Saturday, May 4, 2013

WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IRAN HAS A NUCLEAR BOMB

WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IRAN HAS A NUCLEAR BOMB
Michael Rivero


The above image is a scan of a piece of Trinitite. This is desert sand that was underneath the explosion of the world's first Atomic bomb in New Mexico as part of project TRINITY, hence the name Trinitite.* The heat from that blast melted the sand into a green glass, not unlike the Fulgurites that result when lightning hits sandy soil. Now, imagine an entire nation looking like the above sample, melted into green glass. Buried in the green glass are the charred remains of the people of that nation. It's not an idle fantasy. The US spent $5 trillion dollars (back in the 1950s, when a trillion dollars was REALLY a lot of money!) building a nuclear capability that can actually do that; melt any nation and it's people into a giant slab of green glass. The USSR knew it, the world knows it, Saddam knew it. The government of Iran knows it.
Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction (which we now know they did not), and even if Iraq had the long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they did not), Iraq would still not have been a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
The same applies to Iran. Even if they were pursuing a nuclear weapon (which nobody can prove they are) and even if Iran had long range missiles to strike at America (which they definitely do not) Iran is not going to preemptively attack the United States with a nuclear weapon because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
The same applies to North Korea. Even if they built a nuclear weapon (or bought it from Israel) and even if North Korea had long range missiles to strike at America (which they definitely do not; the Taepodong 2 cannot even reach Alaska) North Korea is not going to preemptively attack the United States with a nuclear weapon because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
Those that insist that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a threat that justified invasion, or that Iran's or North Korea's weapons of mass destruction are a threat that justifies new invasions, are in essence admitting that the US Government took $5 trillion of your money (over $17,000 from each of you alive today) in a gigantic swindle, because the $5 trillion nuclear deterrent isn't a deterrent after all, that it doesn't work, that nobody is really afraid of it, because they all know it was just a hoax to soak the American taxpayer for another several thousand dollars.
Was it all a hoax, Mr. Obama? Did the American people foot a $5 trillion bill in 1950s dollars for a deterrent system that isn't really a deterrent?
Either the deterrent works or it does not. If it doesn't, then the American taxpayers have been defrauded on a grand scale (nothing new there; look at Carbon Taxes and the Wall Street bailouts). But if the nuclear deterrent does work, then Iraq or Iran or North Korea can have all the weapons of mass destruction they want; they just won't risk using them without provocation. Maybe they can put them in a museum or something. But they won't dare use them against the United States because they don't want to end up like that piece of green glass at the top of this article. There is no need to invade over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. There never was.
Of course, the issue has shifted. The UN inspectors in Iraq found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They found some documents of dubious origin ABOUT weapons of mass destruction, but documents are not a weapon of mass destruction (with the sole exception of the 1040 form). The UN inspectors found a bunch of old empty artillery warheads from 1988, but empty warheads are not a weapon of mass destruction, and tests show that these empties were never weapons. Soil samples have tested negative for chemicals or radioactivity indicating weapons development.
Iraq allowed the inspectors to pretty much go everywhere they want without hindrance, even into Saddam's home. Imagine the KGB demanding and getting permission to peek into every closet and drawer in the White House and you will get an idea of just how much Iraq was cooperating. The CIA gave the UN inspectors a list of sites they were convinced had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was found.
But Bush still got his invasion, and grabbed the oil wells.
Now Obama has shifted the target to Iran. And once again, we are being warned that Iran, while it does not actually have nuclear weapons, might be close to building one, and this justifies another invasion. The theory is that if Iran has a nuclear power station, they will build bombs with it. Iran hasn't planned to build bombs with it, and invites inspections (and now tourists) to prove that they are not making bombs, but the theory is that Iran will make bombs with their reactor and fool the inspectors, because, well, to be blunt about it, that's what Israel did at Dimona while they clandestinely built the world's 6th largest nuclear arsenal.
Iran says they don't want a bomb. Personally, after Iraq proved to the world what the US does to oil-rich nations that do not have weapons of mass destruction I would rethink that position. But if Iran builds a bomb, so what? Maybe they can put it in a museum, or march it down the streets of Tehran in a parade like the Soviets used to do. But they won't use it against the United States unless really provoked. They won't dare.
To repeat: Even if Iran has a weapon of mass destruction (which we know they do not), and even if Iran has long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they do not), Iran would still not be a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
You see, leaders of nations have huge egos. They are driven in large part by that ambition that future generations will admire their faces on statues and stamps and money, and school children will have to memorize their names and birthdates. That doesn't happen if you let your nation get destroyed. Citizens take a very dim view of that sort of behavior.
Simply having a nuclear weapon does not mean the nation that owns it will use it. Many nations possess nuclear weapons. And contrary to all the dire warnings about nuclear weapons held by other countries, the historical truth is that one and only one country has ever actually used nuclear weapons against the citizens of another nation, the United States of America. For all the talk about the threat from Iraq and now the threat from Iran and North Korea, it is the United States of America which remains the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon. It is the United States of America which is the provable nuclear threat to the world.
If Iran or North Korea were to have a weapon of mass destruction and use it against the US, the US could just stand back, turn those little brass keys in the silos, and turn the attacking nation into green glass just like that at the top of this article. That's what we my parents' generation paid that $5 trillion to build, and your generation pays trillions to maintain. And unless the US Government wants to admit that $5 trillion nuclear deterrent is a hoax, then we should use it as it was intended to be used, to deter an attack without having to invade a foreign attacker.


Why Iran's nuclear weapons are not a threat (even if they did exist).



The [Ohio class] submarine has the capacity for 24 Trident missile tubes in two rows of 12. The dimensions of the Trident II missile are length 1,360cm x diameter 210cm and the weight is 59,000kg. The three-stage solid fuel rocket motor is built by ATK (Alliant Techsystems) Thiokol Propulsion. The US Navy gives the range as "greater than 7,360km" but this could be up to 12,000km depending on the payload mix. Missile guidance is provided by an inertial navigation system, supported by stellar navigation. Trident II is capable of carrying up to twelve MIRVs (multiple independent re-entry vehicles), each with a yield of 100 kilotons, although the SALT treaty limits this number to eight per missile (plus four decoys). The circle of equal probability (the radius of the circle within which half the strikes will impact) is less than 150m. The Sperry Univac Mark 98 missile control system controls the 24 missiles.
The 14 Trident II SSBNs carry together around 50 percent of total U.S. strategic warheads. (The exact number varies in an unpredictable and highly classified manner below a maximum set by various strategic arms limitation treaties.) Although the missiles have no pre-set targets when the submarine goes on patrol, the SSBNs are capable of rapidly targeting their missiles should the need arise, using secure and constant at-sea communications links. The Ohio class are the largest submarines ever built for the U.S. Navy, and are second only to the Russian Typhoon class in mass and size. A single submarine carries the destructive power more than nine times greater than all Allied ordnance dropped in WWII.
Only the whales and dolphins know where these submarines are when they are out on patrol. Not even the president knows their exact location.
Why Iran's nuclear weapons are not a threat (even if they did exist) Part 2.
The B-2 Stealth Bomber can carry sixteen B61 or B83 nuclear weapons, is difficult to detect with radar, has a claimed range of 7000 miles, a ceiling of 50,000 feet, and a claimed airspeed of .95 Mach, although the above photo seems to suggest it can actually fly supersonic.

When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States, the Cold War had entered a new phase. The cold war became a conflict more dangerous and unmanageable than anything Americans had faced before. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force, an unchallenged economy, strong alliances, and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the Soviets. In the new cold war, however, Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. Each side could destroy the other many times. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second.

If Iran needs to be invaded and occupied to prevent them from ever developing and possibly using a nuclear weapon against the mainland United States, then our parents wasted untold trillions in producing nuclear weapons and submarines to defend against just such a threat; weapons and submarines we are now being told do not achieve their purpose.
And we want our money back.


* (This sample is part of the WRH tongue-in-cheek "Debris Museum", which icludes ash from Mt. St. Helens, dust from 9-11, coal from the Tinaytic, bits of the Berlin Wall, and debris from Fukushima that washed up here on Oahu.)





The US Pre-Declares War with Iran – Senators Approve Resolution 65 to Assist Israel in Iran Strike – Its A War Resolution!

Share38 Tweet14 +10 Share066

Senators Approve Resolution 65 to Assist Israel in Iran Strike
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted on Tuesday a resolution which stipulates that the U.S. will assist Israel if it is forced to take action against Iran.
The resolution, Senate Resolution 65,was introduced last month by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and was co-sponsored by 15 Senators, including Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York).
It states that the United States has a vital national interest in and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel; reaffirms the United States support for Israel’s right to self-defense; and urges that if Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States will stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.
It also states that U.S. policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions. Senate Resolution 65 gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167205#.UXYCCLVfAls
Text of the Resolution:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.RES.65:

Its a war resolution.
They clearly paint Iran as the “biggest” current threat, then call for military force. It’s blatantly obvious what this is, they even have to end it by saying that it’s not a declaration of war. Its completely fork-tongued like most resolutions.
There is no authorization to go to war, the House doesn’t get to make that call, they just URGE the Congress to.

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-us-pre-declares-war-with-iran-senators-approve-resolution-65-to-assist-israel-in-iran-strike-its-a-war-resolution/#pxKe9VGRp1SROd8p.99
.S. Upgrades Weapon to Penetrate Key Nuclear Site; Push to Persuade Israelis

The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has redesigned its biggest "bunker buster" bomb with more advanced features intended to enable it to destroy Iran's most heavily fortified and defended nuclear site.

U.S. officials see development of the weapon as critical to convincing Israel that the U.S. has the ability to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb if diplomacy fails, and also that Israel's military can't do that on its own.

Several times in recent weeks, American officials, seeking to demonstrate U.S. capabilities, showed Israeli military and civilian leaders secret Air Force video of an earlier version of the bomb hitting its target in high-altitude testing, and explained what had been done to improve it, according to diplomats who were present.

In the video, the weapon can be seen penetrating the ground within inches of its target, followed by a large underground detonation, according to people who have seen the footage.

The newest version of what is the Pentagon's largest conventional bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, has adjusted fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to improve its precision and high-tech equipment intended to allow it to evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow nuclear enrichment complex, which is buried under a mountain near the Iranian city of Qom. The upgraded MOP designed for Fordow hasn't been dropped from a plane yet.

The improvements are meant to address U.S. and Israeli concerns that Fordow couldn't be destroyed from the air. Overcoming that obstacle could also give the West more leverage in diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to curtail its nuclear program.

"Hopefully we never have to use it," said a senior U.S. official familiar with the development of the new version. "But if we had to, it would work."

Fordow has long been thought to be a target that would be difficult if not impossible for the U.S. to destroy with conventional weapons. In January 2012, U.S. officials disclosed they didn't think their largest bomb could penetrate to the centrifuges within the complex, where Iran refines fuel it maintains is intended for civilian use but the U.S. and its allies believe is destined for a nuclear-weapons program.

At the time, the Pentagon had spent about $330 million to develop about 20 of the bombs, and sought additional funding to make them more effective. That money came through; so far, the Defense Department has now spent more than $400 million on the bombs, which are built by Boeing Co., BA +1.12% according to government officials.

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran's nuclear sites are so well fortified that Israel's military alone can't deliver what a U.S. official called "a knockout blow." Even if Israel were able to obtain its own MOP—and U.S. officials said they haven't offered it to its ally—U.S. officials said Israel doesn't have stealth aircraft capable of carrying the bomb to its target deep inside Iran.

U.S. officials said they believe the enhanced U.S. bunker-busting capability decreases the chances that Israel will launch a unilateral bombing campaign against Iran this year and possibly next year, buying more time for the Obama administration to pursue diplomacy after Iran holds elections in June. Israeli officials declined to comment. Israeli officials maintain they reserve the right to attack Iran.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other senior American officials have told their Israeli counterparts in recent weeks that the Obama administration will look more closely at military options to deal with Iran's nuclear program after assessing the impact of those elections on Tehran's intentions.

The White House wants to find a diplomatic solution but hasn't ruled out military action. In part to increase pressure on Tehran, both President Barack Obama and Mr. Hagel have used recent visits to Israel to stress Israel's right to decide for itself whether to strike Iran.

Pentagon press secretary George Little declined to comment on the changes made to the MOP or the contents of Mr. Hagel's meetings with Israeli officials.

The changes made to the MOP reflect a close U.S. analysis of what it would take to destroy Fordow. On the bomb itself, the detonator fuse has been adjusted specifically to withstand impact with layers of granite and steel that encase the nuclear facility, officials said.

The newest version is also designed to operate in "contested environments." It is equipped with capabilities designed to counter Iran's air defenses and keep the bomb on target if the Iranians try to knock it off course. Iran has invested heavily in recent years in air defenses and electronic warfare.

Officials said they believe the enhanced bomb would be even more effective against North Korea's nuclear bunkers, which the U.S. thinks aren't as heavily fortified as Iran's.

The new version of the weapon also includes changes to the guidance system to improve precision. U.S. officials say precision is important because, if the U.S. decides to strike Iran, the Air Force may need to drop more than one MOP on the exact same spot to thoroughly destroy Fordow.

The idea is to create a crater with the first strike and then send other bombs through the same hole to reach greater depths.

Israeli officials remain skeptical that the Obama administration is prepared to strike Fordow and other nuclear sites, according to current and former U.S. and Israeli officials. That skepticism, officials say, has fueled calls within Israel's government for a unilateral strike on Iran, even if Israel is capable of only setting back the nuclear program by a couple of years.

Israel still thinks its Air Force can do substantial damage to Fordow, according to Israeli and U.S. officials. U.S. intelligence agencies concur with that assessment. Mr. Hagel, during a visit to Israel last week, announced steps to supplement Israel's military capabilities, though it is unclear how soon the new weapons systems and aircraft will arrive.

U.S. officials see Iran's June vote as a critical test of whether the current Obama administration approach—using economic sanctions to try to shape Iranian public sentiment and bring the country's hard-liners to the negotiating table—is having the desired effect.

U.S. officials said the U.S. and Israel have reached an understanding that they will assess the intentions of Iran's leaders after the election, and then, barring progress on the diplomatic track, shift to a detailed discussion of military options.

U.S. officials said the elections won't trigger an automatic shift from the diplomatic to the military track but would be a critical juncture in American and Israeli deliberations.

"The election is a milestone to determine whether or not Iranian intentions will shift," a senior U.S. official said. The official said the review would take "some time" but declined to say how many months the U.S. and Israel have agreed to wait.

White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden declined to discuss private U.S.-Israeli deliberations but said "the United States and Israel coordinate very closely on the issue of Iran."

"We are committed to trying to resolve concerns about Iran's nuclear program diplomatically. But, as President Obama has made clear: the U.S. will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. The onus is on Iran and it knows that time is not unlimited," she said.

U.S. and Israeli officials say they believe that Iran has stayed below an enrichment threshold set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a bid to avoid a conflict with the West going into the elections.



Former Mossad Chief Urges Israel to Defy Netanyahu on Iran
TEHRAN (FNA)- Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan maintained his critical stance on Netanyahu's threatening remarks against Iran.


Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu harmed efforts to prevent the nuclearization of Iran by focusing the world's attention on the potential for an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said on Sunday in a joint interview with the Jerusalem Post and the New York Times.

Dagan's appearance at the Post conference was his first in public since he received a liver transplant in 2012.

Dagan caused an uproar when he criticized Netanyahu in the past on the Iranian issue, and he said his opinion had not changed.

Dagan called Netanyahu "a clever man," but added that the prime minister "was perceived as involving himself in internal issues in the US and interfering in the American election and went too far." This was not helpful for the goal of maintaining US-Israel relations, he said.

On Syria, Dagan downplayed the chemical threat and the threat of an Islamic takeover of the country.

During his speech, Dagan told conference attendees that the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war was a "local decision," and it was "not approved by the Syrian government."

Dagan said that he was hesitant to "make an estimation" Assad would "leave soon."

Google grants Palestinian statehood | JPost | Israel News

Google grants Palestinian statehood | JPost | Israel News

Hezbollah: We will defend Syria against Israel, US | JPost | Israel News

Hezbollah: We will defend Syria against Israel, US | JPost | Israel News

'Israel may be behind Syrian chemical weapons use' | JPost | Israel News

'Israel may be behind Syrian chemical weapons use' | JPost | Israel News