Dress Rehearsal

The Internet is full of interesting tidbits.  Most are not well thought out and some are downright loony.  Reading through it though provides much entertainment and sometimes, just sometimes you come across a little gem that causes you to stop and think.

So was my occasion this evening while perusing various articles when this caught my eye.  The Washington Examiner ran an article by Paul Bedard conjecturing that the deployment of Iranian navy ships off of US territorial waters is a dress rehearsal for an EMP attack.

The hypothesis does fit the evidence.  Iran lacks the ability to produce enough nuclear weapons to pose any real threat to the US.  It has always been thought that Iranian nuclear weapons were a threat because they could target Israel and thereby destabilize the Middle East and threaten oil supplies.

But that is linear thinking and it linear thinking is the kind that causes businesses to go under and military leaders to lose wars.  Instead of thinking of Iran's nuclear program as being an attempt to get parity with the United States, we need to think of it differently.

First the United States and the former Soviet Union built their nuclear weapons with the intent of intimidating the other into never using theirs first.  Hence the problems were are seeing now with the cheating scandals in the US nuclear forces.  A weapon that is never intended to be used is treated with contempt by the operators and maintainers.  The senior leaders want to prove otherwise so they create more and more demanding standards that have little bearing on reality.

Perhaps Iran has seen this folly and is approaching their nuclear program in a different manner.  Iran may need to only produce enough weapons grade material to launch an EMP attack over New York or Washington.  It seems the risk of having the US retaliate with their nuclear weapons would dissuade them from that but perhaps not.  Perhaps a threatened EMP attack could be used a blackmail tactic.  Or simply taking out Wall Street would so financially cripple the US that a retaliatory strike is considered remote.

Sometimes, no matter how improbable it may seem we need to accept that it is possible.

Of sequester and North Korea

NPR has been spending much effort to broadcast stories demonstrating that Sequester has NOT had any of the adverse effects predicted by critics of the Obama administration.  Fair enough except after I had finished listening to NPR, I then read this on my Facebook timeline;

"Air Force officials will begin to stand down active-duty combat units starting April 9 to ensure the remaining units supporting worldwide operations can maintain sufficient readiness through the remainder of the fiscal year. The stand down is the result of cuts to Air Combat Command's operations and maintenance account, which must be implemented in part by flying approximately 45,000 fewer training hours between now and Oct 1."  U.S. Air Force

I can only assume that NPR had not read this story.

In keeping with this "Baghdad Bob" moment, yesterday a professor from a university that shall remain nameless appeared on a local morning news show to state emphatically that all of this concern about North Korea was totally unfounded.  As the Wizard of Oz famously says, "Ignore the man behind the curtain" or Pyongyang.  He is an expert on North Korea and has written at least one book on the subject so he definitely has the credentials that I don't.

Except then I read this on the New York Times; "North Korea warned foreigners on Tuesday that they might want to leave South Korea because the peninsula was on the brink of nuclear war — a statement that analysts dismissed as hyperbole — the American commander in the Pacific expressed worries that the North’s young leader, Kim Jong-un, might not have left himself an easy exit to reduce tensions." NY Times

The whole sentence is amazing example of towing the party line.  The NY Times manages to call it hyperbole on one hand but then quotes the PACOM commander as if to hedge their bets.  I think the professor may have been consulted.

The two nonsequiturs are in fact part of a continuum of delusion.  Sequester is most assuredly going to impact the United States (contrary to the assurances of the NPR pieces), minimally by causing the Department of Defense to furlough personnel and to eliminate routine training missions.  In-turn this may emboldened our favorite North Korean madman to increase the threats.  What the professor and NY Times both miss is Kim Jung Un is a young, unknown tyrant who believes his father and grandfathers dreams are his destiny to fulfill.  He is not going to behave the same as his ancestors.

North Korea has loaded nuclear missiles on to the launchers.  North Korea shut down access for South Koreans to cross the border to work in their factories.  North Korea has just told foreigners in the South to "get out".  Despite all of this, experts on North Korea are calling for calm.

Secretary of Defense Hagel seems to have a different opinion.  The F-22s are now back in air (after having being grounded for continued problems with the oxygen generators).  They are performing combat air patrols (CAP) in South Korea.  The US, along with Japan and South Korea, have dispatched seven radar equipped destroyers.  The destroyers are the best choice for countering the missile threats.  A good move by the US but one that could drive the North Korean leader to actually launched some type of attack (mortar or artillery strikes) to prove he is serious and not afraid.

Here is what is real question that is going unasked, why now?  North Korea and South Korea seemed to be on the verge of normalizing relations when suddenly ended.  What does North Korea have to gain by potentially escalating things to the point where one side or the other feels compelled to launch a first strike?

China has massed troops on the border with North Korea as I've previously stated.  That would appear to signal that China is not in support of hostilities.  Why then is North Korea escalating?  The only conclusion is there is more being discussed then we are aware of.  Perhaps China or Russia want a destabilized Korean peninsula for some grander strategy and unfortunately, the new North Korean leader is not experience enough to know he is being duped.

The latest report is the missile will be launched tomorrow.  Let's hope that the professor and NY Times are right.

North Korea rocket launch plan sparks US threat

Iran and Syria have been keeping the attention of the Obama Administration and the media for the past months. That could only mean that our latest "fearless leader", North Korea's Kim Jong-un, would have to claim some of the headlines for himself. The best way to do that is to of course shoot off a missile.

He plans to that exactly that next month. The Taepodong-3 is classified as an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of 10-20,000 kilometers and is able to carry an estimated payload of 500-1,000 kilograms. The stats translate to a missile easily capable of striking the United States with a warhead and unlike Iran, we know North Korea possesses nuclear warheads.

Worse, North Korea doesn't even need to worry about developing nuclear warheads anymore. Iran has the ability to produce the miniaturized components necessary to make the warheads. Iran also has the reactors necessary to produce the nuclear material. North Korea was able to achieve its advanced rocket technology through the acquisition of parts and technology from parts and technology from North Korea include Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. Of course Libya stopped selling components earlier this century but not before North Korea developed its capability.

Kim Jong-eun gains both press as well as Assad's gratitude for giving the US much to think about. It puts the Obama Administration in a really bad position going into an election cycle.

Yahoo News

North Koreas missiles

Of Arabs, Persians, and Russians

During the Cold War, it was easy to think of the massive build-up of weapons by the Soviet Union as a means of destroying the United States. Simplistic and efficient if you were part of the military-industrial complex of the late 20th Century. However, it does not explain why the Soviets built such a sheer number that could have destroyed the United States and Western Europe many times over.

The map above will help explain why the Russians (and formerly the Soviets) KNEW everyone was out to get them. First, why is it the many of the "white" Russians look European? Russia is a word derived from the Slavak "Rus" to describe the people that were most likely Vikings (who had red hair or "rus"). Peter the Great would lead Russia from a primarily agrarian economy to a modern European economy following his favorite culture, the Dutch (the current Russian flag uses the same colors in a different order). Peter the Great specifically wanted to learn about Dutch ship building to fend off the Swedes.

The Russians have been invaded by pretty much everyone on the Easter hemisphere to include the Swedes, French, Prussians, Germans, Ottomans, the Arab empire, the Persian empires, and the Mongols. Czar Nicholas tried to pick a fight with the Japanese navy, lost and subsequently he and his entire family were assassinated. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and after a first class ass-whooping, they were sent packing by a mountain people armed with a combination of 19th Century rifles and Stinger missiles.

While China and India have never invaded Russia, they have always posed a threat in the minds of Moscow. China for having a different view of Communism and the Indians for never appreciating the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan.

Of course if you imagine a larger view of the map you will notice the United States with all of it intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) pointed at Russia. With so many friends, you begin to understand why the Russians felt the need for such a huge arms build-up.

Understanding Russia from this point of views enables a different interpretation of the events in Syria and Iran. Syria provides the only naval base for Russia in the Mediterranean Russia has no interest in losing its only naval port to a pro-Western puppet to replace Assad. Russia has been providing Iran with the centrifuges and other technology needed to develop its nuclear power plants. It is most likely that Russian nuclear physicists are working with the Iranians. Russia needs Iran (for now) and the cash that selling nuclear technology produces. It will also make conflicts with the Chechnyans look less theologically motivated.

Iran also suffers from a similar worldview as does Russia. The Persians have battled pretty much every empire that surrounded them and now modern day Iran sees danger in every corner. The Tehran Embassy crisis was certainly an attack on the United States but one must not forget that the Shah was put into power with the help of the CIA.

Now the Arab League wants to lead a peacekeeping mission into Syria. Peacekeeping missions are hardly that, they are conducted by well armed soldiers. In Syria, this would mean more deaths and a possible escalation of conflicts with bordering countries. It could also lead to peacekeeping forces in confrontations with Russian forces.

Another ugly potential is the 2012 Summer Olympics. Athletes could be attacked, kidnapped or killed in the name of Syrian liberation. The Obama Administration may take in retaliation take a hard-line stance so as to not appear weak on national security in light of the elections. Republicans will be clamoring for more action and defense contractors will be eager to trot out new systems in light of impending defense budget cuts.

In short, we are looking at the perfect storm.

Iran-China trade soars to top $45 billion

In physics, you learn nature abhors a vacuum. The United States and EU plan to levy economic sanctions against Iran means others could seize the opportunity to establish trade relations. Below is a link to an article on Crethi Plethi discussing the Chinese approach to a Iran's nuclear program. Instead of isolating Iran, China's approach is sort of trade for good behavior. That and the fact China's expanding economy needs oil and having Iran as an ally is important to their continued economic expansion. Sure, China's approach is self-serving but it has less chance of inciting a war compared to the West's. The recent take down of Somali pirates has to have been in part a message to Iran that President Obama won't back down. The gamesmanship is disconcerting. A nuclear armed Iran is being portrayed as equivalent of Armageddon. North Korea has had nuclear weapons for decades but the Korean peninsula remains intact. Pakistan, an alleged ally, has nuclear weapons primarily as a counter to India's nuclear weapons. The history between these two nations could have resulted in nuclear war but even with the Taliban, both sides have remained calm (at least from a nuclear standpoint). Given these examples, there is little evidence Iran would launch a first strike even with Ahmadinejad at the helm.

Breitbart

Crethi Plethi

Iran Says It Shot Down Unmanned U.S. Plane

Earlier today, Iran claimed to have shot down a unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) fly by the United States. The shoot down allegedly occurred near the border between Iran and Afghanistan. The drone that went down wasn't just any drone but the RQ-170 Sentinel which is a stealth aircraft able to avoid detection by enemy radars.

The attack was later denied by the US claiming while a drone did crash it was due to mechanical failure. An earlier report by Iran that they had shot down back in July proved false.

If the reports are true this time, it means the US has to rethink its stealth technology used in the RQ-170. More than likely, drones have been operating in Iranian airspace gathering intelligence on the potential nuclear weapons program bragged about by Ahmandinejad. The situation is eerily similar to when Francis Gary Powers U-2 was downed by the Soviet Union. The United States thought the U-2 flew high enough to avoid missiles but they were wrong. The presence of US drones in Iran indicates the level of concern Washington has about Iran's nuclear program.

The presence of the drones is likely to ignite further problems for the US after last week's attack in Pakistan that killed two dozen residents. Support for US forces in the region has waned and this latest situation more give more support to Iran.

WSJ.com

Sky News

As Obama Talks Sanctions With Foreign Leaders, Lawmakers, Candidates Debate War On Iran | Fox News

Okay, Leon Panetta is not one of my favorite beltway insiders. I think he rather uninspired thinker and as proof, recently named a Democratic Congressman to chair the investigations of the mortuary operations at Dover AFB only to have very same Congressman resign since he was already running for office! However, of late he has been making a lot of sense that President Obama chooses to ignore.

Secretary Panetta only three days ago warned that the proposed super committees recommendation to slash $1.2 trillion in the defense budget could result in aggression towards the United States. In Ohio alone (home to Wright-Patteson AFB), we could active duty military go from 8,000 to 1,000 (as though Ohio needs any more help with unemployment!). Panetta then sounded the alarm that any military action against Iran would at best slow their nuclear program by only about three years. Furthermore, the Sec Def feels (in my opinion correctly) that any strike against Iran would bring retaliation from the Persians (sorry, Iranians).

Given all of Panetta's calls for caution, it seems incredulous that President Obama would seek to continue to antagonize Iran with sanctions. Senator Lindsey Graham's words are just ridiculous. The United States does not need to go to war with Iran and does not need to condone Israeli strikes against Iranian targets. I entered the military at the height of the Cold War and spent most of my early years training how to defeat the Soviet threat. Iran does not pose that order of magnitude threat. And less we all forget, the only country to use nuclear weapons is the United States. If we did not drop the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, then the Soviet Union would not have felt compelled to pursue their nuclear weapons programs with such gusto (yes, I know how many lives are alleged to have been saved by dropping the atomic bombs). With the US and Soviet Union pursuing nuclear weapons, Britain and France followed suit along with North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and Israel (some say even South Africa and Germany). But the United States seems hellbent on stopping the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons regardless of the long term consequences.

Fox News

Panetta Iran Warning

Panetta Budget Cuts

Iran explosion at Revolutionary Guards military base

The photo above is not photo-shopped, that is a Grumman F-14 Tomcat painted with Iranian paint scheme. Once upon a time, Iran and the US were allies. Shah Pahlavi came to power after WWII and in partnership with the British created the Anglo-Persian Petroleum Oil Company (better known as BP today, minus the Persian part). The Shah was secular Muslim meaning he was very pro-West. The Muslim clerics was none too happy and opposed the Shah. The Shah maintained his power in no small part through his secret police (SAVAK). In keeping with other secret police agencies, SAVAK kidnapped, tortured and murdered any and all opponents to the Shah. The Iranian people grew tired of this crap and staged a revolution most notably by seizing the American embassy in Tehran. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The Shah fled into exile and Ayatollah Khomeini came to power re-establishing Iran as a theocracy.

The US and Iran relations have never been the same. The failed rescue attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) was a complete humiliation for US special operations (especially Delta Force) leaving a bad taste in President Reagan's mouth for Iran. He abandoned the former US ally in favor of one Saddam Hussein during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 (much as Hussein would almost a decade later with Kuwait). Iran regained much of the territory and for much of the war, Iran was on the offense. Hussein responded by using chemical weapons. Yes, dear children your read that correctly. The US was an ally of Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons. Now do you see why George W. thought in 2003 he would find weapons of mass destruction?

Meanwhile, Iranians were not that impressed with a theocratical form of government. The ayatollahs allowed the election of a secular president (who would take orders from them). The sixth and current president of Iran is of course Ahmadinejad. He is the least cooperative with the ayatollahs and is the most hellbent on creating a nuclear weapons capability for Iran. He idolizes the rich history of the Persian Empire and seeks to regain it through the acquisition of nuclear weapons. It is important to understand that the Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Therefore they are much more inclined to move unilaterally compared to an Arabian country.

Secretary Clinton recognizes this proclivity and has stated outright that the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by Iran is unacceptable. Ahmadinejad counters by stating Iranian nuclear reactors are strictly for peaceful purposes. Israel is not buying it and has threatened a unilateral (read, non-US) airstrike to take the reactors out. Many (including myself) felt the air campaign against Libya was more of a cautionary tale for Iran than actually supporting Libyan rebels.

A few weeks ago, the US media was not buying a supposed plot uncovered by the Department of Homeland Security staring Iran (surprise!) sponsoring Mexican drug lords (another surprise!) to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US (who?). The plot was such a stretch that none of the cable news networks bought the story. It was quickly overcome by other stories and dropped.

Now the BBC is reporting this explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base. Perhaps I'm just jaded but I suspect we may find out US or Israeli special forces are responsible. Even if they are not, we may see Ahmadinejad claiming they were. May we live in interesting times.

BBC News

Iranian Situation

Syria and Egypt continue to experience violence between the government and citizens creating potential flash points in either country.

In the meantime, Iran presents the most destablizing scenario of any Middle Eastern country. President Ahmedinajad, through a series of political missteps, faces the very real possibility of being forced to step down. Nepotism and narcism have left the President in a untenable position opposite the powerful Ayatollah. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been the only Middle Easter countries to thus far avoid any of the turmoil from the Arab spring (although Iran is not an Arab state, they are of course Persians).

Ahmedinajad stepping down should in theory reduce tensions with the United States. However, any number of his potential successors can take an ever harder stance against the West. Now comes the news that Iran has secretly been testing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The Hague has declared this a violation of UN Resolution 1929 which means with the political turmoil in Tehran, tensions could escalate into hostilities.

Ahmedinajad

Iranian Nuclear Missile Test

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal |
World news |
The Guardian


Posted using ShareThis

First, the President eliminates plans to deploy a missile shield in Poland. This move may or may not improve relations with Russia. Now the President is looking to slash the nuclear arsenal. In a truly egalitarian world filled with altruistic motives, this would lead others to destroy their nuclear stockpiles or stop their bid to create one. As most are not motivated by altruism, slashing an existing nuclear arsenal may be seen as a sign that the President lacks the willingness to use nuclear weapons. I've always thought nuclear weapons puts one in a no-win situation. If you use them first, you leave your adversary no choice but to retaliate in kind. If you retaliate with nuclear weapons, you are no better than the one who launched the attack. Given that, I still find it concerning that the President is telegraphing a more pacifist attitude given many world players that are angry over the Bush Administration policies. They may not be willing to differentiate between administrations and will look at President Obama's recent policy changes as a sign of weakness.