Mutual Assured Destruction

Sent: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:57:11 -0400

Dear Timothy Alexander,

Regarding your Rense story "The Perfect Storm From Hell"

Could I get permission to post this in some of the political blogs I am on? If you respond, could I also post your e-mail (sans the address)?

I have been in electronics for longer than I want to remember, all kinds. But I am pretty much up to date on the biological world. I basically agree that the world of the ordinary citizen is just not aware of the nature of the vast glass house we are living in.

Twice, I have posted my (relatively) "best case" scenario on an Iran war under stories at Raw Story. The stories drift away very quickly. My comment (such as it is, just the estimate of an unknown techy) was:
________

Don't Kid Yourselves

I have read as many reports from military and intelligence analysts as I could find. Either the U.S. leaves the Middle East and pursues energy alternatives, it stays in Iraq and tries to steal the oil there, or it attacks yet another Middle East nation. If the U.S., or Israel, attacks Iran, the results would be catastrophic to it, although the nature of the Iranian response would appear to be quite unpredictable. The most obvious scenario would entail Iran sending 500,000 to 2,000,000 commandos into Iraq to obliterate the American supply lines. This would amount to a siege, and nearly all U.S. troops in the Middle East could be lost. It is unlikely that the U.S. could prevent the destruction of most of the oil production facilities in the Middle East.

Iraq would probably be able to sink enough oil tankers in the narrow Straits of Hormuz to block it almost permanently (that's 25% of the world's oil). They probably have enough missiles, including surface hugging supersonic stealth Sunburn missiles, to sink 1/3 of U.S. aircraft carrier groups. If the Russians and Chinese provide military intelligence, which they will, they can destroy many of the U.S. military aircraft that attack them, including $2 billion stealth B2 bombers. They also have many, many other asymmetrical options that are even more frightening. They do have biological weapons.

This is just for openers. If for any reason the Iranians appear to be losing a war, the Russians would probably assume that they would be losing all of the Iranian and Caspian Sea oil, a good share of which they will need to maintain economic viability. At that point, they would likely mount an all-out nuclear strike at some random moment.
_______

Is this at all accurate?

I'm damn scared, and I can't just sit here and say nothing. Thank you for the article!

(blues)
_
______

Recieved: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:01:20 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks for your nice email.  Yes you may post my story, but please use the copy on my blog EUROPE.  I will be interviewed Monday night at 8 pm (central time USA) on the What Really Happened radio.  We are in the most dangerous time of human history.

Stirling
_______

GCN Live--What Really Happened

_______

Europe

Thursday, July 3, 2008

War on Iran: The Perfect Storm from Hell

As the global bankers' plan to bring down the American and world's economy continues (so that they can acquire as much of our wealth as possible at 'fire sale' prices ~ an old strategy), the world is facing another much worse danger. A regional war in the Middle East that will involve global strategic weapons of mass destruction with deaths in the hundreds of millions in North America, Europe, the Middle East and globally.

I have served as a consultant to three very high tech aerospace firms. My specialty is conceptualizing advanced warfare especially as it relates to new cutting edge advanced weapon systems. What I see unfolding with a war on Iran is the most frightening set of circumstances I have ever seen; and I have been involved in advanced theoretical weaponry strategy and design for over 20 years.

The rise of the Likud/neo-cons, with Benjamin Netanyahu as the unholy high priest, has been a disaster for Israel, America, the Middle East, and the world at large. The smartest thing that Israel ever did was to use American money to buy off Jordan and Egypt and make peace with them. The dumbest thing was to empower the Likud Party hardliners centered on Bibi Netanyahu and the Bush/Cheney Administration (with supporting roles played by Sharon, and neo-con leaders in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere). Four years ago Israel was no where near a MAD (mutually assured destruction) environment. Today it has a very dangerous four-front MAD environment and it was unable, in the Second Lebanon War of two years ago, to overturn the dangers surrounding it, in fact the level of MAD danger has increased considerably since the summer of 2006.

The war party in Israel and America has facilitated the rise of a regional (Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Palestine) MAD. I truly believe that the Likud/neo-con strategy is a total failure. The stated goal of the strategy is to break-up and weaken several Middle Eastern states that pose, or could pose, a strategic risk to Israel. To this end Saddam was encouraged to attack Kuwait resulting in the First Gulf War. When he was able to demonstrate, even in the face of intense allied air attacks, his ability to "deliver ordinance on target" using his Scud missiles the United States (and allies) decided not to drive all the way to Bagdad. We knew that he was holding back "the heavy stuff" and only using "dumb" high explosive warheads; not the chemical, biological and radiological warheads that could have caused massive damage to Israel and to the Saudi oilfields. Saddam Hussein's military had prepared what it called the "great equalizer", an arsenal of 25 Scud warheads carrying over 11,000lb of biological agents, including deadly botulism poison and anthrax germs (an additional 33,000lb of germ agents were placed in artillery shells and bombs). It was only after he was forced into denuding himself of his advanced weaponry that the neo-cons were able to begin the Second Gulf War.

After Iran, the Likud/neo-con war strategy calls for the neutralizing of Iran and Syria. The Iranians response was to train and equip Hezbollah in Lebanon and to deepen their strategic alliance with Syria.

During the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the Iranian trained and equipped Hezbollah forces repeated the efforts of Saddam during the First Gulf War. They delivered a very large number of rockets with "dumb" high explosive warheads on Israel. The Hezbollah Special Forces are in-effect a highly trained and well-equipped Iranian commando force of at least a Brigade in size. They man and protect a large number of mostly unguided and rather crude rockets, generally Katyusha 122mm artillery rockets with a 19 mile/30km range and capable of delivering approximately 66 pounds/30kg of warheads. Additionally, Hezbollah are known to possess a considerable number of more advanced and longer range missiles. During the 2006 war Hezbollah fired approximately 4,000 rockets (95% of which were Katyshas) all utilizing only "dumb" high explosive warheads. Some Iranian build and supplied Fajr-3 and Ra'ad 1 liquid-fueled missiles were also fired. At the time of the 2006 war Hezbollah was reported to have in the range of 13,000 rockets. There are creditable reports that this number has been rebuilt and expanded upon since the end of that war and that the number of rockets is now at least 20,000 and perhaps 30,000 or more.

During the 2006 war the world watched as Israeli towns were hit time and time again by the Katyushas. What was not discussed by the main stream news media was the fact that the ordinance delivered by the Katyushas was mainly harassment fire with very limited effect. The Iranian/Syrian trained and supplied Hezhollah commandos were holding back their "heavy stuff" both in terms of their longer range guided missiles capable of hitting southern Israel and most importantly warheads of strategic military importance. That is NBC (nuclear [in this case radiological] chemical and biological) and advanced-conventional warheads. They were demonstrating their ability to deliver "ordinance on target" and their ability to survive a heavy Israeli ground and air combined arms attack.

Hezbollah has the capability of loading truly strategic warheads on the large number of mostly crude older technology unguided rockets that it has. The use of advanced-conventional fuel-air explosive (FAE) warheads on the Katyushas would have had a much more profound effect in Israeli cities. The use of FAE submunitions on the larger missiles capable of hitting any target in Israel would have given Hezbollah the firepower of low-yield nuclear weapons without crossing the nuclear threshold. Coupled with the large number of missiles in Syria and those in Iran, the Hezbollah rockets posed, and continue to pose, a truly grave strategic threat to Israel if FAE warheads are used. This threat is dramatically increased if radiological ("dirty bombs"), chemical, and/or biological warheads are used.

The massive number of Hezbollah rockets could also be outfitted with chemical warheads. It is worth noting that the joint Syrian-Iranian chemical warfare R&D and production program is perhaps the largest and most complicated on earth. Generally the Israelis have shown themselves to be prepared for chemical warfare, however a chemical war attack following closely behind a FAE attack (to open up bunkers and apartment buildings) would have greater effect. While it is not necessary to utilize a rocket to deliver a biological war attack, it could be done and there is some benefit militarily to a rapid dispersal of biowar agents under the cover of conventional attacks. Radiological weapons deliver the long term (which can be hundreds of thousands of years) lethal effects of radiation without the blast effect of a nuclear bomb.

The combined military strategic capability of NBC/Advanced Conventional warheads and very large numbers of rockets operated and protected by Hezbollah, coupled with the arsenal of Syria and Iran (and Hamas) acts as a MAD (mutually assured destruction) between Israel and Iran/Syria. Yes the Israelis can nuke the hell out of both Iran and Syria; however, they possess a fatal return punch.

The response from the Israeli and neo-con hardliners to the new MAD strategic environment has been frightening. Instead of recognizing the danger to Israel and to the entire world from the Iranian/Syrian "checkmate" on the aggressive Israeli/neo-con strategy, and making major changes to their strategy, they are attempting to "tough it out". The issue of "danger from the Iranian nuclear program" is a smokescreen to facilitate the coming war on Iran and her allies (Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas) and to continue with the next stage of the neo-con strategy. The response from the hardliners is more war and damn their WMD (weapons of mass destruction). This is most unwise and most dangerous to the entire world.

When the USSR was falling apart, and in the aftermath of the USSR breakup, Iran spend a lot of money to hire some of the best Soviet biological war experts. The advanced biowar weapons that Iran has developed gives Iran a Global Strategic Weapon of Mass Destruction that can unleash levels of death among the populations of the major neo-con nations (USA, UK, France, German, Italy, etc.) very similar to that from a global strategic nuclear strike. This means that Iran and her allies have a MAD with America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, German, Italy, etc.

Most people think of biological warfare as anthrax and smallpox; they do not understand that there has been a major shift in technology. The difference between the old biowar (that most people think of) and advanced biowar (with its recombination DNA designer super killer viruses) is like the difference between an old Model T Ford and a 2008 Rolls Royce Phantom. Both are cars, or biological weapons, but there is a difference of several orders of magnitude.

Regardless of how a war against Iran breaks out, it is likely to very quickly escalate to the usage of WMD. There has been talk among USAF war planners of a 1,200 (some say 2,000 to 3,000 or more) target attack on Iran's nuclear, industrial, military, political and religious infrastructure. If a foreign enemy were to bomb 1,200 or more targets in the United States what would be the response of the American government and it's military? Actually the answer to this question is well known. The stated doctrine of the United States of America is to rain hundreds of hydrogen bombs (WMD) on the territory and people of such an aggressor; this has been our policy for approximately 60 years. Why do we presuppose that the Iranians would not do the same?

If Iran is hit by either an Israeli and/or an American air attack, it is certain that Iran will respond. This response, even if is non-WMD at first, will certainly result in more escalation and counter-escalation. The chances of a regional Middle East war between Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas and Israel/USA not becoming a nuclear and advanced biological war nightmare are very low. In fact, since both sides know this, there is a strong military incentive to move to all out usage of WMD when the first bombs begin to fall (in order to utilize more of one's weaponry before its destruction).

The end result will be a third or so of Israelis dead and large parts of the Israeli nation poisoned for hundreds of thousands of years by radiological warheads. Syria, Iran, and large parts of Lebanon and Palestine will cease to exists and will be little more than a green radioactive debris field poisonous to all forms of life higher than a cockroach for hundreds of thousands of years (longer than modern man has existed). The Iranian oilfields and most likely the oilfields of a large part of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other areas of the Middle East are also apt to be so poisoned by Iranian radiological warheads or Israeli/American nuclear fallout.

The world will suffer its most complete economic collapse in history. All of this will take less than one week.

At about two weeks, after the beginning of the war on Iran, emergency rooms and doctors offices will begin to see a sudden spike in a number of new diseases with numerous very ill people being admitted to hospitals in North America, and Western Europe and what is left of Israel. By that time the Iranian and Syrian states will have effectively ceased to exist with insufficient manpower and organization to even bury their dead.

The many new genetically engineered viruses causing the strange diseases showing up will have been spread by sleeper agents supplied with a number of new viruses and distributed in public places (movie theaters, shopping malls, churches, etc.) quietly without anyone knowing. Humans themselves will become the vectors of the diseases/biowar agents. Although the Bush Administration has spent $40 billion on biowar defense in the last couple of years, there is little that can realistically be done against a global strategic advanced biowar attack. The tactic of necessity will be to lock down everyone, with only key persons being allowed to leave their homes, in order to let the multiple genetically engineered diseases burn themselves out (a nice way of saying letting everyone who has the illnesses die off).

Expect to see dear old Bibi Netanyahu as 'head' of what is left of Israel. Expect to see sub dermal RFID chips implanted under the skin of the population left in the major neo-con states to "prove your disease free status" and necessary to buy, sell, or work. Expect to see military checkpoints everywhere and total control by the neo-con national governments over all aspects of life. Expect to see concentration camps for persons suspected of disloyalty to the state (this will include many viewers of sites like this one). Expect to see levels of death, fear, repression that are almost incomprehensible.

Expect to see the various biological warfare diseases spread throughout the world, even with a total shutdown of international travel. Millions will die in Russia and China. Expect to see those national governments not controlled by the neo-con masters to go ape shit when their populations face the nightmare of advanced biowar. Expect the regional war in the Middle East to trigger an all out global battle utilizing all forms of weapons of mass destruction within a few months of the initial attacks on Iran.

Stirling

Tags: Iran crisis, mutual assured destruction (all tags)

Comments

5 Comments

Re: Mutual Assured Destruction

Fear mongering isn't welcome when it is used by the Right and it shouldn't be welcome when used by the Left. There are lots of negatives about a war with Iran without throwing in far-fetched scenarios. The price of oil would skyrocket. The Iranians would probably find a way to block the Straits. Oil could reach $300 a barrel or higher. No one is going to go to war with Iran.

What might happen, and I pray to a non-existent god that it doesn't, is that either the US or Israel will do a tactical strike on suspected Iranian nuclear sites. That alone will drive up the price of oil and probably provoke a response by Iran. It's a nightmare scenario only a neo-con could love.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-06 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Mutual Assured Destruction

Samuel Huntington wrote a pretty interesting analysis years ago about a similar scenario - except it presupposed a full American withdrawal from South Korea and Japan and a super-aggressive Chinese territory grab in the South China Sea.  Long story shirt - it ain't going to happen.

Look at it this way - Israeli interests are best served when Syria and Iran are weak.  That's true.  However, it is not in Israel's best interest to weaken them and simultaneously weaken itself.  In all rationality, Iran and Syria are taking the exact same recourse that the Soviet Union took to the American nuclear trump card - developing their own arsenal.  Since both powers recognize the other's abilities, they will undoubtedly enter a Cold War-like scenario with more skirmishes than actual war.  This situation should not be trivialized and should be avoided, but the situation is too delicate to avoid except through diplomatic channels.  Ultimately, Israel remains strong by utilizing its European and North American allies and, I would argue, through ensuring that Turkey enters the European Union.

My basic argument therefore is that while the ideal scenario for either side would be the complete lack of existence of the other, they value their own self-preservation over their mutually assured destruction.  So long as that deterrent is in the way, they will have their guns aimed and at the ready but will think twice about shooting.

Humans might vary along all sorts of lines, but self-preservation is ultimately the thing that will prevent a complete collapse.

by ejintx 2008-07-06 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Mutual Assured Destruction

"What might happen, and I pray to a non-existent god that it doesn't, is that either the US or Israel will do a tactical strike on suspected Iranian nuclear sites"

So you don't believe that Iran is dev'ing nukes?

by rankles 2008-07-06 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Mutual Assured Destruction

Short answer- no.
Long answer: It would take an estimated 7 to 10 years to develop the properly refined material to produce a bomb, but Iran has no ICBMs to deliver them.
I strongly recommend reading this article at HuffPo (posted today)- I haven't even heard of this legislation, with all the flack going on about FISA:

Two bipartisan Resolutions that are being widely construed as tantamount to a declaration of war on Iran are expected to be voted on by both houses of the U.S. Congress this week.

U.S. House of Representatives Resolution (HR 362) and Senate Resolution (SR 580), while non-binding and explicitly stating that they are not granting the Bush administration the authorization to attack Iran, call on the Administration to take a much harder line on Iran. This would include a naval blockade of Iran's ports, which would certainly be interpreted as an act of war.

How to Convince Your Congressperson Not to Attack Iran

by skohayes 2008-07-07 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Mutual Assured Destruction

"Short answer- no."

Then we can thank our lucky stars that you're not in charge.  Wiser heads will prevail and insure that the mullahs dont get their hands on the ultimate weapon.

by rankles 2008-07-07 11:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads