Sunday, January 15, 2006

The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented:

5 comments:

  1. You have also misspelled: "William BENNETT" -- "Ann COULTER" -- "Charles KRAUTHAMMER"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Professor Niall Ferguson describes the origins of the 2007 Gulf War. Ferguson's set-up is quite realistic but his denouement, squeezed into the last couple of paragraphs, left much to be desired. He wrote:

    "The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran."

    Israel likely has dozens to hundreds of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. It also has a missile defense system that could easily knock down the few missiles that Iran could lob at it. If Iran attempted to launch an attack on Israel, most of Iran would be obliterated, the Bekka valley would be disinfected with Neutron bombs, and Damascus would no longer exist. That would happen whether or not Iran hit Israel with a Hiroshima sized nuclear weapon. In the unlikely event that Israel lost the nuclear exchange, the US would right that wrong. In any event, the nuclear exchange in 2007 would greatly favor Israel. The resulting devastation of Iran would not inspire the Arab Shi'ite population to overrun US bases to support the extremist Persian Shi'ites. The Chinese would have no interest in entering a nuclear war to support the radioative wasteland formerly known as Teheran; their biggest concern would be restoring the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. The US would be able to use its naval presence in the Gulf to ensure remaining oil supplies from the Gulf were diverted to its allies. It would be in China's and the US's interests for it to be considerd an ally.

    In 2010 or 2015 his scenario might be more realistic, when Iran might have a large enough nuclear arsenal to overcome Israel. The question is whether the nutcases running Iran can withstand their internal demographic time-bomb for that long.

    The biggest problem currently facing the US is that the left is more concerned with their war on George Bush than they are with the threats festering in the real world. Tony Blair, to his great credit, took the right side. His US equivalents prefer treachery and treason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Taumarunui presents a good counter analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joe,

    I appreciate your hard hitting analysis and keeping me up to date with multiple sourced info!

    Daily Telegraph, Professor Niall Ferguson's analysis is a myopic fairy tale symptomatic of academic fairly land where arguements are all too often taken out of context in all assuming steams of stupidity, such as, assuming thier are clear victories in a nuclear exchange and that Iran's Shehab-3 will be easily shot down by anti-balistic systems. Even Orbital, makers of US missles defense technology has not developed a system that is 100%....and when you are talking about a narrrow 12 mile-wide strip of land that is easily hit by katuysha missles from the North and Kassam rocket from the South and potential of delievery from the the Meditarnean has not even been considered--let's not be so confident. It only takes one. Professor Ferguson you get an F.

    Iranian journalists in exile can be read at http://www.roozonline.com/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Anonymous,
    Good counter-thoughts. I don't think Professor Ferguson's piece was meant to be anything other than a thought provoking essay. He certainly didn't mean it as a statement of fact. It is true that Israel's anti-missile system is probably imperfect, but the Israeli-made Arrow system is likely superior and more tested than anything Orbital makes (did Orbital participate in that program? I’m not sure). I found Professor Ferguson's piece an interesting read. Of course it was all hypothetical, but meant to illustrate from history's perspective that in-action can sometimes lead to far more devastating results than early intervention.
    Joe

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it clean. Comments do not reflect the opinion of this blog and are the sole opinion of the commenter. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Of course, opposing views are welcomed.

Auto-flagged and monitored IP addresses:
Teksavvy - IP 76.10.141, Onterio, Canada.
Charter Communications - IP 68.188.68. Ballwin, Missouri