When a Friend Argues We Might Have an Easier Time With Iran

…if they get nukes, ebola begs to differ. I will tag this:
A Friday Offering of ebolic Ruminations
…and leave it for your digestion.
There’s a problem with the entire argument. More time means they get further. There’s a time limit before the achieve a bomb. Continued sanctions (we’ve already gone through the horrific realization that sanctions, even were Russia and China to join, are both theoretically and as of the current date, useless).

As for the “flaunt” it, I have a problem with your logic. You’re saying that their achievement of a nuclear weapon will somehow strengthen our position. Obviously if they flaunt it, they’re empowered now, the rest of the Middle East is now scared shitless in incapable of doing anything about it. How does this empower us? Also, we’ve hit them about as hard as we can with sanctions as of the moment, which, it should be noted was how we “deal” with said nuclear armed states. Their achieving a weapon in no way furthers our agenda on the defense front. It should also be noted that the other nations that built nuclear weapons that we’ve “dealt” with, again, do not have the testicular fortitude to use said weapon.

Now, my rebuttle changes to a little matter of strategic theory after this.

We know they’re working on detonators currently. We know they’re funding multiple terrorist organization with contacts and easy (relative to the situation) methodology of shipping in the weapon to the continental US.*1 We also know they have no problem religiously, morally or politically in using deadly force on innocent civilians to achieve a goal.

What would Iran’s best socio-religious coup be? The mutual destruction of Israel and the defacement and massive weakening of the US or destruction of said nation. Iran would effectively win worldwide Muslim support at a major strike against us. Even without claiming credit.

This can be achieved with relative ease provided they gain access to weapons grade nuclear science. Hell, they don’t even really need that as they already have access to radiological material. Think “dirty bomb”, it’s even more effective as far as psychological effects are concerned. One nuclear device, be it dirty or a low-yield thermonuclear explosion. They don’t even have to test it, as long as the nuclear material is dispersed. If said “warhead” fails to go off, it can then be remotely detonated with primary and secondary explosives to spread the fissile material inside, ergo the bomb is a two stage only the first of which is untested. The second is just as effective. Target one of three cities to maximize effect: Washington, DC, New York or Los Angeles.

If I were the one planning it, I’d pick LA (actually San Diego, due to the harbor and easy boat access and complete lockout of a land movement necessity for the weapon, but we’re going glitzy on this one). Here’s why: If they’re aiming for our destruction, more likely by this scenario, economic collapse*2 the point is to let it have a psychological effect thereby the ensuing result a la 9/11. New York and Washington have already been hit. You could argue the financial centers would be a better target, but I’m pretty sure their records are backed up elsewhere and hitting them somewhat destroys the point to the psychological effect. The reason for this is, the entire populace gets to watch both the fallout from the strike in LA and the subsequent failure of the markets.

I’ve no doubt mass hording and more than likely sectionizing of the US would occur in said situation, further tying up both local domestic response units and quite nearly all resident federal units. With the economy, as it probably will be in a few years, at its current state it can’t really afford to drop anymore. The entire populace is now well reasoned to be entirely scared shitless because another strike might be coming, though I wonder if one would be necessary given the current scenario.

I’ve no doubt someone’s thinking “well if that happened we’d turn Iran into glass, they know it and thereby wouldn’t do it.” Big problems with this. Unless an ironclad, and I can’t stress that enough, ironclad link was formed to Iran? Not gonna happen. First off, I’ve no doubt Iran would act through a Muslim intermediary group, be it Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or any of your normal Jew hating, tongue trilling sociopathic virgin seekers.

Then you get into the fact that you’d have to prove where the weapon came from to start with, which would take studying the blast site, probably after dealing with the social and quite literal fallout, then actually recognizing said nuclear device. As you’ve noted, people are, rightly so, concerned with PRK selling shit to the same people. That means time is running for a good while before a target can even be selected. To put the timeline into perspective, the response to September 11 came Oct 7 2001. That’s 26 days later and not even at a terribly relevant target (but that’s theory for another day). It was the need to strike back, which is now engrained in the American psyche. That further limits our response due to the politics around it. The timeline would no doubt be far longer than 26 days due to radiological hazard, removal of personnel, etc. For as horrific as 9/11 was, it was relatively isolated to very small areas or real estate. But look at the effect it had on society and more important, the driving force in society, financial accountability. On the tangent of real-estate, we’re now discussing fallout which would no doubt be exceptionally harsh, even were the strike thermonuclear in nature, due to the fact they likely have little efficiency in the device itself. Now you’re talking about evacuating or insulating entire cities and possibly states, all dependant on wind variation and thermoclines. You’re talking about the removal of vast scapes of land that affect both finances and more importantly food production. I’m gonna stop on this tangent.

Going on, in said down-time there’s going to be alot of politiking, even if they were nailed to the floor, I find it difficult to believe Obama has the balls to nuke their military establishment. And as anything beyond surgical strike lies out of our grasp against them at the moment, that’s about the only other option in this scenario.

Going back to the Middle East. Where the final portion of the coup is created is Israel. While I have my own arguments with its creation, it’s our only hardcore ally besides maybe Turkey in the region. Without US support Israel will fall. Even they probably wouldn’t question that militarily. Israel falls, the US thoroughly shamed and in shambles Iran can now claim responsibility by proxy or state.

Sounds like a dumb idea, but not really, with the restoration of Israel to Islamic rule? The coups done. Think about the percentage of Muslims in western countries. Think about what they could do. Essential it might well be the start of a new world order, but I don’t want to start sounding like Glenn Beck here.

This is why I’m-a-dinner-jacket only gets the bomb if we’re complete and absolute fools. The only good thing in that situation is we probably won’t last long enough as a country to appreciate the fact. If you want something scarier? I just thought this up as I typed…these people have been planning these scenarios for years.

I just wrote a plausible doomsday scenario for the US in under thirty minutes.

*1) We know they have contacts in South America, think drug trade and how hundreds of pounds of content are smuggled in each boat. Now replace said product with a nuclear device.

*2)military doesn’t run without money and the military will be tapped to deal with domestic issues were this executed anyhow, limiting military response afar

11 Responses to “When a Friend Argues We Might Have an Easier Time With Iran”

  1. Ah, the young Grasshopper speaks wisely.

  2. JeffS says:

    I’d bet on San Francisco, myself. Otherwise, spot on.

  3. Ebola says:

    Thx! Disagree on, San Fransisco though. Thought about it for half a second due to the golden gate bridge and all. Would bring it home for too many libs, I think they’d realize that. LA libs are merely useful to other higher-being libs. They’d have to realize that the whole portion I was referencing as to time of response gets changed real quick when you’ve got the hardcore libs (whom they’d be counting on to keep things PC) foaming at the mouth and ready to bring the sulfur.

  4. JeffS says:

    I doubt that SF being liberal land would deter would-be terrorists, Ebola. Is NYC a hot bed of conservatism?

    It’s not what you or I think is important, it’s what the terrorists see as our “center of gravity”. And terrorists seek targets that will impact ALL Americans; the Twin Towers were the center of business in NYC, a symbol of American economic power. The Pentagon, military power. The Capital, political, although that didn’t happen, thanks to the passengers on Flight 93.

    And a lot of liberals folded after the attacks. It just took a while longer than one might think.

    If terrorists want to target a nuclear weapon with maximum economic impact, it’ll be at a transportation hub, such as a major sea port.

    In that sense, San Diego is less of a priority than San Francisco, although San Diego has a significant military presence as well, which might tip the scales back that way.

    SOME liberals would respond the way you think they would. But not all. And probably not enough.

  5. Ebola says:

    The entire point is a radiological attack wouldn’t need to be a hub. Our infrastructure is exceptionally porous but insanely linked. They don’t have to hit a technical industry to have the desired economical impact. That’s one weak spot in industrialized capitalism.

  6. Ebola says:

    Also, I was targeting southern targets based on the concept of fallout also. Hell of alot more to hurt in the surrounding counties.

  7. Mike says:

    Ebola, I think you’re spot on, except about the location. Once the bomb is on American soil, it can be moved anywhere in a matter of days. I think the biggest psychological impact would come from a hit in the middle of the country, so that nobody feels safe. Adding the desire to hit a hub and a major population center, and the obvious choice is Chicago. It also humiliates the president, who just declared to the world his great love for Chi-town, and forces him to squirm on his principles. Put it near O’Hare and it destroys the American airline industry, blows radiation into Detroit, and has the nice effect of minimizing impact on international trade while destroying domestic trade in the US.

  8. Mike says:

    (Re “squirm on his principles”… that’s because he’s most likely to want to retaliate if it’s Chicago, but he’s also been so public about peace and nuclear disarmament)

  9. Ebola says:

    Reason I based it relatively close to see is the fact that moving it via land for long intervals would be exceptionally difficult, with the exception of private largescale charter aircraft. Not sure what the regulations are on those. But the necessary MAC to move that sort of payload would have to hit multiple truck stops and way points. Some of which our gov’t was wise enough to install radio/biological sensors at. If it bypassed those stops, that in itself would become an obvious offense, endangering the mission yet again.

    I’ve actually developed another thesis on the large private plane portion though.

  10. Ebola says:

    Forgot to say thx. 😛

  11. Ebola says:

    And I don’t believe I spelled that close to see…sea, even. Idiot. lol

Image | WordPress Themes