|
|
|
Subject:
Thermonuclear War: Variables and Precepts
Maverick
9/29/2006 9:12:50 AM
|
Thermonuclear War: Variables and Precepts (rough draft excerpts)
By Terrance Jones
Why do reasonably sober and knowledgeable people hold some version of this view of automatic mutual annihilation?
Theoretically, the thought of a nuclear exchange instills trepidation in many an expert due to the immeasurable damage that can be inflicted by the same. In an era of peace and or inaction in regards to theatre conflicts, the thought of initiating something that could lead to an all-out nuclear conflict would threaten global alliances and treaties of an economic, military and diplomatic nature. This reality leads many experts to believe that any and all counterforce initiatives will be reciprocal in lethal intent in order to salvage some semblance of the order of things prior to the conflict. Seemingly sober minds often become unglued under this type of pressure. Therein, lies the foundation of the widespread belief in automatic mutual annihilation.
Today, the current age of proliferation has diminished the theoretical belief in automatic mutual annihilation, as a nuclear society that is approaching over ten nations allows for limited nuclear war options at strategic points of intervention, provided the attacker has the support of several nuclear nations and significant backing from the United Nations and or a credible and diverse coalition.
Scenario Example
It has been proven that Iran has developed a nuclear weapons capability that has produced several nuclear weapons. America, Israel, France and Great Britain have demanded that Iran dismantle their nuclear weapons program. Iran balks at this suggestion and even implores more terrorist activity and support by their proxy subordinate allies, Hezbollah and Syria while staying true to their threat to end the existence of Israel. Iran also threatens to assist the Shia insurgents in Iraq with conventional and insurgent forces should the America led coalition persist with their demands. Iranian troops are found massing on the Iraqi border. America warns Iran that any act of aggression will be met with a lethal display of counter force. Hezbollah and Hamas display their ability and intentions to continue to put aside sectarian differences to assist Iran in their play for leverage by attacking Israeli forces. Iran fires a missile into Iraq at a U.S. held position.
Solution
America uses tactical nuclear weapons against the Iranian troops in addition to bombing the suspected nuclear sites in Iran. Israel and other coalition forces step up aerial and ground attacks against Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Palestine respectively. America and Great Britain lead coalition attacks that are geared towards disrupting Iran?s ability to assist Hezbollah, and Hamas, therefore, effectively isolating Syria. Syria is given the option of avoiding the fate of Iran by opening up their borders for inspections and prosecution of wanted terrorists who are complicit in their participation in terrorist actions.
While China and Russia are staunchly against America?s coalition based actions, they do not have the international support to utilize flashpoint intervention variables in a manner that favors their allies numerically or in a strategic sense. The American led coalition is in a perfect position to institute a diametric regime change in Iran. The diametric regime change will be one that seeks to place a more contemporary Shia contingent in power through democratic elections. Coalition forces should implement this nation building initiative over a five to seven year timeframe.
Note:
Automatic annihilation has been effectively avoided.
A thermonuclear war is quite likely to be an unprecedented catastrophe for the defender.
There are different instances aside from the aforementioned coalition based nuclear attack option that supports the above assertion:
Proxy War Provocation
Clearly, today?s strategic partnerships that have been forged between larger nuclear nations and smaller rogue and terrorist nation states has presented a viable nuclear threat that could prove to be catastrophic to the interests of America in divergent regions of the globe. Iran has delivered a significant amount of support to China and Russia due to Iran?s considerable influence over Iraqi Shiites, Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah. Much like the Cuban Missile Crises, China and Russia have the ability to move nuclear weaponry into smaller nations in strategic areas of the world. China and Russia also have the ability to share nuclear technology these same smaller nations, therefore, enabling them to develop their own nuclear weapons through a holistic manner of technological assistance.
Nation State Ascension Strategy
The nation state ascension strategy that has enabled terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas to obtain political clout in Lebanon and Palestine is the model from which we can expect terrorist and rogue nation states to attempt to attack responsible nation states from the international community with a nuclear attack. In fact, terrorist and rogue nation states can be expected to aggressively act on behalf of their proxy war superiors. The China/North Korea and the Russia/Iran partnerships are two additional examples of unholy alliances that will seek to augment the expansion of the nation state ascension strategy by stretching the defenses of America and its coalition forces. It is also important to note that the Hamas and Hezbollah examples are indicative of what can be expected from Muslim nations all over the world given their penchant for the long awaited Caliphate system that has the best chance of occurring through a diluted form of democracy. This form of democracy is facilitated through terror from terrorist organizations and from their allies within and outside of their respective governments. Should this fraudulent form of democracy expand in a strategic and diverse manner across the globe, these nations would be able to assist their Russian and Chinese allies in delivering an unprecedented and lethal first strike capability.
Limits on the magnitude of the catastrophe seem to be closely dependent on what kinds of preparations have been made, and on how the war is started and fought.
America?s configurative shift to a modular war-fighting posture allows them the flexibility and mobility to limit the damage of a first strike, however, theoretically, America must initiate new fighting methods that will allow them to take advantage of its chosen war-fighting posture. Currently, America has opted to require very little from its coalition members in the matter of troops. In the future this can not continue, as there are two many threat variables that are dangerously close to the flashpoint for American intervention. An inclusive and diverse coalition in troops, materials and equipment is necessary in order for America to efficiently assist nations from their modular configuration of the same. America must galvanize its allies into participating in coalition efforts in order to prevent seasonal reprieves from becoming part of strategic policy as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, as it allows insurgents to recruit, train and launch attacks against coalition forces in the reprieve period. This occurred during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars due to manpower shortages that could not sustain a hard pursuit strategy.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
