Thursday, January 05, 2012
Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions in Perspective
Iran will be attacked soon, and the logic of it is compelling
1. The purpose of their nuclear program is several fold: 1) It provides them with protection against nuclear threats from without; 2) It provides them with the technology to generate electrical power; 3) It give them the ability to threaten the total existence of Israel; 4) it gives them the button to push to annihilate Israel or any enemy in range within a matter of minutes should they so desire; and 5) It allows them to give nuclear weapons away to terrorist groups that might use them against the US.
2. Iran has a considerable armed force that is capable of overrunning any of their adjacent nations, and, coupled with Syria, they could conceivably conquer Iraq, and then attack Israel. Their forces have been augmented by Russian weapons systems for years. They are not far from having nuclear warheads for their long range missiles.
3. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability deters Iran from a frontal assault on Israel, just as they hope to have a nuclear deterrent against an Israeli attack.
4. Iran has considerable support from Syria, their strongest ally, and from both Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as terrorist cells in strategic nations, including the US. Recent events in Egypt have raised the possibility of their support against Israel, the common enemy of all Islam. Even Turkey, which has been a NATO ally of ours for many years, now has an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbors have been armed by Iran with very large numbers of missile systems that have been used often against Israel in random attacks.
5. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has bombastically threatened Israel with being wiped off the map with Iran’s nuclear weapons. From a practical standpoint, these threats can be laid to political posturing with no actual threat, or they can be considered to be real once Iran has the bombs to do it, either themselves, or by using a terrorist group to carry it out.
6. At the moment, there would be a nuclear standoff should Iran succeed in making a nuclear weapon, since Israel has the warheads and missiles to retaliate effectively. This would mimic the MAD posture of the US and the USSR that lasted for 60 years.
7. The strategic breakthrough that the development of nuclear EMP weapons brings to the situation is the possibility of immobilizing the armed forces of any nation by one or more air bursts that send high power pulses to the ground that disable electrical and electronics devices and vehicles, all types of missiles and communications of the nation attacked. It is fairly certain that Israel has such weaponry in their arsenal now, and probable that Iran is well on the way to having them. The advantage of such EMP weapons is that they do little or no harm to people but devastating harm to military equipment of all sorts.
8. The threat to Israel is therefore twofold: 1) an EMP attack by Iran that immobilizes their armed forces, thus negating the threat of nuclear or air force retaliation by Israel, followed by; 2) a nuclear bomb attack that destroys their centers of population and industry.
9. The situation from an Israeli point of view then, is that they face total annihilation once Iran acquires the nuclear weaponry suitable to the job, and their own retaliatory capability would be useless, thus completely negating the MAD posture.
10. Israel, then, is preparing to attack Iran once they determine that the “red line” they have established has been crossed by Iran. They must get the first blow in, in order to execute their plan to destroy Iran’s military systems and equipment before Iran does it to them. The Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy are fully capable of destroying Iran’s forces, once they have achieved the shutdown of literally all of Iran’s military hardware, especially their air defenses and missiles that heavily depend upon electronics to operate, including the long range missies of Iran’s developing nuclear retaliatory force. This shutdown can be repeated if needed, as some military equipment may survive or be reactivated after the first attack. The rate of repair is not easy to predict but it would likely be many days of downtime.
11. It cannot be stressed often enough that Israelis are totally fearful of Iran if they acquire the bomb, and they see it as a matter of Israel’s national survival. It is all the more acute when all of the facts about EMP attack are laid out in detail. Thus, resorting to their nuclear EMP capabilities is both logical and necessary for their survival.
12 From this brief summary, it is not hard to predict that Israel will attack Iran soon, perhaps in a matter of months from now in 2012, or almost certainly in 2013.
Iran will be attacked soon, and the logic of it is compelling
1. The purpose of their nuclear program is several fold: 1) It provides them with protection against nuclear threats from without; 2) It provides them with the technology to generate electrical power; 3) It give them the ability to threaten the total existence of Israel; 4) it gives them the button to push to annihilate Israel or any enemy in range within a matter of minutes should they so desire; and 5) It allows them to give nuclear weapons away to terrorist groups that might use them against the US.
2. Iran has a considerable armed force that is capable of overrunning any of their adjacent nations, and, coupled with Syria, they could conceivably conquer Iraq, and then attack Israel. Their forces have been augmented by Russian weapons systems for years. They are not far from having nuclear warheads for their long range missiles.
3. Israel’s nuclear weapons capability deters Iran from a frontal assault on Israel, just as they hope to have a nuclear deterrent against an Israeli attack.
4. Iran has considerable support from Syria, their strongest ally, and from both Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as terrorist cells in strategic nations, including the US. Recent events in Egypt have raised the possibility of their support against Israel, the common enemy of all Islam. Even Turkey, which has been a NATO ally of ours for many years, now has an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel. All of Israel’s neighbors have been armed by Iran with very large numbers of missile systems that have been used often against Israel in random attacks.
5. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has bombastically threatened Israel with being wiped off the map with Iran’s nuclear weapons. From a practical standpoint, these threats can be laid to political posturing with no actual threat, or they can be considered to be real once Iran has the bombs to do it, either themselves, or by using a terrorist group to carry it out.
6. At the moment, there would be a nuclear standoff should Iran succeed in making a nuclear weapon, since Israel has the warheads and missiles to retaliate effectively. This would mimic the MAD posture of the US and the USSR that lasted for 60 years.
7. The strategic breakthrough that the development of nuclear EMP weapons brings to the situation is the possibility of immobilizing the armed forces of any nation by one or more air bursts that send high power pulses to the ground that disable electrical and electronics devices and vehicles, all types of missiles and communications of the nation attacked. It is fairly certain that Israel has such weaponry in their arsenal now, and probable that Iran is well on the way to having them. The advantage of such EMP weapons is that they do little or no harm to people but devastating harm to military equipment of all sorts.
8. The threat to Israel is therefore twofold: 1) an EMP attack by Iran that immobilizes their armed forces, thus negating the threat of nuclear or air force retaliation by Israel, followed by; 2) a nuclear bomb attack that destroys their centers of population and industry.
9. The situation from an Israeli point of view then, is that they face total annihilation once Iran acquires the nuclear weaponry suitable to the job, and their own retaliatory capability would be useless, thus completely negating the MAD posture.
10. Israel, then, is preparing to attack Iran once they determine that the “red line” they have established has been crossed by Iran. They must get the first blow in, in order to execute their plan to destroy Iran’s military systems and equipment before Iran does it to them. The Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy are fully capable of destroying Iran’s forces, once they have achieved the shutdown of literally all of Iran’s military hardware, especially their air defenses and missiles that heavily depend upon electronics to operate, including the long range missies of Iran’s developing nuclear retaliatory force. This shutdown can be repeated if needed, as some military equipment may survive or be reactivated after the first attack. The rate of repair is not easy to predict but it would likely be many days of downtime.
11. It cannot be stressed often enough that Israelis are totally fearful of Iran if they acquire the bomb, and they see it as a matter of Israel’s national survival. It is all the more acute when all of the facts about EMP attack are laid out in detail. Thus, resorting to their nuclear EMP capabilities is both logical and necessary for their survival.
12 From this brief summary, it is not hard to predict that Israel will attack Iran soon, perhaps in a matter of months from now in 2012, or almost certainly in 2013.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Iran Conflict Warms Up
Threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz for oil shipments
We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be. The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is foolhardy nonsense. In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.
It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely. No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired. This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.
It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.
Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight. With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.
We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be. The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is foolhardy nonsense. In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.
It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely. No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired. This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.
It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.
Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight. With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.
Labels: Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Nuclear Weapons, Oil, Palestine, Syria, Terrorists, War
Friday, November 04, 2011
The Israeli-Iranian Conflict
We are much closer to war now, and it will not be pretty.
I firmly believe that Israel is preparing to strike Iran, and have believed so for several years. From Israel’s viewpoint, it is a matter of the survival of their nation and people. The only question is timing, and that is a hard one to answer. I also believe that the attack will encompass not just the nuke facilities, but all war-making capabilities of Iran, with the idea of seriously degrading the Iranian capability to retaliate for years to come. Israel has a number of useful weapons with which to accomplish this, including: 1) long-range missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads; 2) their version of the tomahawk cruise missile; the IAF with its F-15, F-16 aircraft fitted with conformal fuel tanks, and in-air refueling capabilities; 3) a submarine fleet armed with long-range cruise missiles, and 4) perhaps most serious of all, the EMP bomb and delivery systems.
The EMP weapon would disable most of the electrical/electronic systems in Iran for a significant time period sufficient to allow the IAF to obliterate any nuclear facility and weapon system they can find, even using slow-flying C-130 aircraft with super-MOABs. I do not know whether Israel has been allowed to use our underground facilities to test their nuclear weapons or not, but it is a real possibility, however covert such a set of tests would have to be. I do believe that the EMP weapon is Israel’s ace in the hole. As to the opprobrium that Israel would receive worldwide for using a nuclear device, they would shrug it off as necessary to survive, and would point out, of course, that a similar caculus led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US.
Since any strike is an act of war, especially one of such devastation as I suggest, it is an odds-on bet that Iran would declare war on Israel. The chances of Iran also including the US in that declaration are not small, either, which is what we should fear most. Their counters would be on a worldwide basis, and would probably consist of many bombings of US facilities. I have speculated before that Iran would retaliate against the US as well as Israel, thus dragging us into the conflict. The other possibility is an Israeli failure to achieve their objectives and their subsequent pleas for help to survive in the face of six or seven nations attacking them, perhaps even with Turkey now with their well-trained military. The list may include Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran, with even a possibility of some Iraqi support.
Any military man, when standing back and studying this situation, would conclude that we will not allow Israel to go under, and if there is a reasonably odds-on chance that their attack on Iran would spark a far wider Middle East war with their Islamic neighbors, and if the odds that we were included in the war by Iran were better than 50-50, then the US should join up with Israel up front and insure the success of totally neutralizing Iran’s military, and forewarning the other nations in the list that we will respond to their efforts as well with all the force we have. Most likely, the UK would see it that way and also join in the attack, and perhaps France as well. (Then too, there goes the national debt soaring to the sky in this cause!)
Note that friend Obama would be forced to act in such a scenario, or else forget about reelection next year, and, even if the attack did not occur until 2013 or a bit later, the Democrats would be tagged as well, thus seriously jeopardizing their 2016 and later chances. Loss of Israel would be tagged forever to Obama and to the immoderate Democrats. On the other hand, given a Republican in the WH by 2013, it is fairly certain that Israel would be defended, and even more likely up front instead of waiting for the counters.
We are much closer to war now, and it will not be pretty.
I firmly believe that Israel is preparing to strike Iran, and have believed so for several years. From Israel’s viewpoint, it is a matter of the survival of their nation and people. The only question is timing, and that is a hard one to answer. I also believe that the attack will encompass not just the nuke facilities, but all war-making capabilities of Iran, with the idea of seriously degrading the Iranian capability to retaliate for years to come. Israel has a number of useful weapons with which to accomplish this, including: 1) long-range missiles with either conventional or nuclear warheads; 2) their version of the tomahawk cruise missile; the IAF with its F-15, F-16 aircraft fitted with conformal fuel tanks, and in-air refueling capabilities; 3) a submarine fleet armed with long-range cruise missiles, and 4) perhaps most serious of all, the EMP bomb and delivery systems.
The EMP weapon would disable most of the electrical/electronic systems in Iran for a significant time period sufficient to allow the IAF to obliterate any nuclear facility and weapon system they can find, even using slow-flying C-130 aircraft with super-MOABs. I do not know whether Israel has been allowed to use our underground facilities to test their nuclear weapons or not, but it is a real possibility, however covert such a set of tests would have to be. I do believe that the EMP weapon is Israel’s ace in the hole. As to the opprobrium that Israel would receive worldwide for using a nuclear device, they would shrug it off as necessary to survive, and would point out, of course, that a similar caculus led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US.
Since any strike is an act of war, especially one of such devastation as I suggest, it is an odds-on bet that Iran would declare war on Israel. The chances of Iran also including the US in that declaration are not small, either, which is what we should fear most. Their counters would be on a worldwide basis, and would probably consist of many bombings of US facilities. I have speculated before that Iran would retaliate against the US as well as Israel, thus dragging us into the conflict. The other possibility is an Israeli failure to achieve their objectives and their subsequent pleas for help to survive in the face of six or seven nations attacking them, perhaps even with Turkey now with their well-trained military. The list may include Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran, with even a possibility of some Iraqi support.
Any military man, when standing back and studying this situation, would conclude that we will not allow Israel to go under, and if there is a reasonably odds-on chance that their attack on Iran would spark a far wider Middle East war with their Islamic neighbors, and if the odds that we were included in the war by Iran were better than 50-50, then the US should join up with Israel up front and insure the success of totally neutralizing Iran’s military, and forewarning the other nations in the list that we will respond to their efforts as well with all the force we have. Most likely, the UK would see it that way and also join in the attack, and perhaps France as well. (Then too, there goes the national debt soaring to the sky in this cause!)
Note that friend Obama would be forced to act in such a scenario, or else forget about reelection next year, and, even if the attack did not occur until 2013 or a bit later, the Democrats would be tagged as well, thus seriously jeopardizing their 2016 and later chances. Loss of Israel would be tagged forever to Obama and to the immoderate Democrats. On the other hand, given a Republican in the WH by 2013, it is fairly certain that Israel would be defended, and even more likely up front instead of waiting for the counters.
Labels: Iran, Israel, New Bomb, War
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Sanity in Military Force Reductions
Just where might we become involved in a war?
1. Defending Israel from the Arabs, after the Arabs have built up their military further.
2. Defending South Korea from NK aggression yet again.
3. Intervening in Pakistan to neutralize their nukes, if not also to protect our logistics trails.
4. In the short term, carrying out the plans and operations for Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. Defending Europe once again in five or six+ years from now?
If we experience force reductions, say to a 500,000 man army, a 6 carrier navy, and a 40 wing air force, or roughly a 50% reduction from current levels, it would tax that remaining force massively to take on any one of these conflicts and hope for success, while maintaining other military commitments within the US and worldwide. If, any other of these possible conflicts were to pop up at the same time, we would be obliged to ramp up massively once again and call up the reserves, or else let fate take its course, which would be not only more expensive than keeping a sufficient force at the ready, but it also allows a large time penalty in favor of any aggressor before we can show up in force.
So what exactly is the right capability level for our forces? A 25% reduction? A 33% reduction al la Clinton and his peace dividend that was spent before it was actually realized, and cost us when we had to ramp up again a bit later more than was actually saved? What should we allow for RDT&E of new weapons, and what should we allow for stockpiling of weapons and ammunition? What should be allowed for initial or continued production of new combat and transport aircraft, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, missiles (large and small), and other military goods. What should we allow for continued intelligence gathering by all of the current organizatrions involved? And, not to forget, what is to be allowed for continued training of the standing force, and continued maintenance as things break?
Obviously, given that it can be found in the military and its procurement channels, waste, fraud and abuse of funds should be eliminated, as should weakly justified or totally unjustified studies and procurements. One estimate I saw reckoned that perhaps a billion dollars a year could be saved by tightening up on the oversight of expenditures.
In my opinion, rather than engaging in sweeping and generalized statements about reducing the military forces, we should delve into the realities of our needs, element by element., situation by situation, and forecast by forecast and plan by plan of our future military needs worldwide, and then rack up the score and the bill. This is what Bill Gates is doing right now, and he should be heard out fully.
1. Defending Israel from the Arabs, after the Arabs have built up their military further.
2. Defending South Korea from NK aggression yet again.
3. Intervening in Pakistan to neutralize their nukes, if not also to protect our logistics trails.
4. In the short term, carrying out the plans and operations for Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. Defending Europe once again in five or six+ years from now?
If we experience force reductions, say to a 500,000 man army, a 6 carrier navy, and a 40 wing air force, or roughly a 50% reduction from current levels, it would tax that remaining force massively to take on any one of these conflicts and hope for success, while maintaining other military commitments within the US and worldwide. If, any other of these possible conflicts were to pop up at the same time, we would be obliged to ramp up massively once again and call up the reserves, or else let fate take its course, which would be not only more expensive than keeping a sufficient force at the ready, but it also allows a large time penalty in favor of any aggressor before we can show up in force.
So what exactly is the right capability level for our forces? A 25% reduction? A 33% reduction al la Clinton and his peace dividend that was spent before it was actually realized, and cost us when we had to ramp up again a bit later more than was actually saved? What should we allow for RDT&E of new weapons, and what should we allow for stockpiling of weapons and ammunition? What should be allowed for initial or continued production of new combat and transport aircraft, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, missiles (large and small), and other military goods. What should we allow for continued intelligence gathering by all of the current organizatrions involved? And, not to forget, what is to be allowed for continued training of the standing force, and continued maintenance as things break?
Obviously, given that it can be found in the military and its procurement channels, waste, fraud and abuse of funds should be eliminated, as should weakly justified or totally unjustified studies and procurements. One estimate I saw reckoned that perhaps a billion dollars a year could be saved by tightening up on the oversight of expenditures.
In my opinion, rather than engaging in sweeping and generalized statements about reducing the military forces, we should delve into the realities of our needs, element by element., situation by situation, and forecast by forecast and plan by plan of our future military needs worldwide, and then rack up the score and the bill. This is what Bill Gates is doing right now, and he should be heard out fully.
Labels: Military Forces, War
Friday, February 11, 2011
Preparedness for War
We Cycle Up and Down Needlessly
Virtually every statesman and general of note has taken the position that America must make steady and continuing preparations for possible wars, even in times of relative peace. There is great controversy as to just what this means in practical terms. Just how big a military force must we maintain on a yearly basis, and just how much must we spend on development of new weapons and equipment to support war activities? To figure this out, many analysts have resorted to the postulation of how many of what kinds of wars we should be ready to fight at the same time.
For years, the criteria were, first, to defend America from attack, and then to be able to conduct two major wars, one in Europe and one in Asia or the Middle East. Plus, added to that were one or two minor wars or “police actions” involving at the utmost a few divisions of troops plus air and sea support. From this basic threat definition our forces were allocated funds to achieve full preparedness to execute these missions.
Obviously, the European mission was to foil the USSR expansion into Western Europe. The second mission, somewhat vaguely defined as Asia or the Middle East, was supposed to cover a number of contingencies: a) Taiwan vs China; or, India vs Pakistan; or North vs South Korea, but not all three, and not a direct confrontation with China.
In hindsight, one of these became a major war with NK, and the other two have sputtered for decades verging on open hostilities rather regularly.
The foremost contingency was the USSR Cold War, which absorbed the lion’s share of our development budget and a major share of our troop expenses, especially in Europe itself under NATO. We relied upon the US Navy to intervene in Taiwan, and kept hands off in the various India vs Pakistan fights until more recently, since both of these nations have joined the nuclear club.
Another incidental effort included the Falklands fight by England vs Argentina, where we lent England considerable intelligence support, but little else.
In this mission set are several other highly significant tasks that need to be set forth: 1) we must maintain control of the seas if we are to support our troop deployments in wartime and our commerce in peacetime, in spite of other’s wars; 2) we must do our best to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide; 3) we must continue our support to the United Nations, especially the Security Council, whether they are really useful to us or not, simply because they are the source of legitimacy for a conflict in the eyes of the rest of the world, whether we like it or not; and 4) we must continue the façade of the NATO organization for the defense of Europe, although our role and money could be reduced drastically over time.
The concept of sending contingents of troops to act as tripwires guaranteeing US support to any war that might break out must be ended: that means about 85,000 troops in Europe should be withdrawn from there, and another 31,000 troops withdrawn from South Korea, all of this with adequate preparations and gradual timelines. The fundamental ideas behind these withdrawals are twofold: we cannot afford their expense now; and the host nations can and should step up to their own defense given some time.
With these considerations in mind, we need to reestablish the base possible wars we should be prepared to meet.
My oh so very personal belief is that we need somewhere around 70 to 80 combat brigades of all types, instead of the currently planned 48. The world today seethes with resentment and the smell of revolution, combined with the musty and fetid odor of Muslims massing for a really big Jihad, and the acrid smell of AK-47 rounds being shot in the air in celebration of the fall of Egypt, the mess in Tunisia, and the verging revolutions elsewhere in the Middle East.
Along with these brigades we need a bunch of Air Force wings to manage about 3,000 seats in F-15s, F-16s, F-22s, And F-35s plus a host of transport and other aircraft.
The Navy has 10 carrier groups now, and I believe they should be increased to 12, with a parallel increase in other naval forces, especially heavy landing equipment.
Starting right now, these forces will not be available for from two to five years at best, the way things are going in the world of finance, industry and the government. Thus, we will have to make do with what we have per usual for some time to come. I do hate to see the multiple tour call ups that our reserves and guard units are forced to make because of the lack of a sufficient standing army.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Iranian Problem
Which way forward?
Most commenters seem to think Israel would perform a surgical strike targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. My own belief is that they would attack everything military in Iran, from RG barracks and motor pools, to airfields and aircraft revetments, to missile sites, and command centers, along with any nuclear sites known. They would be particularly careful to hit all of the anti--air capabilities they could find, because they must have a sustained attack over Iran for days, if not for weeks, to hit all they can. I believe they would fly missions against the Gulf missile sites as well in the course of the week or weeks. Instead of simply trying to delay the nuclear program, they would go for denuding Iran of all the military hardware they could, and then, at more leisure go for the nuclear sites.
It is obvoius really, that any attack on Iran is cause for a declaration of war by Iran against Israel. Therefore, Israel wants to take out Iran's air defense capabilities and retaliatory capabilities up front, insofar as possible from the air. Their dig-em-out missions may well be performed by C-130 transport planes carrying the Israeli version of MOABs, just as we have done with our MOABS. You need air superiority for that to happen.
Thus, it is not at all surprising that Israel would want a lot of time to prepare this air offensive, since many items would need to be produced and stockpiled in advance, including the MOABs. If, as one has suggested, the Israelis plan to use tactical or larger nuclear weapons, that too would require preparation time, right up to the limit. Their home defenses would have to be prepared against Hesbollah and Hamas retaliatory actions as well, which takes even more time. I fear that time is running out now.
How does one deal with "nuclear Iran?" Since there would be an ever present threat of nuclear engagement between Iran and Israel, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction rears its head as the only practical approach. MAD makes the assumption of two rational actors in the set, whereas in this case, I seriously question the rationality of the Iranian leaders that hold the trigger. If one examines their public statements over the past years, their religious ferver just might be more than bluster and connivance. Then too, there is the question of their stability in power and how to maintain it.
In any event, should the Israelis gamble with the lives of their people on a bet that the Iranian leadership would or would not pull the trigger? There have been over six years of negotiations with Iran to stop their program. Talk has not worked and will not work.
I could also believe that with their currently-thought-to-be nuclear superiority, the Israelis might sooner or later decide to try for a silicon-fused and electronically- fried Iran to eliminate the threat, and the agonizing fears of virtually total annihilation of the Israeli people, once and for all. In fact, that approach might best be undertaken very soon now, if ever, before the retaliatory capabilities of Iran grow. Of all the surprises, this one appears to me to be the greatest that the Israelis might employ, since it condemns many Iranians to a nuclear holocaust, something Israelis would not decide to do lightly.
As for continuing to live with that nuclear sword over their heads for years, and with zero faith in MAD, I seriously doubt it would last for very long. The greater the pressure from Iran or its minions Hesbollah, Hamas and Syria on matters of land, water, trade, blockades, fences or other concessions, the more likely the ultimate response from Israel. Any lesser response might then be fatal to Israel as well.
From the US viewpoint, and from a stability of the ME view, a nuclear Iran is quite unacceptable. We must not allow the Iranians the option of holding our population centers hostage to their atomic threats while they pursue a lesser aggression in the ME, nor can we sit back and allow Iran to pass a nuclear device to a terrorist group. Thus, we have vital interest in stopping the Iranian nuclear program.
Labels: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorists, War
Thursday, May 20, 2010
North Korea Sinks South Korea Ship
An eye for an eye seems about right.
Demand reparations for the ship and restitution for the families that lost loved ones. Give them 7 days. If there is no restitution in 7 days...
Hunt down and sink the largest NK ship in existence. Send the message: "you sink ours, we will sink yours." Stop sinking ours, and we will stop too.
If this doesn't work, nothing else will either, so be prepared for war real soon now.
Labels: War
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Iran and Israel 2010
We return to the possibility of war with Iran
The stakes are extremely high for the Israelis. A nuclear-armed Iran is a direct threat to their existence as a nation. They have held off so far, but by most assessments I have seen, Iran is near the numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles needed to simply burn Israel to the ground. A decision to strike by Israel is ever nearer, despite the cooling rhetoric lately coming from the Israeli PM. Such cooling statements would obviously precede an attack in order to lull the Iranians. The moment will be chosen for its unexpected timing.
The big trouble is that Iran has stated again and again that if Israel attacks them, they would retaliate on both Israel and the United States with their sleeper cells, and would disrupt tanker traffic in the Straits of Hormuz. This would bring us into the war immediately, and there is no telling how widespread that war would become in the Middle East.
Our neophyte President would go down swinging trying to appease the Iranians, when the nation would demand that we settle the Iranian question rapidly with overwhelming force. He would be forced to join the carnage of Iran.
We must recognize that to eliminate the nuclear sites is impossible without taking out virtually all of Iran’s air defenses, communications and command centers, as well as every offensive missile site that could be used against Israel or us. In fact, since the very act is war, the attackers would be stupid not to try to take out every Iranian military concentration and facility they can find while they are overhead in force, including the Iranian navy. This effort would be very protracted, probably lasting for several weeks, with bomb damage assessments continuing until some satisfactory indications have been seen that the raids have been successful.
Thus, as I see it, the delay in striking by the Israelis has been very useful to them in order to stockpile sufficient precision weapons, and MOABs (Mother of All Bombs used to dig out underground facilities), and to ensure the readiness of their pilots, aircraft, and ground forces for such a protracted attack and the war that would ensue.
The Israelis would, in my opinion, take the most direct route to Iran, by flying over Jordan and Iraq. I seriously doubt that either Jordan or the US would try to stop them, despite the obvious Islamic leanings of our President and his intellectual idiots.
