The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran .

Boston Globe ^ | March 12, 2006 | Graham Allison

[robowombat]

The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran could be this generation's Cuban missile crisis. Here are the reasons we must not let it come to that. By Graham Allison | March 12, 2006

ACCORDING TO A RECENT Gallup poll, most Americans now view Iran as our country's greatest national enemy. Indeed, a Washington Post-ABC News survey reports that 42 percent of Americans support a military strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology. Online betting sites make the odds of a US or Israeli airstrike against Iran before March 2007 as 1 in 3.

As Senator John McCain has summed up the hard-line position, ''There is only one thing worse than the US exercising a military option, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

On the other hand, some commentators, even in the administration, now suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran is inevitable. ''Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got the bomb," a ''senior official" told The New York Times, ''and they didn't have Iran's money or engineering expertise."

As citizens, we are watching a slow-mo Cuban missile crisis in which events are moving, seemingly inexorably, toward a crossroads at which President Bush will have to decide between McCain's options. Before we get there, however, Americans should vigorously debate the bottom-line question: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

[FreeLuna]

This is exactly how I see it. Iran IS at war with us. Iran's leaders believe they have the divine right to rule the world in the name of Allah. Iran will use their nuclear threat to intimidate the western world while their terrorists continue to attack the West believing that we don't have the balls to attack them directly...and if we do..well then, Allah wants it that way so they use nukes on Israel and Europe. A military action is inevitable.

[reagan_fanatic]

What bothers me is that even if we bomb the snot out of Iran, I don't doubt the mullahs will continue their quest for nuclear weapons until they have them, even under the threat of more attacks.

Seems to me the best course of action is to cut out the cancer itself - the mullahs. Targeted assassinations, arming the opposition to the teeth, etc.

[Jmouse007]

Outstanding summation; you are the "Grand Prize Winner!"

And what does he get Johnny?

Let see; FreeLuna of Free Republic fame gets world-wide acclaim for his wisdom and foresight, the "Wisdom of the Day" award and a lifetime opportunity to continue posting his pearls of wisdom posts on Free Republic. Congratulations and enjoy your prizes."

There I hope I made your day and brought a smile to your face :o) Keep up the good work!

[FreeLuna]

Aw,shucks....I'd rather take the cash option. ;0)

[Jmouse007]

Sorry; there is no "cash option" and besides "cash" is just "paper with numbers on it" ;o)

[gondramB]

"What bothers me is that even if we bomb the snot out of Iran, I don't doubt the mullahs will continue their quest for nuclear weapons until they have them, even under the threat of more attacks.

Seems to me the best course of action is to cut out the cancer itself - the mullahs."

It may be even a broader problem - if you were a dictator (or even a prime minister) wouldn't you want nukes?

[pop-gun]

That's a huge deal (meaning the destruction of NYC by a pleasure boat with nuke aboard)but not on the same scale as the Cuban missile crisis.

The reason that you may be wrong is as follows:

(1) the Cuban missles were under the direct control of the USSR.

(2)Neither the Rusians nor the Cubans were in the suicide business.....immediate retribution was an obvious deterent.

(3)The muislims are ready, willing, and able to kill themselves so long as the can destroy Americans in the process.

The ability of assemblying a nuke in the U.S.....literally anywhere.... has become very easy.

Have a great day

[JoeFromSidney]

Two points.

Nonproliferation served us well for about 50 years. Now the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Kowledge of how to build bombs, and supplies of uranium and plutonium, aren't that hard to get. For instance, the sludge captured by a scrubber on a coal-powered electric plant is actually low-grade uranium ore. We may as well get used to a world in which loonies and tyrants have nukes.

In the case of Iraq, there was little opportunity for popular opposition to Hussein. In Iran, there is significant popular opposition to the mullahs. We might well do better to support the opposition, so that we end up with a nuclear-armed Iranian democracy rather than a nuclear-armed Islamic theocracy.

[gondramB]

I think you are right that risk is higher. Scale is lower but risk is higher.

[ketelone]

''Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got the bomb," a ''senior official" told The New York Times, ''and they didn't have Iran's money or engineering expertise."

Shhhh... dont tell anyone.. but THEY had help from the C-H-I-N-E-S-E!

It looks like China is quite intent to give nukes to anyone that opposes any of its rivals.

North Korea - US
Iran - US
Pakistan - India

China is acting like the wild drunk at a party.. it thinks its being cool, but its actually pissing a lot of people of. And these guys have a veto on the security council - yeesh.

[ketelone]

er.. intent = content in the post above.

[The Great RJ]

Sadly it is almost inevitable that Iran will have the bomb very soon and will demonstrate it in a very well publicized test. The US response should be a very public declaration that any use of nuclear weapons by Iran on Israel or the US or its allies or giving these weapons to terrorists for use against the US will result in a nuclear barrage from the US. Bush should make this announcement on the deck of a boomer submarine stating that he has ordered the targeting of Iran with nuclear missiles.

[El Gato]

Is there any indication that Iran has missiles that could reach here? That was the big thing about the Cuban crisis.. This is bad and disruptive but not the same.

No...... Not Yet anyway.

There's always the old CONEX container delivery system though.

Plus they do have missile, both ballistic and cruise types, that can reach our ships in the Persian Gulf and Arabian sea, and you can be they have plenty of "fishing boats" watching and reporting the location of those ships. They have tested a 4,000 km range missile this year.

If anyone is going to become a crispy critter that glows in the dark, I'd just as soon it not be our Squids and Jarheads.

They also might be able to reach Diego Garcia as well, which is where we store and ship all sorts of things through. Although it's almost 4500 km from Bandar Abbas in southern Iran, they may have longer range missiles, or the one they tested might be capable of that kind of range.

[El Gato]

That's a huge deal but not on the same scale as the Cuban missile crisis.

I guess that depends on if you live in New York City, or whichever port city they target. I predict Houston the next time, maybe LA or San Francisco. Houston for our oil infrastructure there, LA or San Francisco because of their depravity.

OTOH, Chicago is a port city too.

[El Gato]

Back in the 60s, putting Soviet warheads and missiles in Cuba made them no more or less dangerous than placing them in Siberia. The differences in flight time affected our military response and our false sense of security WRT missiles and bombers coming over the pole.

I'd have to disagree. The differences in flight time are crucial. Missiles flying in from Siberia to the CONUS have about 30+ minute flight times. Enough time to alert our own missiles and more importantly flush our bombers. Thus the Soviets could be assured of getting hit badly in our second strike response, and thus be deterred. Not so with missiles fired from Cuba, the flight times would be much shorter, and given the state of our own missiles at that point, either unhardened or very lightly hardened in "coffin" launchers, and how long it took to erect and fire them, most of them could also be lost before they could respond, as would the alert bomber force. The Soviets could have figured that they could handle the few on airborne alert. Thus deterrence could have failed. Only a few boomers were in commission, and fewer still operational at that time.

[El Gato]

Sadly it is almost inevitable that Iran will have the bomb very soon and will demonstrate it in a very well publicized test

Not if the US, Britain, and/or Israel take out their facilities with conventional, but precision guided, weapons soon. With Mad Mullahs and Angry Ayatollahs hovering over "the button", I'd just as soon not depend on deterrence.

[okie01]

The only thing I disagree with is the repeated assertion that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al will all go nuclear after Iran does. They've been living with a nuclear Israel for 30+ years and haven't gotten together the means or motivation to go nuclear themselves.

Egypt, et al, accurately recognize that Israel is no threat to them.

A nuclear Iran, however, would be a different matter.

[El Gato]

I think you are right that risk is higher. Scale is lower but risk is higher.

Maybe, but the risk was much higher than we thought at the time, and I for one felt it was pretty darned high at the time, even if I was only 12, it scared the snot out of me. It scared my father in law a lot more, and he was paying more attention than I was at the time.

We didn't know that the Soviets had operational tactical nukes in Cuba, and that their commanders already had authorization to use them if we invaded. We also didn't know that some of the submarines we stopped were armed with nuclear warhead tipped torpedoes, and according to , a very close Kennedy advisor, one sub Captain (other reports say Captain Nikolai Shumkov of Foxtrot B-130) ordered preparations of the nuclear armed torpedoes:

It turned out... that the Soviet submarines accompanying the supply ships as they approached the quarantine barrier were equipped with nuclear-tipped torpedoes. That the commander o f each submarine had the authority to fire such torpedoes in times of extreme urgency. And that the captain of one of those ships, when discovered by a destroyer in the quarantine barrier that was dropping depth charges on the submarine, felt that the time had come to fire the nuclear torpedoes."

- Theodore Sorensen, Special Counsel and Advisor to President Kennedy

[Blueflag]

El Gato --

Actually you are agreeing with a point I made in passing ... "The differences in flight time affected our military response..."

6 - 9 minutes from launch to impact versus 30+/- minutes made a huge difference and affected the balance of power. PLUS we had to be able to detect them and the DEWS looked North. (my point being that missiles launched from Cuba gave us insufficient time to decide/prep and launch silo based missiles/ get alert forces off the ground, etc.) Bombers at Failsafe points were good to go, but the were only a small portion, and frankly I've forgotten if Failsafe was pre- or post Cuba missile crisis. Anyway, flight times/ reaction times were indeed a big factor in our reaction to missiles in Cuba. ;-) Time to sleep.

Missiles in Kewber were a real problem.