The Case FOR Iranian Nukes
Let’s do some hypothetical supposing.
Let’s suppose that for very valid reasons you don’t like your neighbor and that neighbor has never cared much for you, either. Let’s suppose your neighbor has a history of acting aggressively toward people he didn’t like. Let’s suppose the neighbor is armed to the teeth and most of the neighborhood is perfectly content with that. Let’s suppose the neighbor has an extremely powerful friend who is ready, willing, and able to intercede on his behalf in any altercation.
Let’s suppose you are Iran and the neighbor is Israel.
Now that the UK’s Guardian is reporting that the hapless Obama administration concedes that crippling sanctions it had naively hoped would bring Tehran to its knees will fail, it’s time for America to backtrack. Obama has supported sanctions so that he could run for re-election as a peacemonger despite Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et al. but those measures have only served to enable Iran to stall and lie its way to nuclear power status.
Granted, with the notable exception of North Korea, Iran is easily the most psychotic nation on the planet with a mentally-imbalanced leadership cabal that rivals the insanity of Caligula. Granted, too, Iran is a principal money-man financing terrorism throughout the globe and regards truth with the same disdain it holds for women.
Nevertheless, put yourself in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and Ayatollah Khameini’s sandals: Israel has long been equipped with nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t.
Almost worse, the international community has long been aware of the Israeli nuclear capability with which the Jewish state could obliterate at will any designated enemy within range of its missiles and that community hasn’t done a bloody thing about the situation but bitches over your ambitions.
It’s enough to make a country paranoid. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13588.)
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Japanese Agonistes
Japanese Agonistes
I must concede a general antipathy toward Japan and the Japanese people, an antipathy not necessarily borne of Pearl Harbor since I wasn’t alive at the time and my family was spared the loss of any members in the conflagration that was World War Two.
Rather, my negative feelings toward the Land of the Rising Sun grew after reading James Bradley’s Flyboys: A True Story of Courage which is not as much a tale of courage on the part of American airmen who were unfortunate enough to be captured and imprisoned by the Japanese on the island of Chichi-jima as it was the story of the incredible brutality inflicted on those prisoners, brutality that included torture, beheadings, and cannibalism on the part of their captors.
As a child, all I remember of Japan was that we beat them in the war and that its exports were derided as junk; anything cheap was described as something that “looked like it was made in Japan.” However, both its economy and product quality improved greatly over the years and the Japanese evolved into a valued American ally and Japan took its rightful place among major world powers.
It may remain an ally but may not fully recover for many years after a powerful 8.9/9.0 magnitude earthquake hit the Pacific Ocean nearby Northeastern Japan at around 2:46pm on March 11 (JST). That catastrophic event was soon followed by widespread tsunamis, fires, explosions at nuclear plants, radiation contamination, severe aftershocks, and a devastating loss of life which could rival the Japanese war losses before it is all over.
When entire towns disappear, misfortune must be re-classified as cataclysm. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3873)
I must concede a general antipathy toward Japan and the Japanese people, an antipathy not necessarily borne of Pearl Harbor since I wasn’t alive at the time and my family was spared the loss of any members in the conflagration that was World War Two.
Rather, my negative feelings toward the Land of the Rising Sun grew after reading James Bradley’s Flyboys: A True Story of Courage which is not as much a tale of courage on the part of American airmen who were unfortunate enough to be captured and imprisoned by the Japanese on the island of Chichi-jima as it was the story of the incredible brutality inflicted on those prisoners, brutality that included torture, beheadings, and cannibalism on the part of their captors.
As a child, all I remember of Japan was that we beat them in the war and that its exports were derided as junk; anything cheap was described as something that “looked like it was made in Japan.” However, both its economy and product quality improved greatly over the years and the Japanese evolved into a valued American ally and Japan took its rightful place among major world powers.
It may remain an ally but may not fully recover for many years after a powerful 8.9/9.0 magnitude earthquake hit the Pacific Ocean nearby Northeastern Japan at around 2:46pm on March 11 (JST). That catastrophic event was soon followed by widespread tsunamis, fires, explosions at nuclear plants, radiation contamination, severe aftershocks, and a devastating loss of life which could rival the Japanese war losses before it is all over.
When entire towns disappear, misfortune must be re-classified as cataclysm. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3873)
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Travel Alert! State Department Warns, "Don't Go There! Don't Do That!"
Travel Alert! State Department Warns, "Don't Go There! Don't Do That!"
As an adjunct to America’s insane policy of dealing with Islamic terrorist attacks by waiting to be attacked, (since, as our president and Muslim commentator Fareed Zakaria have pointed out, we’re well able to “absorb” even nuclear assaults on the homeland), we’re now warning travellers and tourists to be careful out there when they’re travelling to and touring in Europe.
Obama made that “absorb” comment according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars and now travellers and tourists have been warned by our State Department of ”the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe. Current information suggests that al-Qa’ida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks.”
That alert goes on to warn: “Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Terrorists have targeted and attacked subway and rail systems, as well as aviation and maritime services. U.S. citizens should take every precaution to be aware of their surroundings and to adopt appropriate safety measures to protect themselves when traveling.”
Just as with domestic terror warnings, our government fails to provide any specific methods or techniques to implement that precaution or information on how to deal with or to avoid being reduced to splinters.
Excuse me, that’s not exactly true. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?page_id=2081)
As an adjunct to America’s insane policy of dealing with Islamic terrorist attacks by waiting to be attacked, (since, as our president and Muslim commentator Fareed Zakaria have pointed out, we’re well able to “absorb” even nuclear assaults on the homeland), we’re now warning travellers and tourists to be careful out there when they’re travelling to and touring in Europe.
Obama made that “absorb” comment according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars and now travellers and tourists have been warned by our State Department of ”the potential for terrorist attacks in Europe. Current information suggests that al-Qa’ida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks.”
That alert goes on to warn: “Terrorists may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests. U.S. citizens are reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure. Terrorists have targeted and attacked subway and rail systems, as well as aviation and maritime services. U.S. citizens should take every precaution to be aware of their surroundings and to adopt appropriate safety measures to protect themselves when traveling.”
Just as with domestic terror warnings, our government fails to provide any specific methods or techniques to implement that precaution or information on how to deal with or to avoid being reduced to splinters.
Excuse me, that’s not exactly true. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?page_id=2081)
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
All the President's Wars
All the President's Wars
Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.
In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.
All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.
In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.
To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.
A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.
In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi
Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?
Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)
Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.
In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.
All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.
In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.
To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.
A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.
In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi
Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?
Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)
Friday, June 11, 2010
Terrorism 101
Terrorism 101
Two stories which appeared the same day on CNS.com illustrate the insanity of the American people and of our government.
The first titled, “Public Says the Federal Debt Equal to Threat from Terrorism,” (http://bit.ly/bYprgp) is based on a Gallup survey which incidentally also shows that people trust Republicans over Democrats on both issues. That latter result is incidental only because it doesn’t matter.
Health care costs placed third in the survey, followed by unemployment and illegal immigration, which matter even less.
The reason those issues matter less is not because they are inconsequential, however.
The federal debt is horrendous and growing worse daily as this administration piles trillions of debt dollars onto the backs of future generations. The cost of health care is equally horrendous and is sapping the life out of Americans both literally and figuratively. The unchecked flood of illegal immigrants is swamping America’s educational and medical resources.
One might even add the Gulf oil catastrophe as another serious but secondary concern.
Why are all the other major problems facing America merely incidental to the threat of terrorism? Simply because the next terrorist attack or attacks could make the debt, health care, immigration, and the Gulf irrelevant. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1729)
Two stories which appeared the same day on CNS.com illustrate the insanity of the American people and of our government.
The first titled, “Public Says the Federal Debt Equal to Threat from Terrorism,” (http://bit.ly/bYprgp) is based on a Gallup survey which incidentally also shows that people trust Republicans over Democrats on both issues. That latter result is incidental only because it doesn’t matter.
Health care costs placed third in the survey, followed by unemployment and illegal immigration, which matter even less.
The reason those issues matter less is not because they are inconsequential, however.
The federal debt is horrendous and growing worse daily as this administration piles trillions of debt dollars onto the backs of future generations. The cost of health care is equally horrendous and is sapping the life out of Americans both literally and figuratively. The unchecked flood of illegal immigrants is swamping America’s educational and medical resources.
One might even add the Gulf oil catastrophe as another serious but secondary concern.
Why are all the other major problems facing America merely incidental to the threat of terrorism? Simply because the next terrorist attack or attacks could make the debt, health care, immigration, and the Gulf irrelevant. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1729)
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Obama Is No MADman
Obama Is No MADman
We don’t hear much about MAD anymore, except in the context of Mad magazine, which makes more sense every day when compared with the Obama administration.
For the younguns out there, MAD was the acronym for the Cold War policy of mutually assured destruction which was the single most effective way the U.S.S.R. and the United States had to keep Moscow and Washington from becoming molten puddle s of radioactive rubble.
In essence, the MAD strategy meant that if they hit us they could be assured that the attack or attacks would be reciprocated in kind and both nations would in large part be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.
It was a sick, Strangelovian policy that assumed a minimal level of sanity on both sides and enjoyed the distinction of working for forty+ years. There were countless threats and nuke rattlings, most emanating from the U.S.S.R., but even though the adversaries came close a few times, notably in 1961 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, no nuclear exchange ever occurred.
President Feelgood seems to think that if a nuclear war never happened in the past it could never happen in the future, just as September 11th, 2001 could never happen.
Accordingly. “President Obama said Monday . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1616)
.
We don’t hear much about MAD anymore, except in the context of Mad magazine, which makes more sense every day when compared with the Obama administration.
For the younguns out there, MAD was the acronym for the Cold War policy of mutually assured destruction which was the single most effective way the U.S.S.R. and the United States had to keep Moscow and Washington from becoming molten puddle s of radioactive rubble.
In essence, the MAD strategy meant that if they hit us they could be assured that the attack or attacks would be reciprocated in kind and both nations would in large part be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.
It was a sick, Strangelovian policy that assumed a minimal level of sanity on both sides and enjoyed the distinction of working for forty+ years. There were countless threats and nuke rattlings, most emanating from the U.S.S.R., but even though the adversaries came close a few times, notably in 1961 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, no nuclear exchange ever occurred.
President Feelgood seems to think that if a nuclear war never happened in the past it could never happen in the future, just as September 11th, 2001 could never happen.
Accordingly. “President Obama said Monday . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1616)
.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Part Two: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke
Intimations of Destiny Part Two: To Nuke Or Not To Nuke
Please see “Intimations of Destiny Part One: The Paper Tiger Surrenders in Pieces,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1121. That article focused on America’s inexorable slide into history’s dustbin due not to any fundamental systemic flaws or weaknesses but to an absence of resolve and to a widespread gut fear of winning our wars at all costs. Our fate, our future as a nation, is inextricably joined to the question of whether we are committed to winning our wars. We cannot expect to continue as the last super power unless we do.
………………………………………………………………………………….
The “War is Hell” observation of Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman provided no great insight into the nature of war since it merely stated the obvious. Any student of warfare and, more so, anyone who has endured the horrors of war could attest to its hellishness.
Far more hellish for nations and their inhabitants are the consequences of losing a war, especially when losing is a direct result of a failure of commitment to victory and when the opposing force has no regard for human life and the “civilities” of modern warfare.
That is precisely the road America is travelling today, with a savage foe waiting at the dead end, eager to wreak a grisly vengeance.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur said, “In war, there is no substitute for victory.” Put another way, if victory in war is not the goal, why even bother? And, if all-out, Sherman-esque scorched-Earth execution of war is considered beneath a nation’s dignity, why participate in the first place?
It would be simpler and far less bloody to surrender to an enemy at the outset of hostilities.
For America, all-out war today obviously relates to the question of using or not using the most fearsome weapons ever designed by human beings, nuclear weapons.
We employed our only two such devices in Japan to end World War Two in the Pacific. We won. We refused to use them in Korea and Viet Nam, and we lost. The idea of using nukes in the War on Terror, in the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, is apparently not even on the table.
We will lose those wars as well when President Obama shamelessly retreats when the going gets even tougher than it already is.
America should have learned from the 54,000 soldiers killed in Korea and from the 58,000 killed in Viet Nam. We should have learned but did not learn that when we must go to war, we should try to win. Mostly, we should have learned that when we go to war, to fight the enemy’s brand of war is foolhardy and deadly.
We may be fighting on that enemy’s turf but to play his games, as in fighting ground battles on that turf, fighting with our most potent weaponry sitting on the shelf, should be an impeachable offense for any commander in chief.
The best war, if there is such a thing, is one concluded as quickly as possible. In our case, that would mean using our weaponry to our best advantage and not being suckered into fighting the enemy’s kind of war.
We’re doing just that once again, which is the reason we will lose once again.
The question of whether or not to use tactical nuclear weapons is much less a military decision than it is a diplomatic, a humanitarian, and an emotional call.
Contemporary thought seems to be that being vaporized by a nuke is more unpleasant than other forms of warfare. Was being incinerated in the Dresden firestorm, dying slowly from an excruciating belly wound inflicted by a blast from an AK47, being ripped apart by an IED or a car bomb any less horrific than dying in a nuclear attack?
What a bunch of hogwash!
Does America, the only nation ever to use nukes, dare to detonate even tactical nukes again? We will not. Rather, our leaders are content in the notion of losing wars if the alternative is victory as the result of repeating our alleged iniquities committed over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At least the United Nations will smile kindly on us for accepting gracious and bitter defeat. However, losing the War on Terror would mean far more than bitter defeat. It would mean the end of the United States as we know and love it.
I humbly suggest that America cease sucking up to misguided and self-serving world opinion and opt to win our current wars, by any means possible including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
As ugly as that option is, the alternatives for America are much uglier.
Just as today it is thought obscene and merciless to deploy nukes, centuries ago during the Crusades the medieval Church considered the crossbow . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)