NEW PROTOCOL

The time has come for a revision of the MAD doctrine, that being that any use of a nuclear weapon gives free license by any other responsible nuclear power to annihilate the entire population, all living things, of the aggressor nation with neutron weapons. Neutron weapons leave the cities and infrastructure of the aggressor nation intact.
All surviving property of the aggressor nation would then be given as compensation to the victim nation.

Pre-emptive attack would become a recognized means of preventing a nuclear war under a double circumstance: evidence of attempting to build nuclear weapons, and a stated desire to aggress using those weapons when they are obtained.
This pre-emptive attack could use nuclear weapons, but only against nuclear weapons targets that could not be attacked with conventional weapons, and with respect to minimizing the loss of civilian life.

Fortunately for us, the Israelis can be counted upon to blow up any production facility the Iranian's build, just before it comes online.

This will of course result in cries of outrage from the usual sources here in the US.


Sometimes I wonder how our species survived this long.

Oh wait, I remember....

Until recently, stupid people died off before they could reproduce.

Remember Eric,
Short smart rich people marry tall beautiful dumb ones. That's how they survived.

"Fortunately for us, the Israelis can be counted upon to blow up any production facility the Iranian’s build, just before it comes online."

which explains why they havent for over a decade?

"Neutron weapons" in the context described above, are a myth.

Any nuclear reaction that achieved super-criticality (ignition) will produce blast effect, thermal pulse, and radiation effect, both primary and secondary. You can alter the relative balance between the three, but you can't eliminate any of them.

So terrorists light off a small one in an American city, the trace components match core fuel manufactured in Iran, and the US responds by burning Tehran.

You have your pound of flesh, and you used a configuration that minimizes radiation. Given the distance from Tehran and Khorramshar, the oil wells are production infrastructure is reasonably intact.

Are you comfortable killing that many people, the majority of whom hate your enemy at the top level of Iranian government just as much as you do?

What about the rest of the world? You have roughly a quarter of the earth's oil in Iran, Saudi, and Iraq, how easy are the people in those countries going to make it for you to come in and get it after you've laid waste to a major Muslim capitol?

Add to that the European nations that will refuse to trade with you afterwards, potentially including Russia, China, even Indai. Is the pound of flesh worth all that too?

Before you try to answer, understand that in certain circumstances I would give the order that turned Tehran into a smoking hole, with full foreknowlege of all the possible consequences. Those circumstances do not yet exist, nor are they likely to.

Save the processing time necessary to add it all up. There's an easier way.

If Iran's centrifuges were capable of spinning up enough core fuel to activate Saddam's fully designed and machined nuclear weapons, before November, then Bush wouldn't be ignoring their flapping gums (not to mention financial and military contributions to our sworn enemy Al Qaeda) on a weekly basis, he'd be setting up to move in there in force tomorrow.

Iran's government has to be replaced, that much is obvious. It will happen in due time.

Overreaction to something that hasn't even happened yet is counter-productive.

The suggested protocol was not designed with Iran in mind, it is based on similar reckoning to existing international protocols. Such protocols, unlike MAD, which is a theory, not an actual protocol, are based on the agreement of the Security Council.

Right now, some kind of protocol exists. For proof of this, when India and Pakistan both became nuclear and were dangerously close to war, Asst. Sec'ry of State Richard Armitage was dispached to the region. He spoke to Pakistan first, then without anyone interfering with his plane, he flew directly to India through the most dangerous airspace in the world. Both sides IMMEDIATELY ceased hostilities.

A neutron bomb detonates in an airburst high above its target, with negligable blast effects on the ground, but with a massive bombardment of high-speed neutrons killing all life below. Only a tiny area where any pieces of surviving bomb casing fall become strongly radioactive. Residual enhanced radiation has a short half-life in the target area.
Negligable fallout results, as no matter is blown up into the air. Buildings survive and there are minimal heat effects.

I suspect that other readers know more about these matter than I do, but I do recall, I hope correctly recally, a couple of relevant ideas. First, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was primarily a doctrine for potential nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The main idea of MAD was to prevent a nuclear war. I am by no means expert enough in these ideas to critique it, but my impression is that the ideas behind the MAD doctrine fit most comfortably in the context of nuclear superpowers which can annihilate one another. Second, I seem to recall that the neutron bomb was designed primarily as an anti-tank weapon. Recall that during much of the Cold War the Warsaw Pact powers had many more tanks in Europe than did NATO. I know that the neutron bomb post-dated MAD by something like ten years.

I read a comment in which the Russians had described the Neutron bomb as the ultimate capitalistic weapon, one that killed life but preserved material non-living things like buildings.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: