The Best Defense, Iran EMP

Some speculate that Iran may be developing EMP weapons designed to attack America.

There would be virtually no defense within our immediate means against such an attack...

Save one: Nuke 'em. Nuke 'em first, before they develop it.

Now.

No "inspections," no "sanctions," nothing like that. If they don't accept immediate and unconditional surrender to us, then let them reap the whirlwind.

It would be a proper reaction to Iran's past and current attacks and threats - and thus a proper demonstration to the rest of our enemies what we can - and will - do. What we always could've done but lacked the moral fortitude to do.

If they knew we'd acquired that, then the game would be up for them.

But such are only pleasant fictions. While the morality of altruism still rules our nation, nobody in charge will even so much as contemplate such a correct move.

-Inspector

I have to disagree with you, Inspector. Although we may be correct in principle nuking Iran, I guarantee that the end result would be ruinous for the U.S. (even more so than if we turn a blind eye toward Iran). If we launch nukes against Iran in a preemptive strike, I believe that most "civilized" nations (including our current allies) would turn against us and may even band together to attack us.

The Muslim nations would turn (even more) against us, China would definitely mobilize because we attacked one of their biggest allies. Most,if not all, European countries would turn against us (including probably England, even if their leaders did agree with our actions, their citizenry would probably revolt and overthrow their governments if they didn't officially condemn us and take action against us) merely because we used nukes.

African nations don't really matter all that much right now, but it's likely that they will officially condemn our actions and contribute troops to the war against us. Canada would likely turn on us for the same reason as England, ditto Brazil, Japan, and Korea. Mexico probably wouldn't do much because they need us too much (and they have so many of their citizens here), but it's still possible that once the rest of the world starts attacking us (assuming that we don't nuke them all first and poison ourselves in the process), they would join in the fight.

Cut off from our foreign oil supplies, and embargoed by almost every nation, our economy (and likely theirs, too) would crash. We would enter a time of economic crisis so severe as to make the great depression look like a minor economic downturn.

About the only ally I can think of that wouldn't turn against us would be Israel. In fact, I will be surprised if they don't nuke Iran themselves (and a few nasty neighbors) within the next 10 to 20 years.

As sick as this may sound, a better strategy may be to wait for Iran to strike first. If we do that, we can play on the western world's sympathy for our great loss and blow the crap out of Iran without fear of much reprisal from any of our "allies" (they may officially condemn our use of nukes, but they won't likely do anything about it because Iran "made the first move", so to speak). The Muslim countries will still hate us for it, but then again, what else is new... (although it's unlikely that they'll actually attack us if we hit Iran hard enough).

Then again, I could be way off base here. I am, after all, posting this under the influence -- of sleep deprivation (Summer semester is in session, I'm working almost full time, and I have a wife and two kids to look after).

I'm looking forward to your response, Inspector.

Well the first thing you have to keep in mind is that this would be done under clear ultimatums and they would be given notice and time to surrender.

But basically what you're saying that the the use of nuclear weapons - as such - would cause actual attacks against us. Regardless of the details of escalation.

I've heard this before from various people but I've never understood the logic. Why? Why would neutral nations and even allies attack us for using nuclear attacks as opposed to, say, a fleet of B-52s carpet bombing Iran's cities in the same way as Tokyo and Dresden only on a larger scale.

I'm sure that we could wreak just about the same amount of destruction with that as with a nuclear device or two (although it would take weeks, instead of an instant), but I've never heard anyone put forth a Doomsday Scenario as a likely response for that.

I'd honestly like to know where you got the idea. I've heard it in reference to the Cold War, but generally only from Leftists and peacenik surrender-mongers who equated the Soviet Union with us morally. I'm not calling you that, I'm just citing that as the only origin point for this idea that I'm aware of.

I think nuclear weapons have acquired a Mythical quality in some circles. Now regardless of the reality, you could say that people believing the Myth could act on it. But I don't think that this Myth is enough to actually spark anything beyond rhetoric in response. Especially given the natures of the actors involved.

I mean take Europe - they might publicly bad mouth us as usual, but in fact Iran may be a greater threat to them than us. We'd be doing them a big favor and most of their politicians know it, even if they wouldn't say it in public. Besides, Europe and the UN haven't had the spine to attack anyone, not even dictators who make war against them. It would sit in committee and nothing would happen because we and Israel would veto anything they would try.

Could you see Europe nuking or even attacking Israel for the same? I couldn't. They'd just hurl impotent paper condemnations and continue selling arms to their enemies just like usual. It would be the same for us.

China? No, I don't think they would be able to say a word. They operate on the level of Realpolitik and posturing. They would try to use it to their advantage and claim they could brutalize some neighbor because of it, but they are far too practical to actually attack us if we had shown some cojones. They would simply know that the game was up. Regardless of what they said publicly, they'd respect us as a more worthy opponent.

And the pisants like Syria, DPRK, et all would simply wet their pants and cower like Libya.

As for the idea of an embargo: Anyone who tried it would be committing economic suicide. Our economy is integral to both Europe and China. All of the fears out there about our economic activities there do cut both ways, after all. How would they enforce it?

No, I just don't see it. I mean I know yours is a popular conception so I know you're not coming out of nowhere with that. It's just I think that the popular conception is only so much smoke.

Hope that helps. Let me know what you think.

Interesting points and counterpoints by antacid and Inspector. I do think that since rhetoric is all Europe ever seems to muster, it wouldn't be much different against the US. Yes, there would be massive and widescale outcries from both European politicians and people in general. But given the history of their bark-to-bite ratio I'm inclined to say "so what?". Let them despise America all they want. It's been fashionable for quite a while.

Also, it would not be in their interest to lose the US as a trading partner. Whether a total embargo both ways would hurt either side more than the other, I'm not sure matters.

Suicide attackers of all kinds must be snuffed out first. They're the ones that can't be deterred, only destroyed. The Cold War didn't go hot but only because the Soviets weren't too fond of mutual destruction. Terrorists on the other hand would gladly accept such an outcome.

If whine of cosmic proportions has to be endured, so be it. I'm sure it won't hurt as much as a glass pit NYC with 10 million corpses in it. I don't know how realistic the stratosphere EMP scenario is from a scientific viewpoint but that doesn't sound too good either.

LC is correct in that economic interest will trump any outrage. They depend so much on having us as a stable trading partner that they might hate us, they might fear us, but they need us. Letting them attack us first however is not only massively immoral, but suicidal as well. There might not even be a United States in the sense in which we know it, left to respond.

Any other problems which resulted would be the well deserved consequences of having waited so long to do anything about this problem. Nothing we couldn't take care of however. Besides China can't mobilize against us because they don't have a blue water navy worth mentioning. Europe's lazy, ignorant, and decadent, welfare slaves biting the hand that writes their paychecks and overthrowing their governments to attack us?! Please, we have bases in their countries. They would be American territory before the end of next week!

Do people have an irrational aversion to certain weaponry? Yes, yes they do. Think chemical weapons. Nerve gas kills silently and nearly instantly, whilst exploves maim and dismember people. Furthermore, chemical weapons are problably the only weapon that you can protect yourself from with almost 100% efficacy, but which ones do people consider more terrifying or evil even?

Century old fears still prevade the culture. So do memories of the fear of nuclear annihiliation, fears which people are reminded of by the mere existance of nuclear weapons. Very real problems which demand discomforting solutions often enough lead to people denying the problem, rather than facing the truth and challenging their beliefs.

People fear guns in the same way, they are an existential reminder that the real world does not resemble the fanatasy world they have constructed for themselves. The terror that they feel when they realize their incapacity to deal with very real dangers manifests itself as a hatred of the means with which they were reminded that those dangers do in fact exist.

There are many reasons to believe that Iran intends to use its nuclear capacity to attack America, and not Israel. Its one reason the Israelis don't want to be goaded into dealing with the problem.

1.) Iran has tested container launchers which can be used from commercial shipping.

2.) Some of the Iraninan missles recently tested exploded before completing their ballistic trajectories, consistant with an EMP attack.

3.) Iran's limited capacity to produce nuclear weapons means they would be more effectivley used to darken rather than destroy us.

There has been talk for years that they intend to attack our infrastructure with EMP. Its not even their own strategy, its a plank of Chinese strategic thinking.

EMP is a very dangerous weapon, and realisitcally one of the few which we remain vulnerable to. Programs to harden and protect our critical infrstructure have languished for years because the people responsible for giving them approval would rather not believe the danger is real.

How...dangerously infantile. 9/11 was bad by all accounts but still more akin to a flesh wound. If such an EMP attack was to be successfully employed, it could sever the spinal cord of the nation.

Who would've realized the implications of the words "let's wait and see."

Aye, it does rather remind one of certain other things, doesn't it?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! That is it in the metaphoric nutshell - what these people are reacting to is not, I surmise, the use of nuclear weapons, but rather the unpleasant reminder that yes, they do in fact still exist and not a whole lot is stopping their use. This is a fact - one which they are doing their level best to evade. If we were to take one of the few correct courses to make ourselves safer from the very threat they fear then their reaction would be to get mad at us for reminding them that they can't pretend that danger away.

Exactly the reaction to a man exercising his right to bear arms, and for the same reason, too.

Bottom line - this Nuclear Thing is one of the many Augean Stables out there. Yes, it's going to be a messy problem to fix, but it's only getting worse and the longer we wait to take the correct action, the worse the ensuing bloodbath will be.

30 years ago, the problem wouldn't have required even contemplating an assault on a nuclear scale. Going forward it will become more and more unavoidable. The sooner our demonstration that we are willing to use the things, the smaller the demonstration need be, and the less likely any follow up use will be required. Hell, they may blink without us even having to fire a single warhead. Who knows?

The ironic part in this is: mine is perhaps the most "humanitarian" course out there. It's like ripping off a band-aid.

Oh, and Antacid - don't feel rushed to reply. Give it however much mulling you need - we'll still be here.

I'm taking a very intense summer school course in engineering mechanics. I know what I want to say but don't have the time to type it up. I hope to be able to post it soon.

I think that Ahmadinejad and the group around him really want to nuke Israel.

I am not sure they would attack the USA although I bet it must be tempting since the US policy in Iraq has clearly shown that we fight with our hands tied because we don't want to be mean.

Iranians must know that the USA struggles within itself to do any fighting as is evident on our own news circles. That may be a factor in deciding to strike or not.

The door looks to swing both ways in this situation. Iran and the USA are both under global scrutiny and any use of force would seem to be able to push allies for either side the other way.

If Iran attacked the USA with this weapon the world community may take action but I am not sure how serious that would be. Would it be in the form of wrist slapping sanctions? Would it be, could it be, any more serious then that given past examples?

I mean the world was/is upset about the US invasion of Iraq but I think no matter where you go and who you ask that people are generally happier with the situation now that Saddam is gone. They may not admit it but I think deep down even the most passive anti-war hippie has to take some solace in the removal of Saddam. Even though they hate the idea as "US imperialism" or something similar surely the removal of Saddam and the situation even now showing signs that the US may be able to leave under the right circumstance. Being asked to leave because of stability.

Now Iran on the other hand is another problem all together. Any attack of such sort would most certainly make it so our forces would have to stay. Would such an attack, especially if it was done on Iraqi soil, bring Iraq into the conflict as well?

Would Iraq fight the Iranians with us?

All this has a lot of un-forseen implications.

Regardless, I think that a military conflict between USA and Iran is not going to happen because of a strike on the USA forces with new weapons but rather an attempt to detonate a nuke in Israel. I don't think they will try to fire it from a missile. That is to easy to track back to a source. I think they would rather smuggle one in and set it off from the ground suicide bomber style. Iranians have clearly wanted to fight us without looking like they are fighting us.

That I believe has been high on Ahmadinejad's list of things to do.

Fired from a freighter in international waters, it would be nearly impossible to trace. And there are plenty of folks who would gladly want to use it to neutralize us so that they could do as they pleased in their own theater. Yes, Iran's agenda would benefit greatly from using this on us, but the threat is by no means limited to Iran. They could easily sell or supply it to any number of other hostiles who also want to knock us down.

The very existence of a weapon of this nature in enemy hands is an intolerable threat to us which must be removed.