A Nuclear Iran Cannot Be Contained

UPDATE: February 23, 2012 He Was Constructing a Genocide Weapon

It’s unfortunate that the Iranian regime is run by a bunch of fanatics who have allied themselves with terrorists – so you could say that they themselves are a terrorist state. Iran already gives weapons and support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, so they could secretly give them nuclear bombs.

If Tel Aviv was suddenly nuked by a smuggled in nuclear bomb, then Iran could deny any knowledge and escape retaliation. But Iran could always decide that the direct approach is easier, and kid themselves into thinking that they can wipe out Israel in a surprise bombardment by nuclear missiles, and avoid any heavy retaliation.

Ahmadinejad is a delusional fanatic who believes it is Allah’s will to destroy Israel, and may believe that he is the one destined to do it.

“First, the fact that we survived the previous nuclear standoff is hardly evidence that deterrence was bound to succeed. On more than one occasion during the West’s struggle with Communism, the threat of mutually assured destruction did not prevent the two sides from stepping right to the brink, most famously during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It would be a deadly game to try to replay MAD with Iran, in an international environment lacking many of the necessary conditions that helped keep the Cold War from unraveling into chaos. This is not just because mutually assured destruction might be more of an incentive than a deterrent for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and those around him. Even assuming Tehran will act “rationally,” MAD would still be too dangerous to contemplate.

Crucially, a nuclear standoff with Iran would lack a key component that helped keep the Cold War from turning hot: a modicum of mutual trust. Although they were ideological enemies, the Soviet Union and the U.S. had full diplomatic relations and clear channels of communication. Remember those famous red telephones?

Nothing of this sort exists between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. Even in promising to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Tehran can’t even bring itself to so much as call the country by its proper name, referring to it as the “Zionist entity.” The absence of direct contacts raises the chance of either side misreading its opponent’s intentions.

In addition, Iran lacks second-strike capability and Israel is too small to absorb a nuclear attack. The temptation to launch a preemptive attack will therefore be far greater than that faced by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Add to that the much shorter flight times for missiles between Iran and Israel than between the U.S. and the Soviet Union—giving both sides much less time to think and react—and the chances for conflict or mishap spiraling out of control grow exponentially. Even if the Iranian regime has no intention of launching an atomic strike, the risks of nuclear war by misinterpretation, technical error or miscalculation could prove unmanageable.

And unlike during the Cold War, in which there were only two main nuclear players, an Iranian bomb would inevitably lead other neighboring states to follow suit, producing a fragile standoff between several actors.”

Containment Won’t Work Against Iran

WikiLeaks: Arab Attitude Toward Iran

Trivialising The Nuclear Bomb

Should Iran Be Bombed?

Iran With The Bomb, Or To Bomb Iran?

Iran vs The West: Nuclear Containment?

The Threat Of Nuclear/Biological Terrorism

One Giant Leap Backwards

©William Warren

See updates below: Some NASA scientists are saying the latest budget will not allow for near future missions to Mars. People are naive if they think Obama is maintaining the legacy of JFK. His gradual gutting of NASA is a repudiation of everything JFK stood for.

“Washington – Scientists say NASA is about to propose major cuts in its exploration of other planets, especially Mars. And NASA’s former science chief is calling it irrational.

With limited money for science and an over-budget new space telescope, the space agency essentially had to make a choice in where it wanted to explore: the neighboring planet or the far-off cosmos.

Mars lost.

Two scientists who were briefed on the 2013 NASA budget that will be released next week said the space agency is eliminating two proposed joint missions with Europeans to explore Mars in 2016 and 2018. NASA had agreed to pay $1.4 billion for those missions. Some Mars missions will continue, but the fate of future flights is unclear, including the much-sought flight to return rocks from the red planet.

The two scientists, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the budget, said the cuts to the Mars missions are part of a proposed reduction of about $300 million in NASA’s $1.5 billion planetary science budget. More than $200 million in those cuts are in the Mars program, they said. The current Mars budget is $581.7 million.

“To me, it’s totally irrational and unjustified,” said Edward Weiler, who until September was NASA’s associate administrator for science. “We are the only country on this planet that has the demonstrated ability to land on another planet, namely Mars. It is a national prestige issue.”

Weiler said he quit last year because he was tired of fighting to save Mars from the budget knife. He said he fought successfully to keep major cuts from Mars in the current budget but has no firsthand knowledge of the 2013 budget proposal.

Mars “has got public appeal, it’s got scientific blessings from the National Academy,” Weiler said in a phone interview from Florida. “Why would you go after it? And it fulfills the president’s space policy to encourage more foreign collaboration.”

Two years ago, President Obama said his ultimate goal was to send astronauts to Mars.

Read more of this post