COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Why Israel will never let Iran go nuclear. She can't. She won't.


hat tip: Elijah

This is from a link put up by Elijah. It is heavily edited by me. You can read the entire report here

Sun-Tzu’s principles concerning negotiation and diplomacy state that political initiatives and agreements may be useful, but purposeful military preparations should never be neglected. The primary objective of every state should be to weaken enemies without actually engaging in armed combat. This objective links the ideal of “complete victory” to a “strategy for planning offensives.” In Chapter Four, “Military Disposition,” Sun-Tzu tells his readers: “One who cannot be victorious assumes a defensive posture; one who can be victorious attacks. . . . Those who excel at defense bury themselves away below the lowest depths of Earth Those who excel at offense move from above the greatest heights of Heaven.”


The under lying rationale of “Project Daniel” was the presumption that Israel
urgently needs a coherent plan for dealing with existential threats, and that we (The Group) were well-positioned intellectually and professionally to propose such a plan.

[...]

Project Daniel concluded that:
the primary threats to Israel’s physical survival were more likely to come
from enemies that were not irrational.

[...]

The dangers of relying too heavily upon active defenses such as anti-ballistic missile systems, a reliance whereby Israel would likely bury itself away “below the lowest depths of Earth,” Project Daniel boldly advises that Israel take certain prompt initiatives in removing existential threats. These initiatives include striking first (preemption) against enemy WMD development, manufacturing, storage, control, and deployment centers—a recommendation fully consistent with longstanding international law regarding “anticipatory self-defense.”
I f, for any reason, the doctrine of preemption should fail to prevent an enemy Arab state or Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Daniel group advises that Israel cease immediately its current policy of nuclear ambiguity, and proceed at once to a position of open nuclear deterrence.

[...]

Following Sun- Tzu, the clear purpose of our recommendation is to achieve a complete Israeli victory without engaging in actual hostilities. In the words of our report: “The overriding priority of Israel’s nuclear deterrent force must always be that it preserves the country’s security without ever having to be fired against any target.”

[...]

Everyone who studies Israeli nuclear strategy has heard about the so-called “Samson Option.” This is generally thought to be a last resort strategy wherein Israel’s nuclear weapons are used not for prevention of war or even for war-waging, but simply as a last spasm of vengeance against an enemy state that had launched massive (probably unconventional) counter-city and/or counterforce attacks against Israel. In this situation, Israel’s leaders, faced with national extinction, would conclude that even though the Jewish State would not survive, it would “die” together with its destroyers.

[...]

Faced with imminent and existential attacks, Israel, taking a cue from The National Security Strategy of t he United Stat es of America, dated 20 September 2002, could preempt enemy aggression wi th conventional forces. American strategy of preemptive attack affirms the growing reasonableness of anticipatory self-defense under international law. If Israel were to draw upon such expressions of US policy, the targeted state’s response would determine Israel’s subsequent moves. If this response were in any way nuclear, Israel would assuredly undertake nuclear counter-retaliation. If this enemy retaliation were to involve certain chemical and/or biological weapons, Israel might also determine to undertake a quantum escalatory initiative. If the enemy state’s response to Israeli preemption were limited to hard-target conventional strikes, it is highly improbable that Israel would resort to nuclear counter-retaliation. On the other hand, if the enemy state’s conventional retaliation were an all-out strike directed toward Israel’s civilian populations as well as to Israeli military targets—an existential strike—Israeli nuclear counter-retaliation could not be ruled out.

[...]

To protect itself against enemy strikes, particularly those carrying existential costs, Israel needs to exploit every component of its nuclear arsenal.

[...]

Potential enemies need to recognize that Israeli nuclear weapons are sufficiently invulnerable to attack and t hey are aimed at high-value targets. In this context, the Final Report of Project Daniel recommends that “a recognizable retaliatory force should be fashioned with the capacity to destroy some 15 high-value targets scattered widely over pertinent enemy
states in t he Middle East.”

[...]

Excluding an irrational actor—a prospect that falls outside the logic of nuclear
deterrence—enemies of Israel would assuredly refrain from nuclear or biological attacks that would presumptively elicit massive counter-value reprisals. This reasoning holds only to the extent that these enemies fully believe that Israel will make good on its announced strategy. Israel’s nuclear deterrent, once it were made explicit, would need to state to all prospective nuclear enemies: “Israel’s nuclear weapons, dispersed, multiplied, and hardened, are targeted upon your major cities. These weapons wi ll never be used against these targets except in retaliation for certain WMD aggressions. Unless our population centers are struck first by nuclear attack, certain levels of biological attack, or by combined nuclear and biological attack, we will not harm your cities.”

[...]

Recalling the thoughts of the ancient Chinese military thinker Sun-Tzu, the very highest form of military success is achieved when one’ s strategic objectives can be met without any actual use of force. To meet its primary deterrence objective—deterrence of enemy first-strikes—Israel must seek and achieve a visible second-strike capability with the ability to target approximately 15 enemy cities. Ranges should encompass cities in Libya and Iran, with nuclear bomb yields at levels sufficient to fully compromise the aggressor’s viability as a functioning state.

[...]

Conclusions

Reflecting on Project Daniel’s efforts, the group has been able to
evaluate the broad range of recommendations contained in Israel’s Strategic
Future. These recommendations concern, inter alia:
  • The manifest need for an expanded policy of preemption.
  • An ongoing re-evaluation of “nuclear ambiguity.”
  • Recognizable preparations for appropriate “counter-value” reprisals in the case of certain WMD aggressions.
  • Adaptations to a “paradigm shift” away from classical patterns of warfare.
  • Expanded cooperation with the United States in the Global War on Terrorism and in future inter-state conflicts in the Middle East.
  • Deployment of suitable active defense systems.
  • Avoidance of nuclear war- fighting wherever possible.
  • Various ways to improve Israel’s nuclear deterrence.
  • Vital differences between rational and non-rational adversaries.
  • Changing definitions of existential harms.
  • Legal elements of “anticipatory self-defense.”
  • Possibilities for the peaceful settlement of disputes in the region.
  • Budgetary constraints and opportunities.
  • The maintenance of Israel’s qualitative edge.
  • Preparations for “regime targeting.”
  • Implications for Israel related to the growing anarchy in world affairs.

9 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unless we do it for them, they'll grimace, but they'll take it. I can't see them going nuclear pre-emptively.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Be a good time to invest in a lot more diesel boomers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Iraqi Blocs Opposed to Draft Oil Bill
    Kurdish and Sunni Arab officials are concerned over a draft of a bill establishing a framework for the distribution of oil revenues.
    Democrats Regroup After Veto, Seeking Unity on Iraq Plan

    ReplyDelete
  5. SUPPORTER UPSET AFTER OBAMA TAKES OVER MYSPACE PAGE...

    Cheap Bastards didn't pay him after he built it up for 2 years!
    Another Rich F...... Politician that thinks the Peons owe him a living.
    Feinstein, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al will be proud!

    For the past two and a half years, the page has been run by an Obama supporter from Los Angeles named Joe Anthony. At first, that arrangement was fine with the Obama team, which worked with Anthony on the content and even had the password to make changes themselves.

    But as the site exploded in popularity in recent months, the campaign became concerned about an outsider having control of the content and responses going out under Obama's name and told Anthony they wanted him to turn it over.

    In this new frontier of online campaigning, it's hard to determine the value of 160,000 MySpace friends—about four times what any other official campaign MySpace page has amassed. But the Obama campaign decided they wouldn't pay $39,000, which is what Anthony said he proposed for his extensive work on the site, plus some additional fees up to $10,000.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After what seemed like days of waiting (though it was just over 36 hours), I finally learned tonight that I've gotten an embed slot with the 1-4 Cavalry of the 1st Infantry Division. I'll fly out sometime tomorrow via helicopter and join up with the unit for a week of living, eating, sleeping, and operating alongside these combat troops. To say I'm ecstatic - and am looking forward to it - would be a vast understatement.

    Army Spec. Wyatt Harper, from Fort MacPherson in my own state of Georgia, was a real trooper throughout this effort, putting up with my incessant requests and reminders and getting fast results when it seemed that such an assignment would not even be possible, let alone timely.

    So, at some point tomorrow, Victoria and I will again part ways. She will bring you some of the best that Baghdad, MNF-I, and perhaps other people and locales have to offer, while I am stuck with a low-echelon unit, living in the dirt and getting a front-row view to our troops' prosecution of this war.

    I'd take the latter any day.


    Depending on internet uplink availability, I plan to have some (hopefully) quality exculsive combat video and photography for you in the next few days, as well as write-ups as regularly as I can do them.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  7. Iran is spoiling for a fight with the west!!! Why are they so determined to receive the wrath that the United States and its partners are capable of providing, unless they truly believe that we are not capable of or willing to preemptively attack them? Why does the western world continue to play games with a government that has proven through word and deed that it is in fact willing to aggressively pursue its own destruction? Worst of all is the fact that Israel has a responsibility to its citizens that cannot allow for a nuclear armed Iran and furthermore Israel is armed with nuclear weapons and has little if any assurances that a conventional strike will create the damage necessary to successfully halt Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or deter the Iranian government from pursuing nuclear armaments in the future and ultimately the destruction of Israel.
    Why do we in the west refuse to take terrorists and the countries that support them at their word? If you are in close proximity to a person who has murdered before, and that person says that they are going to beat you to death, and you can see the person making a bat with which they could carry out their threats, do you wait for them to finish the bat, or do you preemptively attack and destroy your enemy based on the evidence at hand?
    Here are the facts that confront the world at large.
    * Iran is and has for some time been not only a sponsor of terrorism but an active terrorist entity.
    * Iran is putting every national resource into its nuclear weapons program.
    * Iran has stated very clearly what it intends to do with its nuclear capabilities once they have achieved a working weapon.
    * Iran has shown through the force of action that it holds the entire world in contempt and that it feels that it can act with impunity even where their actions are clearly illegal and infringe on the rights of western citizens and the governments that are supposed to be protecting them!
    * Iran is going to have enough fissile material to build its first nuclear weapon within 12 to 15 months (possibly sooner).
    It is only through preemptive action that the rest of the world can be assured of any degree of security for our future, and indeed the future of the entire human race. Are we going to take the high road to Armageddon? Are we going to run back to the United Nations to our peril and the peril of every human being? Or are we going to let the suicidal tendencies of one government that is acting not only against the desires and best intentions of the global community but the citizens is says it represents lead us all to destruction?
    It is my contention that Iran’s representatives are speaking from the heart when they say they intend to destroy Israel. It is my sincere belief that Iran, Syria and Venezuela are united and working actively together to bring about Armageddon! It is clear to me that they believe they can get away with the creation of a nuclear weapon, the blatant and intentional destruction of Israel, and the annexation of Iraq, all while the rest of the world watches in horror and does nothing to prevent it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. martin, when you go through all the possible scenarios, you can come to several conclusions:

    1. The bravado from Iran is just that.
    2. They are serious.
    3. In either case it makes no difference.

    I think Israel would be wise to buy or lease an American nuclear sub with intercontinetal missiles. She should also publish through diplomatic channels the proposed targets of 75% of the war heads on that submarine. The other 25% are up for grabs. She should also let the proposed targets know that it will be a package deal. All in or all out.

    Keep in touch.

    ReplyDelete