WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IRAN OR NORTH KOREA (OR ANYONE ELSE) HAS A NUCLEAR BOMB
|The above image is a scan of a piece of Trinitite.
This is desert sand that was underneath the explosion of
the world's first Atomic bomb in New Mexico as part of project TRINITY, hence the name Trinitite. The heat from that blast
melted the sand into a green glass, not unlike the
Fulgurites that result when lightning hits sandy soil.
Now, imagine an entire nation looking like the above sample, melted into green glass. Buried in the green glass are the charred remains of the people of that nation. It's not an idle fantasy. The US spent $5 trillion dollars (back in the 1950s, when a trillion dollars was REALLY a lot of money!) building a nuclear capability that can actually do that; melt any nation and it's people into a giant slab of green glass. The USSR knew it, the world knows it, Saddam knew it. The government of Iran knows it. So does North Korea.
Even if Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction (which we now know they did not), and even if Iraq had the long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they did not), Iraq would still not have been a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
The same applies to Iran. Even if they were pursuing a nuclear weapon (which nobody can prove they are) and even if Iran had long range missiles to strike at America (which they definitely do not) Iran is not going to carry out an unprovoked attack on the United States with a nuclear weapon because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
The same applies to North Korea. Even though they built a nuclear weapon (or bought it from Israel) and even if North Korea had long range missiles to strike at America (which they definitely do not; the Taepodong 2 cannot even reach Alaska) North Korea is not going to carry out an unprovoked attack on the United States with a nuclear weapon because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
Those that insist that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a threat that justified invasion, or that Iran's or North Korea's weapons of mass destruction are a threat that justifies new invasions, are in essence admitting that the US Government took $5 trillion of your money (over $17,000 from each of you alive today) in a gigantic swindle, because the $5 trillion nuclear deterrent isn't a deterrent after all, that it doesn't work, that nobody is really afraid of it, because they all know it was just a hoax to soak the American taxpayer for another several thousand dollars.
Was it all a hoax, Mr. Trump? Did the American people foot a $5 trillion bill in 1950s dollars for a deterrent system that isn't really a deterrent?
Either the deterrent works or it does not. If it doesn't, then the American taxpayers have been defrauded on a grand scale (nothing new there; look at Carbon Taxes, the Wall Street bailouts, and the fact that he 16th Amendment which "authorized" the personal income tax was never actually ratified). But if the nuclear deterrent does work, then Iraq or Iran or North Korea can have all the weapons of mass destruction they want; they just won't risk using them without provocation. Maybe they can put them in a museum or something. Maybe they will march their nuke down the street in a parade and proclaim their modern military. But they won't dare use them against the United States because they don't want to end up like that piece of green glass at the top of this article. There is no need for the US to invade anyone over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. There never was.
Of course, the issue has shifted. The UN inspectors in Iraq found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They found some documents of dubious origin ABOUT weapons of mass destruction, but documents are not a weapon of mass destruction (with the sole exception of the 1040 form). The UN inspectors found a bunch of old empty artillery warheads from 1988, but empty warheads are not a weapon of mass destruction, and tests show that these empties were never filled with biological or chemical weapons. Soil samples have tested negative for chemicals or radioactivity indicating weapons development. The claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were all lies.
Iraq allowed the inspectors to pretty much go everywhere they want without hindrance, even into Saddam's home. Imagine the KGB demanding and getting permission to peek into every closet and drawer in the White House and you will get an idea of just how much Iraq was cooperating. The CIA gave the UN inspectors a list of sites they were convinced had weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was found.
But Bush still got his invasion, and grabbed the oil wells.
Then Obama shifted the target to Iran. And once again, we were being warned that Iran, while it does not actually have nuclear weapons, might be close to building one, and this justifies another invasion. The theory is that if Iran has a nuclear power station, they will build bombs with it. Iran hasn't planned to build bombs with it, and invites inspections (and now tourists) to prove that they are not making bombs, but the theory is that Iran will make bombs with their reactor and fool the inspectors, because, well, to be blunt about it, that's what Israel did at Dimona while they clandestinely built the world's 6th largest nuclear arsenal.
Iran says they don't want a bomb. Iran hasn;t initiated a war of conquest against another country in over 200 years. They don't think they need a nuclear bomb. Personally, after Iraq proved to the world what the US does to oil-rich nations that do not have weapons of mass destruction I would rethink that position. But if Iran builds a bomb, so what? Maybe they can put it in a museum, or march it down the streets of Tehran in a parade like the Soviets used to do. But they won't use it against the United States unless really provoked. They won't dare.
To repeat: Even if Iran has a weapon of mass destruction (which we know they do not), and even if Iran has long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they do not), Iran would still not be a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide.
You see, leaders of nations have huge egos. They are driven in large part by that ambition that future generations will admire their faces on statues and stamps and money, and school children will have to memorize their names and birthdates. That doesn't happen if you let your nation get destroyed. Citizens take a very dim view of that sort of behavior.
North Korea, justifiably concerned about a coming US invasion, has good reason to want nuclear weapons ... as a deterrent to invasion. But they will not strike first. They will not strike at all unless invaded. Nobody tosses away a deterrent weapon without good reason.
Simply having a nuclear weapon does not mean the nation that owns it will use it. Many nations possess nuclear weapons, and contrary to all the dire warnings about nuclear weapons held by other countries, the historical truth is that one and only one nation has ever actually used nuclear weapons against the citizens of another country, and that nation is the United States of America. For all the talk about the threat from Iraq and now the threat from Iran and North Korea, it is the United States of America which remains the only nation to have actually used a nuclear weapon against the citizens of another country. It is the United States of America which is the proven nuclear threat to the world.
If Iran or North Korea were to have a weapon of mass destruction and use it against the US, the US could just stand back, turn those little brass keys in the silos, and turn the attacking nation into green glass just like that at the top of this article. That's what my parents' generation paid that $5 trillion to build, and your generation pays trillions to maintain. And unless the US Government wants to admit that $5 trillion nuclear deterrent is a hoax, then we should use it as it was intended to be used, to deter an attack without having to invade a foreign attacker.
Why Iran's nuclear weapons (even if they did exist) and North Korea's nuclear weapons are not a threat.
The 14 Trident II SSBNs carry together around 50 percent of total U.S. strategic warheads. (The exact number varies in an unpredictable and highly classified manner below a maximum set by various strategic arms limitation treaties.) Although the missiles have no pre-set targets when the submarine goes on patrol, the SSBNs are capable of rapidly targeting their missiles should the need arise, using secure and constant at-sea communications links. The Ohio class are the largest submarines ever built for the U.S. Navy, and are second only to the Russian Typhoon class in mass and size. A single submarine carries the destructive power more than nine times greater than all Allied ordnance dropped in WWII.
Only the whales and dolphins know where these submarines are when they are out on patrol. Not even the president knows their exact location.
Why Iran's nuclear weapons (even if they did exist) and North Korea's nuclear weapons are not a threat - Part 2.
The B-2 Stealth Bomber can carry sixteen B61 or B83 nuclear weapons, is difficult to detect with radar, has a claimed range of 7000 miles, a ceiling of 50,000 feet, and a claimed airspeed of .95 Mach, although the above photo seems to suggest it can actually fly supersonic.
When the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the United States, the Cold War had entered a new phase. The cold war became a conflict more dangerous and unmanageable than anything Americans had faced before. In the old cold war Americans had enjoyed superior nuclear force, an unchallenged economy, strong alliances, and a trusted Imperial President to direct his incredible power against the Soviets. In the new cold war, however, Russian forces achieved nuclear equality. Each side could destroy the other many times. This fact was officially accepted in a military doctrine known as Mutual Assured Destruction, a.k.a. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction began to emerge at the end of the Kennedy administration. MAD reflects the idea that one's population could best be protected by leaving it vulnerable so long as the other side faced comparable vulnerabilities. In short: Whoever shoots first, dies second.
If Iran or North Korea or anyone else needs to be invaded and occupied to prevent them from ever developing and possibly using a nuclear weapon against the mainland United States, then our parents wasted untold trillions in producing nuclear weapons and submarines to defend against just such a threat; weapons and submarines we are now being told do not achieve their purpose.
And we want our money back.
See also: Iraq: The Words of Mass Deception
What Really Happened