Thursday, September 07, 2006

Let them have nukes

By Reuven Pedatzur

For the more than four decades of Cold War, the human race was not destroyed due to mutual deterrence between the two superpowers. The strategic stability was based on a balance of fear and on what was called MAD - mutual assured destruction. It was clear to both sides that even if one managed to surprise its rival and strike it with all the nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the victim would still have enough bombs to wreak total destruction on the attacker.

The theory of nuclear deterrence, which was developed mainly by American academics, underwent quite a few changes from the mid-1940s until MAD was formulated in the mid-1960s, mainly by then-U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara. However, from the moment McNamara convinced the Soviet leadership that the willingness of both sides to expose themselves to total destruction was the only way to achieve stability, this viewpoint became the bedrock of nuclear deterrence - and the principle that ensured the survival of the world.

The addition of other countries to the nuclear club did not lead to a change in the theory. Britain, France and China did not challenge this viewpoint, and it was clear that fear of total destruction by the Soviet Union (in the case of Britain and France) or by the United States (in the case of China) deterred them from using nuclear weapons.

The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998 gave rise to a fear that the theory would fail. There was talk about the two countries' cultural differences, the religious element of the conflict and the extremism of the Pakistanis. And in fact a year later the Kargil crisis erupted between India and Pakistan, and threatened to lead to war. As it turned out, it was actually the two countries' nuclear capabilities that caused their leaders to exercise restraint. The fear that the crisis would deteriorate into nuclear war prevented an escalation.

This belief that nuclear weapons were the ultimate deterrent also led David Ben-Gurion to become the architect of the Israeli nuclear program. Even the most radical Arab leaders who aspired to destroy Israel would be deterred if they knew it possessed nuclear weapons. The lessons of the Cold War only confirmed Ben-Gurion's thesis, and made it clear that at the moment of truth, Israel's nuclear capability would deter anyone aspiring to destroy the country.

Good against evil

And now comes Prof. Bernard Lewis, one of the world's foremost authorities on the Middle East, who rejects this thesis' validity for the region. What was true during the Cold War does not apply to Iran, says Lewis.

"There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons," wrote Lewis in The Wall Street Journal on August 8. "This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples ... School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom."

He concludes that if Iran has nuclear weapons, its leaders will not adopt the restrictions accepted by the heads of the other nuclear states. There is great concern, he writes, that after arming themselves with nuclear bombs, the ayatollahs will launch them at Israel.

"A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines."

Lewis discusses two possible deterrent factors against Iranian use of nuclear weapons: "The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel."

In referring to the certainty that the destruction of Israel would also result in the deaths of millions of Palestinians, Lewis uses the example of Al-Qaida's 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks killed a few American diplomats and hundreds of Muslims. Lewis writes: "Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims."

"The second deterrent - the threat of direct retaliation on Iran - is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today .... This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision ... for Shi'ite Muslims [this means] the long-awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced," writes Lewis.

"In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead - hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement."

A rational leadership

This is Lewis' apocalyptic theory. Frightening, but not necessarily valid. Lewis' thesis is based on generalizations and projections - from individual cases of suicide bombers to the national level - and it ignores our historical experience regarding the behavior of the Iranian leadership in previous conflicts.

Up until a few years ago, Lewis' theories were accepted as valid and as a basis for American policy in the Middle East. However, after he "abandoned academic caution" following September 11, in the words of his critics, his opinions have become very controversial among Middle East scholars.

Lewis was one of the first to pressure the U.S. administration into embarking on a post-September 11 armed conflict against Saddam Hussein. Lewis was also an important player in the theory that after the war, it would be possible to establish a democratic regime in Iraq.

Without getting into the debates between Lewis and his critics, it is clear his view and analysis of our region largely suffers from obsolete thinking. In light of that we should examine the thesis of the Iranian apocalypse. Lewis states that just as Muslim terrorists were willing to strike Western targets even though they knew many Muslims would be killed, the Iranian leaders would not hesitate to strike at Israel and kill millions of Muslims. That is a projection from the individual to the national level, and is not necessarily valid. What a single suicide bomber is willing to do does not prove anything about the decisions of a national leadership.

Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute rationality at the moment of truth. That was the case during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini declared he would never sign a cease-fire agreement with Iraq until it surrendered. However, after dozens of Iraqi missiles began striking Tehran and thousands of residents were harmed, Khomeini changed his position and signed a cease-fire agreement with Saddam Hussein.

In that case, the missiles were conventional. It is almost certain that when the threat of Israeli reprisal involves nuclear missiles, the Iranian leaders will refrain from using nuclear weapons.

There is no Iranian national interest that could justify the country's total destruction. Lewis' claim, that the destruction of Iran could be justified by an apocalyptic worldview, does not accord completely with the assumption that the Iranians, in spite of being Muslims, are not fundamentally different from other people in the world.

We can assume that as opposed to Lewis' assertions, it is possible to build a stable system of future nuclear deterrence between Israel and Iran. This will of course require changes in Israel's nuclear policy and a transition to open nuclear deterrence. In addition, Israel will have to build a reliable second-strike capability, which has to a great extent been completed with the acquisition of the Dolphin submarine.

Mutual deterrence will be based on new rules of the game, with Israel making its red lines clear to Iran. For example, Iran will be made aware that the moment a missile is detected heading westward from its territory, the Israeli nuclear response will be automatically activated - without waiting for the missile to land, and without examining whether it is nuclear. Moreover, it will be clear to Iran that even if it were to surprise Israel and strike it without being detected in advance, Israel would still have enough nuclear missiles to destroy all of Iran.


At 7:13 PM, Blogger THIRD WORLD WAR said...

Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine (DNA Doctrine);
Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
(1) QUERY: President of Iran has publicly threatened to use nuclear weapons to wipe Israel out of the map of the world. The Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine stabilized USA-Russia relations, but MAD doctrines failed in case of irrational Islamic nuclear powers. President Pervez Musharraf warned India at the General Assembly sppech that Pakistan would use nuclear missiles if India even stepped inside frontier lines of Pakistan. How India or Israel should develop a nuclear doctrine to deter the threat of nuclear attacks from Pakistan and Iran as fundamentalist Jihadi Muslims are not rational human beings to be deterred by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Nuclear doctrine? How Israel or India should develop a nuclear doctrine to deter Iranian or Islamic nuclear attacks as MAD doctrine fails to deter the Jihadis and Martyrdom seeking Islamic terrorist leadership of the Middle East? How USA could deter oil-rich Saudi Al Qaeda fundamentalists from using dirty radioactive nuclear bomb to contaminate the civilized metropolitan cities by terrorist dirty nuke attacks as a replay of 9/11 attacks in future? Would Israelis face second Holocaust at hands of nuclear Mullahs of Iran?
SOLUTION: (DNA Nuclear Doctrine): The Nuclear Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, warns the Islamic nations that any attack on any civilized nation (“Y”) by Islamic nuclear power (“X”) would result in the mass execution of the entire male population of that nuclear aggressor (“X”) and all women, lands and assets of the Islamic nuclear aggressor (“X”) shall become the property of the nuclear victim (“Y”). Nuke seeking Mullahs of Iran should be given a clear warning that in the event of any nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, the entire male population of Iran shall meet its fate determined by the Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressior (DNA) Nuclear Doctrine.
SCENARIO: If Chechnyya Muslims detonated radioactive Bomb in Moscow and If Iranian Army fired nuclear missile on Tel Aviv, what should be the response of great powers? If Arabian Al Qaeda detonated radio active Bomb in New York? What should be the response of the civilized world to punish the perpetrator of the war cime? The Male Depopulation of the nation that launched or financed the nuclear attack would deter the nuclear event.
D.N.A. NUCLEAR DETERRENT: The doctrinal threat to depopulate the entire male population of Iran as a consequence of Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would deter any nuclear attack by Iran whatsoever. The Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor (D.N.A.) Nuclear Doctrine is more humane than the Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) Nuclear Doctrine for Nuclear Deterrence.

President Bush should directly invade Iran to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. President Bush should work with President Pervez Musharraf to identify and immobilize all Pakistani nuclear scientists that are currently hiding in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, UAE or Libya. President Bush correctly declared that United States would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is misusing its oil income to attempt a faith-based geopolitical domination of the oil-producing Arabian Gulf by radicalizing the Shia populations of the Middle East. United States should declare the support to the Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor (DNA) Nuclear Doctrine to convince Iranian people that acquisition of nuke technology could result in the male depopultion of Iran in the even nuke-mad Mullahs ever misused the nukes against Israel. Iran and Saudi Arabia are waging a War of Civilizations against the West and the East. The total population of the Arab Middle East is less than 100 million and they cannot be allowed to hold the 6 billion people of the plant earth to ransom. The Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor (DNA) nuclear doctrine is more humane and more rational than the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine. United States, India and Israel should officially incorporate DNA Nuclear doctrine as part of the official nuclear doctrine.
DNA Doctrine. Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor has an acronym DNA Doctrine. This doctrine promotes nuclear peace by postulating that any First Use of Nuclear Weapons would result in the total occupation of the Aggressor Nation and the mandatory execution of its entire male population.
Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear aggressor states, if Nuclear attacker “X” undertakes a preemptive nuclear strike on Country “Y” then country “Y” shall have the legal rights under International Law to invade Country “X” and execute the entire male population of nuclear attacker country “X” and take over all the women, lands and assets of the country “X”.
Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor states as follows. Whenever a Nuclear Weapon Nation launches preemptive nuclear strikes against other Nation B, then the Victim Nation B will militarily retaliate to defeat the Nuclear Aggressor Nation A. The Nuclear Victim Nation B, will then execute the entire adult male population of the Nation A. In doing so the Nation B will not be violating any current Laws of War. The Nuclear Victim Nation B could also take over all the women, lands and assets of that Aggressor Nation A, without violating the Laws of War. If any Nuclear Power (A) attacks Nation (B), whether a nuclear or non-nuclear power, then once the hostilities are over, the world organization and world powers would arrange that the entire male population of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation A would be hanged and executed. The entire lands and resources of the Nuclear Aggressor Nation (A) would become the property of the Nuclear Victim Nation (B). The enforcing World Organizations would recoup their total cost of enforcing the DNA Doctrine, out of the national resources of the Aggressor Nation (A).

The United Nations should pass a treaty declaring that any first use of Nuclear weapons would be a Crime against Humanity and a War Crime. The United Nations should declare that it would supervise the mandatory execution of the entire male population of any Nuclear Aggressor Nation that used nuclear weapons in the preemptive nuclear strike against other Nation.

Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor, DNA Doctrine is more humane and results in more effective nuclear deterrent, than the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, M.A.D. Doctrine. The M.A.D. doctrine is more destructive as it leads to a nuclear Armageddon. The Victim Nuclear Power would destroy the whole planet in case of preemptive nuclear attack and the resulting Second retaliatory strikes.
Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction is credible as a nuclear Deterrent and promotes world peace. M.A.D. Doctrine threatens the potential Nuclear Aggressor that the Nuclear Victim of the preemptive nuclear attack would launch the retaliatory strikes against the Aggressor Nation annihilating it. Sufficient nuclear weapons of the Victim Nation would survive the preemptive strikes, enabling the Victim Nuclear Power to launch the retaliatory strike against the Aggressor Nation, annihilating the Aggressor.

Leaders of the fanatic and terrorist Nations are not reasonable and logical. The fanatic Muslim Mojahideen believing in the ideal of Religious War Jihad and could sacrifice their own lives and even their lands, driven by their fury to convert Kefirs. MAD Doctrine will not deter fanatic Terrorist Islamic Nuclear Powers from launching the preemptive nuclear strikes against non-Muslim nations. Thus, the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) would fail to provide an effective Deterrent against a fanatic Islamic Nuclear States. Since Islam preaches fanaticism, so even a normal nation like Pakistan under the influence of religious frenzy could become irrational enough to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against Muslim States like Israel and India disregarding the consequences of the Retaliation.

India and Israel should jointly develop a credible Doctrine of Nuclear Deterrent against Islamic Nuclear Weapon Powers. India and Israel should promote the Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor. We should amend the Laws of War to include the provision of the mass execution of the entire male population of the nuclear aggressors. The problem is how to prevent any future Pakistani and other MAD Muslim leader from making preemptive nuclear strikes. How to stop Pakistan and other Muslim nuclear weapon powers from using nuclear weapons against India and Israel? When the Muslim nuclear nations realize that it could lose its entire male population, if it ever launches a nuclear strike against India, then it would never launch the nuclear weapons.

Mad Muslim terrorists and fanatic Islamic nations could easily buy nuclear components to assemble a nuclear arsenal. Maniacs are irrational and not deterred by any future threat of Second Strike by the victim. Since any Second Strike retaliation would also destroy a large part of the world, the mad leaders argue that the Victim State would lack the Will for launching the retaliatory second nuclear strikes, as it could destroy the World. Because the M.A.D. Doctrine envisages a gruesome holocaust, so mad Nuclear States could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack. Mad nuclear State could argue that because the retaliatory Second Strike Capabilities results into a holocaust, the Victim of the nuclear attack would refrain from pushing the Nuclear Button. Thus logic of an Armageddon promoted by Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine would become counter productive and fail to deter a nuclear attack by Pakistan and other Mad fanatic terrorist Nuclear Muslim Regimes. India and United States should work to remove Pakistani nuclear scientists that have disappeared in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Malaysia. Pakistan must account for all missining nuclear scientists of Pakistan.

A mad leader of the Islamic Nuclear nation would argue that the sensible non-Muslim leaders would not respond with counter nuclear attacks, as it would destroy a large part of the world. While Armageddon being the only credible nuclear option, it would fail to deter the mad, fanatic, terrorist nuclear nations. The Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to provide nuclear deterrent, against Pakistani nuclear weapons. Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to deter Pakistani Islamic Nuclear weapon powers from launching preemptive nuclear strikes.

Pakistan could drop Atom Bombs on Israel or India, either incited by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or blinded by Jihad spirit to convert Hindus into Islam. Desert Arabs could use nuclear weapons against agricultural societies, arguing that Arabs would survive the nuclear war in desert oases. Arabs attacked Iran, destroyed Zoroastrian Civilization, and forcibly converted Iranian Zoroastrians into Islam. Semite Arab had been a slave in the ancient Egypt Civilization of Brown Pharaohs. Semite Jews and Arab Muslims attacked Egypt to massacre the entire dominant Brown Race of the ancient Egypt. Fair skinned Semite Arab Muslims occupied Egypt and North Africa. Throughout history, whenever Muslims had military superiority they destroyed non-Muslim societies. Before the Islamic conquest Libya and Algeria was the granary of the Roman Empire. Conquest by the nomadic Arabs destroyed the agricultural economy.

The problem as How to deter any future mad Muslim Nuclear Power from using nuclear weapons against Christians, Jews or Hindus, who could be under the influence of the religious Jihad spirit! As explained above, the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction would fail to provide credible nuclear deterrent.

What could be the Solution? Even the most rabid fanatic, terrorist leader of a Muslim nuclear weapon State, would be deterred from using nuclear weapons against any other adversary, if it knew that the retaliation would be according to DNA Doctrine. Muslim Nations should unequivocally understand the following. The result of any Muslim nuclear attack on India, will be the mandatory execution of the entire Muslim male population of that Muslim nation. Besides it will also result in the confiscation of the entire Muslim Women, Lands and Resources by India. Then no Muslim nation would dare undertake a nuclear strike against India.

Only the Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor Doctrine would deter nuclear attack from a fanatic Islamic terrorist nuclear nation. DNA Doctrine would convince the Islamic World that the result of any Islamic nuclear preemptive attack would be the mandatory execution of entire Islamic male population. Besides all of its Women, Lands and Resources, would become the property of the nuclear Victim Nation.

What should be the response if any small or Micro Islamic State with small population, decide to commit suicide in the name of Islam, launches the nuclear weapons against a very populous Nation? What should be the response, if the Organization of Islamic States, (OIC) or OPEC finances an Islamic State to develop nuclear weapons and use against other non-Islamic State say Israel, Vatican or Mediterranean Europe? Whether the Victim State or its allies could punish only the front nation, who physically dropped the Bomb or the retaliation could be against all conspiring Islamic allies? Should the retaliations be limited to the Proxy enemy the Front Nation, Mini State whose leadership they have bribed to drop the Atom Bomb, or could it be against the entire coalition? Any Arab state that finances Pakistani Nuclear Weapon Program will be considered a joint-aggressor, in case of Pakistani nuclear attack against India. India could retaliate at nuclear level against that particular Arab State.

In Common Law if Organized Crime issues a contract to make the hit, the entire crime organization is considered guilty of crime and is punished. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should unequivocally declare that any nuclear attack by any Islamic State would result in massive nuclear retaliation against the entire hostile Islamic Coalition, specially such Islamic Nations as aided, abetted and financed the Aggressor.

What should be the retaliation in case Islamic nations conspire to sacrifice one Islamic State to wage a nuclear attack on Hinduism and Judaism? What would the retaliation if the Micro State of Palestine (PLO) led by a terrorist, were to drop nuclear bombs on Europe, America, Israel or India, aided and funded by other richer Islamic States? Should the retaliation be limited to PLO? Islamic Nations could select a smaller State having a smaller population, to launch a nuclear attack on a nation of 900 million by proxy. They may argue that even if the nation-state with the population of only five millions, gets destroyed by the retaliatory strikes, it should be considered an acceptable loss, as it helps eliminate an enemy state. What should India’s response be?

Indian Nuclear doctrine unequivocally declares that India will not restrict the populous nation’s retaliatory strikes to the smaller Nation that acted as the front in this Proxy War. Indian will retaliate by using neutron bombs, against all members of the enemy coalition attacked.

No Islamic nation has large populations, while Hinduism and Judaism are one-country Religions. The populous nation justifies the retaliatory nuclear strikes against the entire coalition of hostile nations, whose total population equals to that of the populous nation. Indian Nuclear Doctrine should declare that if Islam were to declare a Religious War on Hindu India, a nation of 950 millions, then Indian retaliation would target the entire Islamic Bloc having combined population of 900 millions. If Islamic World incites Pakistan to launch nuclear strikes against India, then India would make targets retaliatory nuclear strikes against all Islamic States.

Indian Nuclear Doctrine will declare that the populous Victim of a preemptive nuclear strike has a legal right of counter-strikes against the entire Coalition of hostile Nations. It can retaliate against all conspiring nations, whose combined populations equal the populous Victim.
Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor unequivocally declares as follows. In case of any Islamic Nuclear strike by any Islamic Nation, against any non-Islamic Nation, the retaliation would target the entire Islamic World. The right of nuclear retaliation would justify India to use nuclear weapons against the Islamic World.
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home