  My obsession, such as it is, is very seldomly responding to various posts.  I rarely pay attention to the identity of the post author.  Could you maybe have a creepy obsession protecting certain [redacted] posts?  Food for thought isn’t it?

    • #87
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jack Mantle (View Comment):

    Jack Mantle (View Comment):

    Redacted

    Is there a list of approved Ricochet members we can have a conversation with? I would love to see it. I never denounce anyone personally. I merely engage with their ideas. Is there a list of ideas which can be posted but not responded to? I would love to have that also. Might I suggest an indicia be placed next to certain member posts indicating that it is understood that nothing in the post is to be taken seriously. My obsession, such as it is, is very seldomly responding to various posts. I rarely pay attention to the identity of the post author. Could you maybe have a creepy obsession protecting certain posts? Food for thought isn’t it?

    Moderators now have to be psychoanalysts?

    • #88
  29. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    tell the inhabitants to move and then level the place.

    Where will they go? I’m not challenging you, Django, but nobody wants them. Oh, now I’m becoming evil: we could drive them into the sea…

    Carthage – stopped a problem.

    • #89
  30. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    I’m just wondering if everyone isn’t getting their ducks in a row to hit Iran. Which might be complicated by the possibility that they already have a nuke or two. (Which, for no reason at all, I think they do.)

    Or 30. The size and duration of their program and level of outside help suggests at least as much with likely breakout into the many hundreds when they are ready (e.g., have sufficiently perfected MIRVed ICBMs).

    Its unhittable. Everything is buried deep and well protected. We gave up on nuclear penetrators that would be needed to attack such targets.

    The existing warheads on MRBMs are well dispersed and would be launched mixed in a barrage of missiles with conventional and chem/bio warheads to overwhelm defenses.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.