Bin Laden And Hiroshima

Re: # 78

Romair:

``....... Iraq would not have been attacked, if it had nukes. And North Korea would have been attacked, if it did not have nukes...........

Not letting middle east / Arab / Iran become go nuclear is a deliberate strategy, and tactic. Iraq was and would have been pre-emptively attacked.

Iran is a bigger headache, especially a peaceful transfer to power thru democratic process. Thus does not give the west any reason or excuse to destablize it. I have a feeling that thru Shia alliance in Iran and Iraq, the west might find an accepted form of stable governance model for the middle east. The signal will be increasingly public signal of the West`s pressure on Pakistan. I will not be least bit surprised, if Pakistan looses favor to Iran+ Shia Iraq + Cost to the west as drivers to find common ground and become a part of the solution.

Even Saudis will be worried by Iran + Shia Iraq alliance recently signed. This in my view might achieve once again what the west could not achieve thru Iraq war, which would be diasterous for Pakistani interests, but not the West`s.

Regarding, North Korea, even the S. Kroeans concede that do not want the U.S. involvement in controlling N. Korean nuclear weapons. I had the personally known Dr. Wan Hee Kim - the father of S. Korea`s electronic revolution, and travelled with him all over S. Korea and brought him to India as advisor to my company in India. We spent many interesting hours together. Dr. Kim used to tell me that S. Koreans privately want N. Korea to remain nuclear to counter China and Japan. He would say that N. and S. Korea will merge and would have merged just about the time, E. and W. Germany merged. The cost of German merger was too much for S. Korea. to absorb.

The equation there is very different because players, including S. Korea and Japan do not want N. Korea to loose or have nuclear weapons under Chinese influence. They want to control them. That is where the delay is, and how much of the cost should of merger of Korea be absorbed by the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. has no strategic interest only historical interest left over from the encirclement of communism days.

``Nuclear warfare, specifically between NATO and USSR is well advanced, beyond the physical size of the areas. Each side has the ability to completely annihilate the other side, in a first strike, not leaving anything. 110 million Europeans or Americans could completely destroy USSR, not leaving anything behind.``

It is not the issue of advance warfare or not. All simulation games that I know were played. And there were quite a few. All led to one conclusion that the residual left over. The residula leftover was more devastating for the West than for the Soviets. Each reduced the West to the just about the same level as that of the Soviets. For the west, it pointed to a great decline from position of strength to almost equality with western society, economy and scientific development being pushed back several hundred years, and in case of Nuclear winter at least thousand year!!! No war strategician can be allowed to start such a war in civilian societies. In military dictatorship it may be a different thing.

``Only in scenarios like India/Pak would physical size matter. However, even there, the tonnage will eventually reach a stage where both sides could easily annihilate each other.... ``

No true, there is no such thing as a complete annihilation of India or Pakistan or both. Once again, there would be residual left over. Although that may include survivors living in Tora Bora like caves. Neither generals in Pakistan nor politicians in India want that to happen to their survivors. This thought and reasoning acts as a great deterrent.

``This is why submarine launched nukes were developed. So that, if one side is fully annihilated geographically, it can still have a second strike capability, from subs. In that sense, the number of subs available is the real second-strike capability. However, what is the point of having second strike capability, when the people on the subs have no country to return to.. ``

These were all part of upping the ante and quite deliberate. During informal conversations, the professor used to tell us that the U.S. and the Soviets exchanged the design blueprints of nuclear submarines so that they can help each others nuclear submarines in distress.

I think it is not worth while, I know it will hurt Indian and Pakistani pride, to discuss India Paksitan nuclear situation. It exists as a ground reality, which so controlled that generals in Pakistan feel enslaved to the U.S. to touch that nuclear button. India now gloating about joining the nuclear club, the price extracted by the West for India`s ego is no less than the price paid by Paksitan`s generals to remain an outside the club, nuclear power.

``Iraq war and susequent RE-grouping of Al-Qeda there as a consequence has confirmed that the west can create to centers of controlled violence - battlefields outside their backyard to make the rest safer and more secure trade and commerce and living.``

I hope you don`t seroiusly believe this.

In fact I do believe it to be the strategy the west is following and feel the West will continue to follow and may open a battlefront in Sudan and Somalia too. I entered ``RE`` which I had left out earlier. Mind you, I have never implied anything about whether it is right or wrong.

``This is the, ``We gathered them all there, so they don`t attack Kansas`` theory!! The only threat the USA has in its backyard are terrorist attacks. Iraq`s invasion has made that more probable. Not less. The USA never attacked Iraq to make it a center of Al-Qaeda.``

No you are stating just three (a) ``Kansas.....``, (b) threats more probable; and (c) never attacked Iraq -- of the infinite number of possible corollories and consequences of what I am saying and then jumping to justify. Presence in Iraq is a reality. I do believe that the West entered Iraq with a long term ground presence there, whether that presence will attract Al-Qaeda was expected or unexpected side-effect, I highly doubt that it was not discussed in the war-room and within the war-room openly wished also.

The West and the East have far greater resources to open more battlefront, as long as others can do their bidding and fighting. To them, it is administering radiation and chemotherapy in the malignant parts. Regarding urban attacks, of 9/11 and 7/7 type, all subsequent statements that have come out, spell out expect more not less. Britain is about to introduce a bill that makes preaching of hateful message a treason against the state!! Think about it as consequence manifestation of the chemo and radiation therapy to fight cancer cells the body fabric of the society.

``This is the biggest fear the USA had, i.e what if Al-Qaeda finds another center, which they now seem to have in Iraq...........In fact, Al-Qaeda will be far more dangerous, to the USA, from Iraq then it was from Afghanistan......... ``

I think you are over playing the fear factor, while I see that the West is upping the ante.... and is prepared for response. Al-Qaeda inside the U.S. and Europe is more dangerous. Even for this they are prepared to tackle. Examples exists in recent history that range from forcible conversion of muslims into christianity (Spain, Austria and Hungary), internment of entire Japanese population. I know these are unpalatable and extremely difficult to speak and listen, but when removing cancer cell from the body is the challenge?
Think about it, then.

The western strategicians do not exclude the surprise new battlefronts that Al-Qaeda can open. Besides, I don`t think the West thought an attack of the type happend in London would not happen and therefore was surprised.

So the surprise element is not ``as shock-and-awe`` as 9/11 was. I kind of agree with GODOT`s observation elsewhere that certain people in the West may even want Al-Qaeda to respond strongly and with greater frequency.

``In addition, Iraq now has a govt. that is heavily aligned with Iran, which is also the last thing the USA would have wanted.......... ``

This, as I have said earlier is the toughest scenario and the worst nightmare for the western planners. The transfer of power in Iranian election was more peaceful than any transfer of power in the middle east, probably ever had been.

Iranian elections have put the hardest bullet on the sliver platter to swallow for those planners who are currently ``trying`` to introduce democracry with bullets. I have said this many times at Chowk. Islamic organization should launch media campaign to illustrate it; and that the gunpointing at them is just as bad as gunpointing at anyother. Without gunpointing, the muslim world too is capable of producing its own democracry. I would go even further and reject Politcal Islam label, and OBL as the symbol of this label. Instead project democractic Iran as the alternative, something the west and east should be prepared to accept and then deal with it.

``Basically the USA has done in Iraq, what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, i.e. it has over-committed its forces, without a clear exit strategy.......Even the USA cannot keep adding $80 billion to its budget deficit every year, for Iraq. And it will be out of soldier rotations by the end of 2006. After which even the Republican congressmen will go against Bush, since their constituents will not want to be re-assigned to Iraq as National Guardsmen.......... ``

You are taking a short term view, whereas, the west is taking the view of continued world dominance.

What looks in the short term, for the control of levers that now annually generate wealth of several tens of trillion dollars (and by the time the turning point = alternate way of generating greater wealth emerges) may be big, but is chum change and sound investment for the West. The cost is on hundreds of trillion dollars annual economy would be $80 B x 50 (years) $400 Billion price tag, if the oil needs to be controlled for that long. Take an investment view, and you will see it as a decent return investment although the benefits will be realized by grand children`s generation, social security, healthcare etc. notwithstanding.

``Iraq, after 2006 or so, with no US forces there, has to be the biggest nightmare for any US govt., at the moment. I predicted, before the war started that it could turn into Afghanistan.....which seems to be happening. The USA, has made, almost one by one, the same moves USSR made in Afghanistan........... ``

No I do not think Iraq is the worst nightmare.

That would be if National Guardsmen, repeat Kent State University massacare, and thus make it possible for million men marches can be organized on a monthly basis in the cities all over the world. Something I was witness to during my student days as a result of Vietnam War. That forced the U.S. to find ``honor`` in defeat. Vietnam War was lost in college campuses, and streets of the U.S. and European cities.

``........I would be interested in your comments........and whether you have studied this subject formally.......... ``

Yes, my professor who taught us negotiating strategies at HBS was part of the negotiating team for SALT I & II, and an advisory team for PLO Israeli negotiations. He used to tell us interesting anecdotes during and after the class discussions.

Anil Kapuria

Mista Premwalla Salim #52 haiiii!! Please to notu gleat conceln fol werfale of japaanese pipple in honolable hilishima/nagasaki by some pakistani pipple on chowk. Pakistani pipple velly velly concened for japanese plospellity and happiness. If someone say: look japanese empelol HiloHito (haiiii!!! Most Honolable Empelol San) he killu many chinoo pipple, Pakistani pipple say but japanese pipple not white lace. OK to killu pipple if not white lace.

#83 by Romair on August 8, 2005 11:40am PT


The day Bush said, ``You are with us or you are against us,`` he played straight into Al-Qaeda`s hands. Before that comment, there were a lot of Muslims, ``with`` the USA. Now far more are, ``against`` the USA.....


If so, I`d question if those muslims were ever ``with`` the US....

Re. not using the first atomic weapons in Europe – the war in Europe ended in early May 1945 months before any devices were ready. The availability of adequate quantities of fissile material (production of which accounted for the bulk of the Manhattan project’s industrial effort – as opposed to scientific effort) was the limiting factor.

Large-scale (i.e. kilogram quantity) production of high-enriched uranium began only in early 1945; similar with weapons-grade plutonium. The first test of a plutonium bomb occurred on July 16th 1945 (it was considered imperative to test a prototype of the more complex plutonium weapon before actual use). The uranium bomb did not require to be tested but used a very large amount of uranium; the necessary amounts became available only by July 1945. A reasonable timeline can be found here. A very readable account of the entire Manhattan Project is Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

Let`s understand some definitions, or rather ``fine points.``

If a white man kills another white man, it is called a war.
If a white man kills a black man, it is called hot pursuit.
If a white man kills a brown man, it is called Crusade.
If a white man kills a yellow man, it is called saving lives.
If a white man kills a red man, it is called civilization.
If a white man commits suicide, it is called a tragedy.


If a black man kills a white man, it is called rebellion.
If a black man kills a black man, it is called jungle rumble.
If a black man kills a brown man, it is called ``who cares.``
If a black man kills a yellow man, it is called attempted looting.
If a black man kills a red man, it is called assimilation.

If a brown man kills a white man, it is called terrorism.
If a brown man kills a brown man, it is called insurgency.
If a brown man kills a black man, it is called extreme slavery.
If a brown man kills a yellow man, it is called heroism.
If a brown man kills a red man, it is called genocide.

Godot #27: ``I will not be surprised if American (and European) conservatives are secretly hoping for a Muslim terrorist nuclear attack on their mainland.``

I hope you are not serious, either. There are a lot of whackos in the USA, especially amongst the neo-cons and religious right. But I doubt anyone in the USA would want a nuclear bomb going off inside the USA, including Ann Coulter (though Ann Coulter did openly declare on Canadian TV that she wanted Canada to support the USA in the Iraq War, much like it supported the USA in Vietnam. Not realizing that Canada did not go to Vietnam!!).

I think you are giving undue importance to the American-Muslims, in this whole scenario. I suppose it is because you are one, and hence it is close to your heart. But, as I said, American-Muslims are insignificant expendable commodities, in this conflict. As far as either side is concerned. The Americans don`t really care much for them, and unlike the Jews, American-Muslims have developed no political clout (do keep in mind that for a long time, Jews and Blacks were expendable commodities also, until they developed political clout). And Al-Qaeda etc. don`t care much for American-Muslims, either. They are in a damned if you do, damned if you don`t situation. They are completely at the mercy of the actions of US govt. and/or Al-Qaeda. Which is why, so many of them are apprehensive, and taking their anger out on Pakistan and other such countries......Not realizing that, barring the rich elite of Pakistan, who have kids in the USA etc., no one else in those countries is too bothered about American-Muslims, either........

In any war, one has to counter and neutralize the strategic aims of the opposing sides. In that process, one may be forced to lose some tactical battles. But as long as one wins the strategic war, one is the winner..........

What is Al-Qaeda`s (and I am talking about any anti-US militant force here) strategic plan? It wants to create an, ``Us vs Them`` situation between the USA and the Arabs (or Muslims, as a whole). It`s target has always been primarily USA; not Europe or Canada, mind you. Once it has created that scenario, it gains ample room to carry out violence. All such orgnaizations need public support and sympathy to survive.

Once it has that, it will mark its time, to get a nuke that it can set off in the USA.........That`s it. That is the strategic goal of Al-Qaeda. After that, it could care less, what happens to whom...........

Is the USA countering Al-Qaeda`s strategic role, or unintentionally assisting in it. In my opinion, it has overwhelmingly done the later, through various policies. The day Bush said, ``You are with us or you are against us,`` he played straight into Al-Qaeda`s hands. Before that comment, there were a lot of Muslims, ``with`` the USA. Now far more are, ``against`` the USA.....

hiro:
eh what? spengler? :D . do jerry springer write under a psuedonym @ asitimes.com? that would be real funny.

cheers man...

#79 by Raw_Dust on August 8, 2005 11:21am PT

Please don`t confuse our freiends of the Islamist persuasion with facts or logic...They`ve repeated the 100k civilian casualty mantra 100K times without once acknowledging that the majority of the civilian casualties are caused by the ``insurgents``...

If I had a penny for everytime a pakis has demanded sharon`s coviction for his complicity in the shabra and shatilla massacares, I could buy a merc...

OTOH, If I had a penny for every time a paki has written an indignant letter to a paki rag demanding prosecution of the paki army generals who butchered bengalis in 71, i wouldn`t have enough money to fill up the gas tank of my merc..

#79, Shame on you for watching Jerry Sepngler - rated as the worst show on TV.

#77:
And it seems as Sepngler of asiatimes pointed out that American military is trying to avoid confrontation as much as possible by looking at the ratio of civilians blown up by ``insurgents`` : number of american casualties. This ratios has been increasing steadily for last a month or so.

Anil #58: ``Yes, the U.S. would have attacked, by then the weaker Japan!!!!......Only because it was very weak by then and was contemplating a surrender. A Missile on Ant`s - (weak)`s - Back Does Not Protect the Ant.``

This is an interesting analysis. I cannot agree with it. I don`t think the USA would have attacked Japan, if Japan could nuke the USA. Regardless of how weak Japan may have been. The current example of Iraq and North Korea are right in front of us. Iraq would not have been attacked, if it had nukes. And North Korea would have been attacked, if it did not have nukes...........

``please do not forget that only mind games have been played with Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), no one has any experience...... with larger territory, to be able to come back and retaliate in either conventional or in nuclear - or both - form with an overwhelming and massive second strike.``

Nuclear warfare, specifically between NATO and USSR is well advanced, beyond the physical size of the areas. Each side has the ability to completely annihilate the other side, in a first strike, not leaving anything. 110 million Europeans or Americans could completely destroy USSR, not leaving anything behind.

Only in scenarios like India/Pak would physical size matter. However, even there, the tonnage will eventually reach a stage where both sides could easily annihilate each other....

This is why submarine launched nukes were developed. So that, if one side is fully annihilated geographically, it can still have a second strike capability, from subs. In that sense, the number of subs available is the real second-strike capability. However, what is the point of having second strike capability, when the people on the subs have no country to return to..

``The west did not agree to no first strike in western Europe for this reasons, emanating from heavy concentration of population and military / industrial base``

Treaties are only as good as the paper they are written on. No or Yes First Strike Treaties have never, historically, stopped anyone who wanted to attack. The reason the West did not agree to a no first strike treaty is the same reason as why Pakistan will not agree to one with India, i.e. the West had far fewer conventional forces. Hence, its policy was to immediately go nuclear. Much like Pakistan`s.

Do remember, in any first-strike, Europe could annihilate all of USSR, and USSR could annihilate all of Europe........

``Iraq war and susequent grouping of Al-Qeda there as a consequence has confirmed that the west can create to centers of controlled violence - battlefields outside their backyard to make the rest safer and more secure trade and commerce and living.``

I hope you don`t seroiusly believe this. This is the, ``We gathered them all there, so they don`t attack Kansas`` theory!! The only threat the USA has in its backyard are terrorist attacks. Iraq`s invasion has made that more probable. Not less. The USA never attacked Iraq to make it a center of Al-Qaeda. This is the biggest fear the USA had, i.e what if Al-Qaeda finds another center, which they now seem to have in Iraq...........In fact, Al-Qaeda will be far more dangerous, to the USA, from Iraq then it was from Afghanistan.........

In addition, Iraq now has a govt. that is heavily aligned with Iran, which is also the last thing the USA would have wanted..........Basically the USA has done in Iraq, what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, i.e. it has over-committed its forces, without a clear exit strategy.......Even the USA cannot keep adding $80 billion to its budget deficit every year, for Iraq. And it will be out of soldier rotations by the end of 2006. After which even the Republican congressmen will go against Bush, since their constituents will not want to be re-assigned to Iraq as National Guardsmen..........

Iraq, after 2006 or so, with no US forces there, has to be the biggest nightmare for any US govt., at the moment. I predicted, before the war started that it could turn into Afghanistan.....which seems to be happening. The USA, has made, almost one by one, the same moves USSR made in Afghanistan...........

This is an interesting discussion. I have quite a bit of interest in nuclear doctrine..........As, apparently are you........I would be interested in your comments........and whether you have studied this subject formally..........

#75 by zeemax on August 8, 2005 10:53am PT


Hmmm .... 4.50 a gallon will do what 160,000 American troops couldn`t do against a bunch of `insurgents`.


The insurgents are only killing Americans troops because the US military is trying it`s damndest to not kill civilians...while you may come back with the standard islamic mantra of 100K civilian casualties(most of which are by the ``insurgents``), it doesn`t change the fact...

4.5$/gallon and average Americans won`t care how many saudis the marines have to waste to get the oil...

Once the marines are told to dispense with all niceties, we`ll see what the ``insurgents`` can do...

#73, {`` still do feel sorry for the innocent Japanese.....then, I read about their atrocities in Nanking and other places....the brutality of Japanese forces matched Nazi atrocities..... ``}

Kaura,
I agree with your statement that the Japanese were very cruel in China. This however does not negate the fact that the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were almost all innocent civilians. I think the accepted definition of terrorism is the use of deadly force against civilians - you may want to add the word ``surprise`` in the definition if you like.

#74 by kaurasach

At Last ... a voice of reason.

#70 by arjun_m

Hmmm .... 4.50 a gallon will do what 160,000 American troops couldn`t do against a bunch of `insurgents`.

Acquiring and using wont defeat the US - but it will knock the chip off the US shoulder -future enemies will be emboldened. Where and against WHO will US retaliate. Islamic radicals are globally present.

It will bring a setback to Muslims/Islam in the US/ and or West.


Acqiring of lethal weapons has not stopped wars in the past nor will it stop in future. The number of casualties and the degree of devastation will increase.....and it is not if someone willuse weapon against US - but WHEN??

Nature finds a way to balance and curtail the ``Absolute``. At present, Islam/muslims have replaced USSR for the job.