Treaty w/ russia...

[buckman]

See, you have to learn to trust a country like North Korea or Iran. I think it was last week or so that we were on alert because a boat from Tiawan, sank in North Koreas waters and no one knew what happened. IMO, it's just a matter of time before they "project their power". I'm thinking 2012.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not a projection of substantial power, while Hamas and Hezbolla are certainly a threat and a menace, neither stands a real chance of ever threatening Isreal's existance.

Nor ours...

Iran only persues such smaller measures because anything stronger would be countered, and countered hard.


I don't believe this at all. No country really believes we'll nuke them as we still operate under the rules of MAD.

What they fear, are the US Marines.

-spence

Hezbolla or Hamas could easily launch an attack greater than a menace against Israel with the assistance of Iran. And just because a lot of Iranians are stable does not mean their leadership is. Though I am pretty confident that if H or H were to "menace" Israel with any NBC class weapons Israel's "strategic ambiguity" (I decided not to use that term yesterday, props to TT for using it) would no longer be a question and the response would be nuclear. Our posture was that there was a very real risk we would respond to WMD with WMD and seeing we no longer deploy much B&C of NB&C that at best our response would be heavily conventional and at worst, nuclear. If the attack were against the US or our citizens abroad by a terrorist group by proxy or with support of a nation state we have made it at least less likely that our response would be devastating - decapition of leadership / nation state as a whole. Remember, previous administration was for potential use of WMD to the perpetrators or the nations that harbored them. So now, deterrence is reduced. The non-power-projecting-menaces may feel a little extra comfort that they might not be glassed over. Yes, I understand that Iran and the NORKs may be ignored by the changes in the posture review but this is one step closer to them not facing a permanent retaliatory strike / regime elimination. They can survive a conventional strike.

Yes, I would hope that this can spur negotiations but I always thought that in negotiating you show your cards slowly while negotiating, not flipping them over before the others stroll up to the table.

Originally Posted by TommyTuna

As for your statement Iran & NorKo "not being able to project power" I think your one dimensional thinking should embrace the threat of asymetrical warfare in our hemisphere. It can be effective, see 9/11, Spain Transit, Kubar Towers etc for its use & results, sometimes quite effective. Chem/Bio weapons in the modern sense, not the WWI crap, have a very aggressive lethality and the skillset is available to steal, develop & deploy said weapons. Hmmm a highly agressive, high mortlality viral plague oh where can we find one.

Now here is a lesson in self defense and nuclear deterrent; strategic ambiguity - a very powerful weapon where the aggressor does not know if/when/how you-the victim(mark) would respond and use your nukes. Kind of like the " armed concealed carry citizen" who conceals his weapon and only demonstrates its usage as a last resort and does not broadcast his having one. Or go announcing it on every street cormer in a tough neighborhood(world); "don't you worry I will not use it unless XYZ happens.

And one from the "Godfather", Sonny, Come here. Whatsa matta with you, Never tell anyone outside the family what your thinking" No truer words have been spoken.

Where have you gone Gen. Curtis LeMay?

TT

Though I'm glad we had Curtis LeMay and I'm also glad he is water over the dam.

Originally Posted by spence

Asymmetrical warfare isn't very useful in projecting power as it typically requires a indigenous population with some good percentage that's either coercable or cooperative. It can be very effective when trying to repell or stall an offensive campaign, which is how we've almost always seen it used.

Could Iran project power using asymmetrical warfare to dictate the American position or take over our territory?

Not really.

Perhaps they could use it to irritate US interests, but only where the situation would allow it, usually an established defensive or perceived defensive front....

Nuclear deterrent has a lot more to do with MAD than it does spoken or written words. The recent shift in policy has everything to do with improving collaboration with those we're not going to nuke anyway, to increasing leverage against those who we see as real threats.

The issue of course is that building and using a nuclear bomb are dramatically different things.

This may look strange to you, it's called negotiation.

And I seriously doubt our spoken or written position on using nuclear weapons means much as a deterrent. Everybody knows we're not going to use them, except in the most dire of circumstances, and probably only if nuked ourselves. We simply have too many other viable options using conventional means.

So no, I don't think Iran or North Korea has much of an ability to project power now or will in the future. Given that, how we deal with their very real threats should be taken in context. This is the failure of Bush era policy during his first term. Treat every big issue as an existential threat to our survival you have very limited options. When reality further erodes those options down do nothing you're frozen.

And when you're not moving you can't steer.

-spence

Assymetrical warfare is being dealt at the menace level, We can't just limit the discussion to the menace level. So no, Iran / NORKs cannot project power and occupy US soil, they can make it so we can not occupy it for a while.

Originally Posted by spence

America won't be successful unless there's enough global stability to let our economic system work. We simply can't consume enough to continue to scale.

Because the US can project a lot of force when offensive force is desired. Hiding in a mosque is a tactical issue, we're talking strategy here.

-spence

And we are limiting ourself strategically now and at the same time due to optical rectumitis of current and previous administrations, limiting our ability to promote and maintain Pax Americana. The Chinese are loving it though, while we spend ourselves off to the poorhouse, we keep their Lines of Communication open and they don't foot the bill, other than helping us spend into the poorhouse. but that is another story and I have to get back to work.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Hezbolla or Hamas could easily launch an attack greater than a menace against Israel with the assistance of Iran.

Without the coordination of Syria, Jordan and Egypt I don't see any chance they could really threaten Israel, and I don't see any chance of this happening in the next few decades. Could they give terrorists a nuke? It's not likely unless you believe in the crackpot 12th Imam stuff.

It is quite likely that the states in the region will start to come together over time, but from what I've read it's Turkey who will be running the show.

And just because a lot of Iranians are stable does not mean their leadership is. Though I am pretty confident that if H or H were to "menace" Israel with any NBC class weapons Israel's "strategic ambiguity" (I decided not to use that term yesterday, props to TT for using it) would no longer be a question and the response would be nuclear. Our posture was that there was a very real risk we would respond to WMD with WMD and seeing we no longer deploy much B&C of NB&C that at best our response would be heavily conventional and at worst, nuclear. If the attack were against the US or our citizens abroad by a terrorist group by proxy or with support of a nation state we have made it at least less likely that our response would be devastating - decapition of leadership / nation state as a whole. Remember, previous administration was for potential use of WMD to the perpetrators or the nations that harbored them. So now, deterrence is reduced. The non-power-projecting-menaces may feel a little extra comfort that they might not be glassed over. Yes, I understand that Iran and the NORKs may be ignored by the changes in the posture review but this is one step closer to them not facing a permanent retaliatory strike / regime elimination. They can survive a conventional strike.

I could only see Israel going nuclear if their existance was really on the line. And even then, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where they could nuke themselves out of it. Perhaps they could light up Tehran and scare the pants off of everyone else to stand down, but the chances of this erupting into a regional war are pretty good. They can't nuke everybody.

As to the eye for an eye position. I think this was all rhetoric and little reality. The US is not going to respond with Chemical or Bio weapons if we're attacked with the same. I definately could see us using a nuke to respond to the same. But nearly all situations are going to require the use of conventional forces, which is why we're in all these deadlock situations around the world.

I don't see any strategic ambiguity in our position. We are quite predictable. Israel wants everybody to be terrified of them (and they are) but this also limits their ability to operate. If they show the slightest sign of weakness it could erode the image. Not much ambiguity here.

Yes, I would hope that this can spur negotiations but I always thought that in negotiating you show your cards slowly while negotiating, not flipping them over before the others stroll up to the table.

I think Obama's strategy is to provide a clear direction then work others towards a common goal. If people think that something will happen, they will often times more than not side with who they believe to be the winner.

I'd note that he does appear to be making more progress than Bush.

Assymetrical warfare is being dealt at the menace level, We can't just limit the discussion to the menace level. So no, Iran / NORKs cannot project power and occupy US soil, they can make it so we can not occupy it for a while.

Ours or theirs? When was the last time a US territory was under foreign occupation?

And we are limiting ourself strategically now and at the same time due to optical rectumitis of current and previous administrations, limiting our ability to promote and maintain Pax Americana. The Chinese are loving it though, while we spend ourselves off to the poorhouse, we keep their Lines of Communication open and they don't foot the bill, other than helping us spend into the poorhouse. but that is another story and I have to get back to work.

China is pretty fragile as a nation. I think they're scared of their own long-term prospects.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Without the coordination of Syria, Jordan and Egypt I don't see any chance they could really threaten Israel, and I don't see any chance of this happening in the next few decades. Could they give terrorists a nuke? It's not likely unless you believe in the crackpot 12th Imam stuff.

It is quite likely that the states in the region will start to come together over time, but from what I've read it's Turkey who will be running the show.

I could only see Israel going nuclear if their existance was really on the line. And even then, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where they could nuke themselves out of it. Perhaps they could light up Tehran and scare the pants off of everyone else to stand down, but the chances of this erupting into a regional war are pretty good. They can't nuke everybody.

As to the eye for an eye position. I think this was all rhetoric and little reality. The US is not going to respond with Chemical or Bio weapons if we're attacked with the same. I definately could see us using a nuke to respond to the same. But nearly all situations are going to require the use of conventional forces, which is why we're in all these deadlock situations around the world.

I don't see any strategic ambiguity in our position. We are quite predictable. Israel wants everybody to be terrified of them (and they are) but this also limits their ability to operate. If they show the slightest sign of weakness it could erode the image. Not much ambiguity here.


I think Obama's strategy is to provide a clear direction then work others towards a common goal. If people think that something will happen, they will often times more than not side with who they believe to be the winner.

I'd note that he does appear to be making more progress than Bush.


Ours or theirs? When was the last time a US territory was under foreign occupation?


China is pretty fragile as a nation. I think they're scared of their own long-term prospects.

-spence

Not talking occupation. Talking a nuke / chem / bio weapon going off in Manhattan. Different stuff. Different scenario. "Occupation" by foreign forces is not what I mean. Not having New Yorkers occupy New York is what I mean.

I'm talking rational people and not so rational people. for all of MAD in the bad old days (good?) the Russians were rational. They new first strike would be devastating to them and same for us. MAD against nuclear peers / near peer is not the problem. It's some crazy mullah or desperate despot or their proxy that is the problem.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Not talking occupation. Talking a nuke / chem / bio weapon going off in Manhattan. Different stuff. Different scenario. "Occupation" by foreign forces is not what I mean. Not having New Yorkers occupy New York is what I mean.

In the mind of al Qaeda this would be a defensive strike, as they believe 9/11 was. It's not a sustained effort to influence but rather a lashing out. Granted, it would be terrible none the less.

I'm talking rational people and not so rational people. for all of MAD in the bad old days (good?) the Russians were rational. They new first strike would be devastating to them and same for us. MAD against nuclear peers / near peer is not the problem. It's some crazy mullah or desperate despot or their proxy that is the problem.

During the Cold War many seriously questioned that the Soviets were indeed rational people. I think Sting even wrote a song

But while there are crazies out there, I think a lot of the Islamic leadership is quite more rational than people might like to believe. Of course, they might want you to believe they are irrational, it works both ways

That being said, there's a combination of zealotry and available nuclear fuel which seems to be at a flash point right now, and is a huge problem.

All the more reason to praise Obama's efforts to contain the flow of nuclear materials going on...today.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

See, you have to learn to trust a country like North Korea or Iran. I think it was last week or so that we were on alert because a boat from Tiawan, sank in North Koreas waters and no one knew what happened. IMO, it's just a matter of time before they "project their power". I'm thinking 2012.

End of times?

-spence