The Glade 4.0

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKel ... fidels_now

Long read, but startling, imo.

First, the scope of what is done matters. Google Osirak reactor. If Israel did something like that it'd be much more palatable politically. More than that it gets complicated.

If Israel attacks Iran first though, or the US does or whomever, they/we will be blamed. In fact even if just Israel attacks, we'll be blamed by a certain segment of the population. For example, I just the other week had an argument with someone who insisted that Israel started the 6 day war in 1967 and so they should not keep the land they gained from it. Not sure if your article covered this, but if you read about that war you'll see Egypt and many other arab nations had a ton of troops amassed at Israels boarder and were directly threatening the destruction of Israel. If people can still blame Israel for taking the first shot before getting jumped in that situation, nothing will change their minds short of CNN broadcasting Ahmadenijad announcing the nukes go off in 1 hour with his finger over the button and UN inspections to insure the trajectory would have hit Israel and killed everyone. And even then...

So what do you do? It's a political question. If you act first some people will understand and others wont. If the US acts on behalf of Israel, less people will like it simply because they'll be more likely to accept actions directly on our behalf. If we act without ironclad concrete proof of something, we're back to a WMD in Iraq state, and many will be skeptical. If it's anything bigger than an air strike... well I cant see that happening.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I'd call this a good read, Dash. However, my take on it is that we have 2 years or less and people are going to see their house of cards come crumbling down to our ruin. The sort of action needed to head this off is totally off the scale of this administration; we have the most powerful military in the world, presently, but without the political will to do what needs doing, we may as well arm our military with rocks. By the time we have no choice left but to act, it'll be too late.

Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but wanted to chime in on your comment, Ber. The thing is, I don't think it's just a question of political will. I'd like to hear DE's take, but my impression is that our military is already stretched pretty damn thin dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, and a full-scale invasion of Iran simply isn't practical. Sure, we could do it, but only at the cost of severely undermining our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously damaging our personnel retention and equipment reserves going forward. And that's not even accounting for the huge financial costs involved.

The author certainly is pointing out the dangers of appeasement correctly, especially with respect to Iran.

Although Iran is not Arab, many basic tenets of culture are similar. In the Middle East, strength and influence (wasta, in Arabic, don't know the Farsi word) are very important, and being in a position of weakness invites, and makes it acceptable to, take advantage of the weak party.

In the same vein, it is very important to do what you say you will do. If you claim you're going to kick someone's ***, then you kick their *** in detail. That indicates strength. What indicates even greater strength is to reach out in a positive way to someone after you kick their ***. What the author is pointing out is that we haven't kicked Iran's *** yet, but we're still at odds with them. Therefore, positive gestures and conciliation indicte weakness to them. They know we are not going to kick their ***.

The author also is correct about the difficulties facing Israel in conducting a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities; most importantly the distance and the huge upgrade that delivery of S-300 SAMs from Russia will be for Iranian air defenses.

The author does, however, have a poorer grasp on some other aspects.

For one thing, he complains about the loss of missile defense in Europe. Aside from the fact that Russia is not Iran and the Russians are not likely to see it as a gesture of weakness or strength since the 10 interceptors weren't enough to make a **** against Russia, he underestimates greatly the usefulness of our SM-3 missile based on Aegis -equipped Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class ships. Some of you may remember this missile downing a satellite in 2008. That interception was performed at a closing velocity of more than 22,000 mph; easily placing ICBMs within its performance envelope; the missile is not limited to short-ranged missiles as the author implies. There are differences between intercepting a satellite and an ICBM but if you can physically accomplish one you can generally accomplish the other (satellites orbiting much higher than ICBMs fly being an obvious exception).

The missile in it's current block, 1A, is really only designed for SRBM interception, but it is still physically possible to intercept much larger, longer-ranged missiles with it as indicated by the satellite test. Iran, according to the article, has enough material for 2 weapons. The ships mentioned above have 90 or 122 VLS cells, so even if only one ship can engage and has only half its cells filled with SM-3s, it can simply fling SAMs at any 1 or 2 incoming Iranian missiles and get a kill through volume.

More importantly, the block 1B missile will be available this year, and is designed for MRBM and IRBM targets, and the Block IIA which gets into the ICBM range targets as a design goal will be availalbe by 2015. Keep in mind that while Iran can build an ICBM it hasn't, as far as we know actually made a nuclear device yet, nor miniaturized it to fit on an ICBM, nor solved the myriad problems of making everything function correctly as a complete system under the stresses of boost and re-entry so that the fast-moving reentry vehicle will detonate at the correct altitude. It may easily take them as long as until 2015 to make it work reliably.

In regard to defending Europe from missile attack:

1) Europe needs to take some responsibility itself here. They can build their own ABMs or purchase them from us
2) The Royal Netherlands Navy will be using SM-3 and can help out there too

In regards to the EMP attack by terrorists with a barge:

1) How the terrorists would get this barge of the coast of the U.S. unnoticed, erect this missile, and fire it without generating any suspicion is mysteriously left unmentioned.
2) Where the missile and warhead would come from is also left unmentioned; presumably from some place that already can make such things work reliably
3) The altitude, and ground location of the setonation as well as the yield of the weapon is left unmentioned; whiel yield is less important in EMP attaks than direct attacks, it is still significant. A 10 kiloton weapon will only generate 8% of the EMP of a 1-megaton weapon, and getting larger yields generally requires thermonuclear designs which are A) more advanced technology and B) are actually less efficient at EMP generation because the first stage can pre-ionize the air.
4) I find the idea that the U.S. would be reduced to pre-industrial technology and that 9 of 10 people would die to be a gross exaggeration. While a large device detonated over, say, Kansas could effect the entire CONUS, that would A) require a large device B) would require getting the weapon to considerable altitude; higher than the ISS or most low-orbit satellites and C) does not account for the effects of obstructions such as mountains, concrete buildings, etc. EMP is a line-of-sight effect and while it does have the ability to penetrate earth or structures, that's got its limitations as well. Finally, anything not actually turned on would not be affected, nor would many analogue systems. Repairs are also really not hard to make if spare parts are on hand, although there is no concerted civil defense effort in that regard here in the U.S.
5) Such a short-range weapon is well within the engagement parameters of a Sm-3 launched from an Aegis ship in either Norfolk or San Diego assuming they can get close enough to fire it unnoticed in the first place.

In short, the man brings up valid concerns, but he really misses one major point: Mutual Assured Destruction isn't something we need to worry about not working with Iran. It's just assured destruction - theirs. Sure, they might be able to EMP us and make things suck, but the country would be physically intact; even if they got their other missile through we'd have lost one city. They, however, would lose everything. One SSBN has more than enough missiles and warheads to destroy their major military installations and industrial centers.

Iran knows that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Our military is stretched far too thin for a ground invasion of Iran. However, we could fairly easily set them back with airstrikes on critical facilities - with the acceptance of some losses. Our air power is really not that heavily committed in either Iraq or Afghanistan, especially heavy bomber assets such as the B-1B which has been changed to conventional strike roles.

That, however, would just be a setback. They might get knocked back a few years, but they could restart the program. We could keep knocking them back indefinitely, but we'd have to accept it as an indefinite area of hostility. Of course, I think it's going to be one regardless. We simply are not going to be friends with Iran barring another massive internal revolation that results in a more friendly government.

However, we're not going to get to a "too late to act" situation any time soon. Iran is looking at the ability to build 2 warheads when (not if) it can work out the problems of how to deliver them, which I suspect will be by missile since I really don't see Iranian fighter-bombers getting to Tel Aviv.

If they get to that point, ICBMs are big, stationary targets. We can knock out hardened silos with both nuclear gravity bombs and missiles; we already have the accuracy. Even if they have solid-fuel rockets, it's highly unlikely they'll just surprise us with a launch; we'll defintiely be watching, and Iran is conveniently fairly close to Russia who we already watch for launches all the time for obvious reasons.

So, we may get a chance at a disarming first strike and even if we don't, I2 ranian missiles have to make it through and ABM swarm. Even with systems not optimal for ICBMs there's a good chance of stopping an attack through numbers.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The guys is pretty far off on the EMP. An upper atmosphere EMP burst at the right yield and the right (and pretty exact) atmosphere can induce a two form EMP that could blanket America. Launching it from a barge near the US would actually be harder than doing it as an ICBM though and you can't just detonate it at its apogee (unless one specfically calculated for its apogee to be at the right position and altitude - which would needlessly limit your launch points). Now if done right the vertical short burst and the horizontal long wave would fry almost everything in the US that isn't specifically hardened or protected but it would require exactness that only the US, Russia, and maybe China currently posses. And honestly if we don't have a 100% missile defense system there isn't much of anything we are going to do.


That aside, let Iran do what it wants unless/until the do something to us. Let Israel handle their foreign policy the way they want to, let SA do it they want they want to. Iran's population are not the docile sheep the author apparently thinks the are.

Ir Iran acts out against us we nuke them. If they act out against someone else, that someone else (or others) respond. We should not get involved.

Also the motivation for our involvement is not at all related to Iran's nuclear capability. It is monetary.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Whether the author is right in the specifics of damage caused isn't really the point. The fact remains that Iran is maybe 2 years or less from having a nuke, and the present gov't seems crazy enough to use them. If one goes off over the U.S., the damage is likely to be significant. I do not trust the present administration to act to prevent such a strike. Israel, certainly, cannot absorb even one strike.

France and Britain have the precision as well, just as a point of order, and I'm actually not at all certain that China has it. The other problem is that ICBMs aren't intended to reach the altitudes that a blanket detonation would need to be at; 250-312 miles. That doesn't mean that none of them can; it just means that they can't necessarily. The other thing is that an ICBM is, well, pretty large. SLBMs launched off submarines have intercontinental range and could theoretically be adapted to fire off a large enough surface ship but you need sufficiently precise positioning of the ship and sufficiently accurate navigation systems for the missile to make it work. More to the point, just because the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France have working SLBMs doesn't explain how terrorists would get one. Simply taking a SCUD, slapping a warhead on it, and launching it from a barge, assuming no one is paying enough attention to sea traffic to notice this in the first place, isn't likely to work since the smaller missiles terrorits might actually have a chance of laying hands on won't reach such altitudes and, quite frankly, aren't known for reliability anyhow.

Israel actually can absorb a nuclear missile hit and survive simply because they'd have plenty of outside help. The presumption that if Tel Aviv is gone Israel is gone suspiciously doesn't give us details like burst height and warhead size so we can examine damage and casualty estimates.

[url]http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html]This[/url] reflects the estimated effects of a single SS-17 with 5 warheads at 900 kilotons apiece, 1 of which malfunctions.

An attack causing damage of this sort A) would require not just nuclear weapons but thermonuclear weapons; fusion weapons. Iran is not 2 years or less away from having a fusion weapon, and the upper practical limit for fission weapons is 500 kilotons. I dobt very much that first-generation Iranian warheads would exceed 10% of this and still meet the weight limits for their equally-immature missile program. B) Such an attack reflects a multiple-warhead attack on a single target; multiple warheads will be more destructive than a single warhead of comparable total yield i.e. a 3.6 megaton detonation would cause less damage than the 4x 900-kiloton warheads in the example C) I don't know to what degree if any the Rio Grande Valley is comparable to Tel Aviv, but people have an unspoken habit of estimating nuclear attack damage by looking at Hiroshima, which was open, flat, and had lots of flimsy wooden buildings. Nagaskai, despite being attacked by a more powerful weapon suffered fewer casualties simply because it was more hilly.

In short, the prediction of Israel's destruction after a single attack is wildly overblown, and is based on unknown asumptions about the attack itself. It also simply assumes that a single or pair of Iranian weapons will penetrate Israel's ABM defenses which, while a real possibility, is hardly certain. In real life, defense s are not like in video games where a system can engage a target or can't (like in Starcraft). In real life, there's a marignal chance for even an ancient system like an SA-2 to knock out an incoming warhead. A more modern system like the Israeli Arrow might have only a 10% chance of a hit against an ICBM and therefore be described as not capable because that's a crappy hit percentage. Faced, however, with a single incoming warhead, or even two, you're going to just fire everything you have and there's a good chance of a hit. Needing only 2 hits makes a 10% chance per shot look a lot better.

As for an attack on the U.S. we'd have severe damage in the even of a ground or airburst yes, but highly localized - in fact possibly less in terms of dollar value that Katrina. The country at large would recover. If an EMP attack the effects would be widespread but could be dealt with in relatively short order without lasting effect barring a panic by the population. A lot of damage could be acverted simply by alerting power companies to shut down as soon as a launch is detected and a readiness program for that could easily be implemented within 2 years.

Maybe Iran is crazy enough to take a shot but they are not unaware of the consequences. They are not simply slavering madman; any insanity is calculating insanity. All this episode is really doing is demonstrating that nonproliferation is a pipe dream, just as the Naval treaties after WWI were.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If we have a NA EMP event the US as we know it is over. The induction that the lateral wave will cause in out power and phone lines would be enough to blow out every transformer and melt alot of the high power lines in the nation so shutting down stations themselves is little use (esp since their computers will be fried before the lateral wave event occurs). Our electric grid would collapse likely for years (because of how interconnected it is). The vertical wave will short out everything with a microchip that isn't hardened or at least a story underground (hello 80% of the vehicles on the road). So unless you routinely communicate with a vietnam era field phone you would be **** out of luck.

Flashlights and vacume tube and crystal radio kits would still work as their wiring is neither thin nor long enough to have a damaging current induced in it.

Oh thats not even getting into metalic piping that contains flammable material. It's likely some of those natural gas conduits will get red hot.

Americans without electricity become animals - quickly.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

DE, doesn't a lot of what you say depend on the level of help Iran is receiving from Russia? I'm somehow guessing that you skimmed part of the article or something similar. Not meaning any offense by that, it's just that the article mentions some help to Iran from Russia.

As well, the article mentions that in their fervor, the Iranians might welcome Armageddon and take steps to make it happen, since they believe something about the 12th Imam coming back, as also mentioned in the article.

Maybe, maybe not.

Like I said, this can be avoided by the simple expedient of shutting off power. EMP has no effect at all on systems not powered up. Things on battery or generator back would be effected; we would doubtless lose a lot of hospital patients, but no, life would not be over as we know it nor would the electric grid collapse for years.

That would be our best defense against such an attack - keep power companies tied in to nuclear launch warning systems and have them shut down upon notification from NORAD.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes it does. It doesn't, however, indicate what that help is beyond the sale of SAMs which are only very vaguely related to ICBMs. Yes, help from Russia could advance this considerably, but why Russia would want to help Iran become a nuclear power is left unstated as well.



Their President may believe this, but the degree to which Iranians in general and the Revoluntionary council does is unknown. Their President does not control the military and in any case they must be well aware that 2 nuclear weapons are not enough to cause Armageddon.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A high altitude nuclear EMP attack generates current (the vertical wave by the cascade of freed electrons and the horizontal wave by induction of the earth's magnetic field returning and this tecnically happens twice). This generally overloads systems and while it is true that it is easier to overload active systems (since they already have some power flowing through them) it isn't impossible to overload thin circuits such as in microchips (in the case of the vertical event) and long continues ferrous metals (in the event of the horizontal). It would not be out of scope for several hudnred miles of the midwest to have the lines literally melt off of the wires even with no current travelling through them.

While the best defense in cities would be to cut power it would not at all make them "EMP proof" against a near optimal burst.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

The President of IRan is there to incite people to be angry at anyone other than the government. The Supreme Leader has no intention of dying while in power or destroying the power he has by having his nation obliterated.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not necessarily so, if they believe they will be spared by the return of the Imam. One nuke used is likely to cause a retaliatory strike, and maybe they feel that would be enough.

It seems to me that we are tap-dancing through a mine field, and our options seem limited. Given the strength of our military relative to everyone else, we just may be at a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" juncture in our history.

Yes I know. I was not trying to say it would make them "EMP proof"; I was pointing out that it would vastly reduce damage, although there would still be some. Most notably at hospitals, where turning off power would likely have fatal consequences for many patients (although so would haveing the electronics friend by EMP).

Power lines in the red area of this chart and parts of the dark bluehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_mechanism.GIF might,as you say, melt, but replacing just power lines is a lot easier than replacing the entire electrical infrastructure.

In any case, what you're referring to is a well-conducted EMP burst by Russia or China. In either case, that would be a prelude to e general nuclear attack. In the case of Russia, the effects of EMP are likely to be relatively insignificant compared to the effects of the actual attack, unless we are able to knock out a high percentage of their weapons before impact. In the case of China, the EMP might be very significant or relatively unimportant depending on how successful they were in getting their relatively few missiles off before being destroyed, or without being hit by ABMs. Chinese missiles are insufficient in number and accuracy for a counterforce attack but have very large warheads so damage in cities they targeted would be total or near-total. Russia, on the other hand, will have a high percentage of its weapons targeted on missile silos, and fighter and bomber bases which are not always in proximity to major urban centers.

Iran, as you pointed out earlier, is not likely to be able to conduct an EMP attack that will effect the entire continent due to accuracy issues. That's mainly what I'm talking about, since it's the OP topic, and since that would actually be their most destructive method of attack.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Those are extremely significant ifs and maybes. Maybe "they" (I presume you mean Achmadinijad and the Revolutionary Council) believe this, but I do not know that there is such a consensus.



I doubt this very much. It's possible they are nuts enough to get off a single or two nukes and get them through the various defenses but ultimately if that happens we take the hit and move on.. they however, won't be moving on.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Huh didn't know that image was on wiki. I guess everything will be there eventually.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I say we stop donating money to Israel and stop policing the world. This is a very unpopular view however, and both parties agree that the world must respect our authoritay, even as it slowly wanes (The Iranian Pres. and most of the world sees this, though some Americans refuse to see it imo). I don't see how we can demand Iran do anything with it's nuclear program. Considering that we invaded one of their neighbors and paint them as an axis of evil. I'd want nukes if I were Iran (asap) to deter (what we used to do) attacks from America. That's is a logical thing to do were I Iranian. How would people react if the UN demanded that we let inspectors into this country? I can imagine some spirited opposition.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I can see some Iranian leader now...

"Mr. Inspector, it is with highest regard that I am advising you to inspect my wang... with your mouth. From the border"

but in my head.. the Iranian leader has an Indian accent and looks a lot like the guy that works at the 7-11 down the street from my house.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Well, leaving Israel aside, we aren't "policing the world". This opposition to the Iranian nuke program comes from quite a few countries, mostly in Europe. It's not a "U.S. versus Iran" thing, one speech by Bush notwithstanding.

As for invading their neighbor (of which we actually invaded 2), they weren't on terribly friendly terms with either one, and were actually helping us against the Taliban. Iran is Shi'ite and both Saddam and Bin Laden and the Taliban were Sunni, and of course there's the lingering Iran-Iraq war dislike.

We can demand that they not have nukes because that's what nations do. It's not a matter of "we have them so its ok if they have them". It's a matter of it's in our interests for them not to have them. No, they don't have to do what's in our interests, but if they don't, then we don't have to do what's in their interests either. We're under no obligation to hold them to the same standards we hold ourselves; nations are not people that are created equal.

Deterrence isn't really anything they can expect to accomplish with the limited number of weapons they can produce either. They can't produce enough warheads or missiles or make them accurate enough to threaten ICBM silos, and even if they could they cannot do anything about our SSBNs. Tactically they might be able to mount it on a fighter-bomber, or if they manage to miniaturize it enough some sort of tactical missile, but what are they going to shoot it at to deter us? Our forces in Iraq or Afghanistan? That's just bald aggression against those 2 countries as well as us. Our carriers and ships in the Persian Gulf or otherwise nearby? The Iranian Air Force would be hard-pressed to get through the air defenses of a carrier group.

Are they going to threaten our cities by putting them on ICBMs? Ok, they can do that, but that's not much of a deterrent against our overwhelming superiority. Like I said before, ICBMs are big, stationary targets. 2, or even 4, 8 or 10 of them would be reasonably easy to knock out before we took other action against them.

No, they are not just some country we decided to pick on that came up with a nuke program. They're a rogue nation that A) threatens us B) threatens Israel for no good reason whatsoever and C) is a concern to practically every responsible nation. Yes, we'd object to U.N. inspectors here in this country; we're not Iran.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE, we are garrisoned around the world. We try to throw our weight around in global politics constantly. Our interests abroad encompass far more than self-defense. We essentially send troops to war to protect our economy and "project american power", not our freedom. I have to go to work or I'd respond more specifically.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Yes, they are. That doesn't mean we're "policing the world"; it means we have the ability to protect our worldwide interests, and because we are a very large country, we have a lot of them.



So does every other country (disregarding the vagueness of this claim). We just happen to have more weight to throw.



Of course they do.



That's right; we protect our interests. Every other country does; we just have greater ability to do it. There's no good reason we shouldn't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It is critically important that Iran is the aggressor in any conflict. That may suck for Israel, but it will ensure the defeat of Iran.