The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - October 11, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iran's Supreme Leader Predicts Terrorists Will Get Nukes
Zhang Fei    6/9/2008 4:03:42 PM
No doubt with a little help from Iran.
(Quote)
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who as Iran's supreme leader is commander in chief of the Iranian military, predicted last week that terrorists would acquire nuclear weapons and "take away security from all the tyrants of the world."

In his speech at the tomb of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei made it clear that he understood America to be the leader among "the tyrants of the world."

Khamenei gave the speech to mark the 19th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, who died on June 3, 1989, ten years after he sparked a revolution in Iran that overthrew the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a U.S. ally, and instituted a Shiite Islamic theocracy.

Khamenei's speech was presented as a review of the lessons that Ayatollah Khomeini taught in his "last will and testament."

While predicting that terrorists would obtain nuclear weapons, Khamenei claimed Iran was not interested in obtaining nuclear weapons itself, but only wanted to develop nuclear energy.

At one point during Khamenei's speech, according to a translated transcript published by the BBC, the crowd at the mausoleum chanted: "Death to Israel." At other points, it chanted: "Palestine is victorious, Israel is defeated," and "Nuclear energy, our absolute right."

Khamenei's virulent attacks on Israel appeared to echo the rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said that "Israel should be wiped off the map."

At Khomeini's tomb on Tuesday, Khamenei, who holds more power than Ahmadinejad under Iran's Islamic revolutionary constitution, lashed out at both America and "Arabic nations" for allowing Israel to "stand on its feet."

"Other nations, just like the Iranian nation, consider Israel as a false and imposed regime in the region," said Khamenei, according to the BBC translation. "The Zionist regime has no power by itself and cannot stand on its own feet. Today, two factors have helped the Zionist regime stand on its feet. First, the unconditional and despicable support of America for this decadent regime, and second is lack of support of Islamic and Arabic nations for the Palestinian people."

Khamenei claimed Iran was not interested in pursuing nuclear weapons because they are against "Islamic beliefs," but said that terrorists would get nuclear weapons.

"The Iranian nation is against such weapons based on its religious and Islamic beliefs as well as based on logic and wisdom. Nuclear weapons have no benefit but high costs to manufacture and keep them," he said, according to the BBC translation. "Nuclear weapons do not bring power to a nation because they are not applicable. Nuclear weapons cannot be used."

A moment later he added, "Before long, the world's terrorists will have access to nuclear weapons and take away security from all the tyrants of the world and all the nations of the world."

Khamenei told the chanting crowd at the mausoleum that the late Ayatollah Khomeini's advice to them was to resist America, and -- in a probable allusion to the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army in Iraq -- said that some Iranians even now were following Khomeini's advice.

Citing Khomeini's last will and testament, Khamenei also predicted that Iran's Islamic revolution would spread around the world as people elsewhere were inspired by the things it had done for Iran.

"The spread of revolution amongst nations is through presenting a blueprint for an Islamic Republic ... when the nations see this blueprint they become so overjoyed that they would follow it," he said.

Gen. David Petraeus, who has been nominated to head the U.S. Central Command, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee two weeks about Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology and its persistence in fighting "proxy wars" across the Middle East.

"It persists in its non-transparent pursuit of nuclear technology and continues to fund, train and arm dangerous militia organizations," Petraeus told the committee. "Iran's activities have been particularly harmful in Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. In each location, Tehran has, to varying degrees, fueled proxy wars in an effort to increase its influence and pursue its regional ambitions."
(Unquote)
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

DarthAmerica       6/9/2008 10:31:48 PM
"Blah...blah...blah" SSDD. The idea that "terrorist" would ever get nuclear weapons from a nation state is laughable.


-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       6/9/2008 11:22:26 PM
The idea that "terrorist" would ever get nuclear weapons from a nation state is laughable.

I used to think that the idea of terrorists taking down the World Trade Center was laughable. The idea, before WWII, that Germans would gas Jews and other undesirables in death camps would have been laughable. I think the only thing that is truly laughable is denial in the face of enemy threats - direct or veiled. The one thing we've learned from history is that when your adversary says he wants to kill you, you should believe him.

For an Iranian handoff to be laughable, you have to assume that we'd know that Iran had done it *and* could prove this. But what if it was a Revolutionary Guard operation just as is occurring with guerrilla resupply in Iraq? You would further have to assume that we would retaliate by wiping the Iranian people off the face of this earth. My feeling is that it is not a given that we would do this. If the Iranian government were confident about preserving the secrecy of its role and thought a left-wing American administration might make excuses to avoid retaliating, passing nukes to terrorists would be an extremely risky gamble, but a gamble with a high payoff - tens of millions of dead Americans, and a potentially psychologically and economically prostrate America no longer capable of preventing Iran from recreating the Persian empires of antiquity that encompassed all of the Middle East all the way to the Anatolian peninsula.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/10/2008 12:24:40 AM
OK a few things. Secret nuke use is for fiction novels. It would be VERY difficult to hide the origins of a nuclear device. Almost certainly not worth the risk to a nation state if part of the plan was to get away with it. That kind of discussion is fantasy land stuff.

Second, there are no "Left Wing" U.S. Governments. Bush, Clinton, McCain and probably Obama too. They are all the same. All that left wing right wing nonsense exist as a distraction. They may have their own little pet projects, but they are all generally following the same play book more or less. The last time when it probably mattered who was President was JFK. And even he would respond the same way to a so-called terrorist "nuke". The USA would quickly ID the source and retaliate.

The entire point of a failed state is so that the leadership survives to serve it's own interest. Paramount above all other things is regime survival. For that reason alone they would probably be more likely to capture and turn in a "rogue" nuclear terrorist with material from their stockpile assuming they had it. If not, then they are using the "terrorist" as an improvised delivery system. But thats still by definition a government sponsored attack.

Lastly, no rogue group is going to be capable of independently creating a nuke. The nuclear tech tree is still restricted to governments.

-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       6/10/2008 1:29:28 AM
First off - the question is getting proof that the government of Iran is behind the attack. But what is the government of Iran? The Revolutionary Guard? Ahmedinejad? Khamenei? What if they say a rogue element might have been behind it, but they don't really know who? In other words, a lot like Pakistan, which probably had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, via its sponsorship of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Have we attacked Pakistan? Have we proved that Pakistan was the lead player, despite a lot of circumstantial evidence. The point here is that the standard for nuclear retaliation may require even more of a smoking gun than the 9/11 attacks.

Second, the idea that there are no left-wing governments is risible. Clinton shrugged off a lot of al Qaeda attacks by shooting off our entire conventional cruise missile inventory after giving fair warning to Muslim intermediaries who could be relied on to warn the al Qaeda-ists ahead of time. Obama's people are planning to indict the Bush administration for war crimes. His public pronouncements involve cutting conventional force headcount and major weapons systems that haven't been updated in decades, and the missile defense system is on the chopping board.

Any terrorist nuclear attack would be a high-stakes gamble. But war has always been a high-stakes gamble. Did Saddam know that the US could defeat him in battle if he invaded Kuwait? Absolutely. But he counted upon the US not to evict him from Kuwait. And if a Democratic president were in power, the US would not have evicted the Iraqis - the vast majority Democrats voted against retaking Kuwait.

Did Mao think that the US would defeat China in battle if he intervened in the Korean War? Actually, Chinese sources indicate that he believed the US to be a paper tiger that would turn tail and run once serious casualties started piling up. His favorite general, Lin Biao, thought differently, which is why he feigned sickness and avoided commanding Chinese forces in Korea - leaving that thankless role to Peng Dehuai, who got Mao's only son killed in battle. But it was Mao, not Lin, who made decisions on war and peace. So China got involved and took a million dead. Would Mao have gotten involved if he had known he would lose a million troops? Probably not. But that's the whole point of his gamble - to see what Uncle Sam would do. If the US had flinched, he would have evicted American forces from the Korean peninsula.

It's the kind of thing that happened to the Roman empire. One barbarian tribe after another decided to test the Roman armies. They were high stakes gambles, but victory would have brought material, population and territorial gains. And in many cases, defeat brought physical annihilation and slavery. (Note that in no instance has any country ever defeated by the US been physically slaughtered to the last man, woman and child - so if historical precedent is any guide, any war leader who strikes at America does not risk the extinction of his people).
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/10/2008 3:35:42 AM
Sigh...I just don't have it in me for the unrealistic hypotheticals today.



-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       6/10/2008 4:31:37 AM
Just fyi, DA, my understanding is that identifying the vintage of a nuke's fallout is not as cut-and-dried as Tom Clancy would assert.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony       6/10/2008 7:12:40 AM

Sigh...I just don't have it in me for the unrealistic hypotheticals today.



-DA


 You DA underestimate the power and stupidity of GREED!. We will see if you can make this claim in 2012.
 
                                                                   tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       6/10/2008 8:43:19 AM
I think its far more likely that a terrorist group will obtain a "pre-owned" chemical weapon first.  The potential market for such weapons and the lack of controls in the former Soviet states on chemical munitions are an invitation for disaster.
 
Nukes are much harder to work with - they need constant maintenence.  The so-called back-pack nuke threat is minimal since they needed to be re-worked with fresh fissionables on a regular (18 month) basis.  They are far easier to detect using radioactive screening devices.
 
A chemical weapon can sit on the shelf for years and is easy to conceal and deploy.  The amounts of similar chemicals transported on a daily basis on the US road systems makes it fairly easy to hide VX. 
 
Check with your law enforcement contacts - while they may talk about nukes - they are far more afraid of chemical systems getting through.
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       6/10/2008 11:48:49 AM
DA: Sigh...I just don't have it in me for the unrealistic hypotheticals today.

Neither did MacArthur, as he sent UN forces heedlessly charging up the Korean peninsula. His inability to comprehend that his potential adversary wasn't just an American in yellow tint, fully kitted out with his personal assumptions and values, led him towards military defeat and a forced resignation.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony       6/10/2008 3:15:52 PM

DA: Sigh...I just don't have it in me for the unrealistic hypotheticals today.

Neither did MacArthur, as he sent UN forces heedlessly charging up the Korean peninsula. His inability to comprehend that his potential adversary wasn't just an American in yellow tint, fully kitted out with his personal assumptions and values, led him towards military defeat and a forced resignation.


   I guess i have to again defend Big Mac.
 
 
  Big Mac understood the only point needed; He had nukes and PLA did not, it is not his fault that pussy wimp Truman did not get this, nor did Big Mac see a real difference between an Imperial Jap,North Korean Communist,or a Chinese Communist!. I am sure Big Mac would say the same about Russian Communists, but he knew Stalin had a bigger bite.
 
 
  I think this was the last question Big Mac asked Truman before fading away "Funny that you nuked those other yellow bastards who ambushed us when they had none?".
 
  
  I guess it was better for Truman or Big Mac to wait till they do? They fired the wrong man!
 
 
  And as for Big Mac and defeat in Korea? Well we have bases in a place called South Korea, but i will be damned if i can locate one in Formosa,North Korea,Vietnam,or PRC. I did however notice a few in Japan!.
 
 
                                                                                 tigertony
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/10/2008 6:47:58 PM

DA: Sigh...I just don't have it in me for the unrealistic hypotheticals today.

Neither did MacArthur, as he sent UN forces heedlessly charging up the Korean peninsula. His inability to comprehend that his potential adversary wasn't just an American in yellow tint, fully kitted out with his personal assumptions and values, led him towards military defeat and a forced resignation.

Strawman. Nukes require technical and logistical capabilities that go beyond what your local terror group is capable of. Thats before even trying to actually use it. If they get one, Its from a government and it will be under direct control.  The consequences of a nuke exploding in an uncoordinated attack is a threat to all governments, INCLUDING THE SPONSOR. I'm not saying terrorist don't fantasize about such madness. I am saying not even the craziest dictator would trust a rogue with the instant capability to invite nuclear destruction.

Softwar is right. Chem/Bio threats are a lot more realistic for a NGO to aquire, hide, use and get away with it. Look at the Anthrax attacks in 2001. Nukes are a completely different animal. I'll put it to you this way. If N Korean intelligence learned of a nuclear armed NGO, the first phone call they would make it to the White House.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony       6/11/2008 7:11:08 AM



DA: Sigh...I just don't have it in me for the unrealistic hypotheticals today.

Neither did MacArthur, as he sent UN forces heedlessly charging up the Korean peninsula. His inability to comprehend that his potential adversary wasn't just an American in yellow tint, fully kitted out with his personal assumptions and values, led him towards military defeat and a forced resignation.


Strawman. Nukes require technical and logistical capabilities that go beyond what your local terror group is capable of. Thats before even trying to actually use it. If they get one, Its from a government and it will be under direct control.  The consequences of a nuke exploding in an uncoordinated attack is a threat to all governments, INCLUDING THE SPONSOR. I'm not saying terrorist don't fantasize about such madness. I am saying not even the craziest dictator would trust a rogue with the instant capability to invite nuclear destruction.

Softwar is right. Chem/Bio threats are a lot more realistic for a NGO to aquire, hide, use and get away with it. Look at the Anthrax attacks in 2001. Nukes are a completely different animal. I'll put it to you this way. If N Korean intelligence learned of a nuclear armed NGO, the first phone call they would make it to the White House.

-DA


  Oh really?  So if a nuke is detonated in New York tell me how they will find the culprit when the bomb and alot of New York are gone? Strawman arguement and mute point DA. And btw,was it not North Korea who has already helped supply the know how to terrorist supporting regimes like Libya, Pakistan, and Iran? And i suppose that the mighty USA stopped AQ Khan before he got the bomb or CCP from stealing our W-88? This is called too little,too late!.
 
                                                                      tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

Zhang Fei       6/11/2008 5:11:44 PM
Strawman. Nukes require technical and logistical capabilities that go beyond what your local terror group is capable of. Thats before even trying to actually use it. If they get one, Its from a government and it will be under direct control.  The consequences of a nuke exploding in an uncoordinated attack is a threat to all governments, INCLUDING THE SPONSOR. I'm not saying terrorist don't fantasize about such madness. I am saying not even the craziest dictator would trust a rogue with the instant capability to invite nuclear destruction.

What rogue operatives? These would be employees / surrogates used to provide plausible deniability. (Ultimately, it wasn't Hezbollah that attacked us in 1982 - it was Iran. Who did we blame? Hezbollah). The ISI helped al Qaeda and Taliban alike, and may have been involved in the plotting of 9/11. But how we prove that? Again, you postulate an inevitability to the complete destruction of the enemy that simply isn't there. And you assume that the enemy are a bunch of cowards who wouldn't risk their lives. The reality is the opposite - the Japanese capitulated only when they were convinced that the alternative to surrender was the complete extinction - not of their society - but of the Japanese race, via round after round of atomic bombings. Anyone who thinks any American leader would completely wipe out Iran's population in response to a nuclear attack hasn't been keeping track of American history or following developments in human rights doctrine in America.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy