You mention that there is the possibility that the next large conflict could include nuclear weapons and most people just give a half-hearted chuckle and walk away leaving you standing wondering if it was what you said. Well, it was what you said and nobody wants to even consider such a terrible set of events. Those who do engage in such a conversation point out that the efforts for nonproliferation will prevent any such unwanted eventualities. They refuse the argument that every weapon mankind has ever invented were used in the next big war or in the war currently raging. Gunpowder, catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, crossbows, long bows, mines, rockets, nerve gas, other chemical agents, tear gas, aircraft and virtually every other form of weapon has been used. Currently in Israel, Hamas has taken to using such innocent items as kites and helium balloons to carry incendiary devices which are burning fields, forests, wilderness preserves, towns and anything else they land near. They have also attached exploding toys and brightly packaged candies laced with poison. Mentioning that such is simply another example of weaponizing everything and when it comes to nuclear bombs, well, they are already weaponized. The nonproliferation argument also runs into difficulty as if were not for proliferation of nuclear weapons, only the United States and Russia with perhaps china would have nuclear weapons. But many other nations have developed and stockpiled nuclear weapons and others are on the verge and thus far only South Africa has gone from being a nuclear power to destroying their arsenal and becoming a nonnuclear nation with no nuclear weapons program that is known.
So, why our concern over nuclear weapons and their use? Well, the nations involved directly in the fighting in World War II were all given a small introduction to the horrors which nuclear weapons cause with the bombings of Hiroshima (image below) and Nagasaki. The devastation was probably no worse than the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities. The human toll was not completely understood until much later as the side effects from high doses of radiation became evident over time. The world even agreed at the United Nations to work to prevent such weapons from ever being used again. The record of the United Nations in often causing the exact actions which they were initially attempting to prevent. UNIFIL monitoring Lebanon presumably to prevent Hezballah from rearming the border with Israel is a perfect example. Currently, Hezballah is estimated to have over one-hundred-thousand rockets and guided missiles ready to be used against Israel. Most of these are located south of the Litany River, the region that UNIFIL was to keep weapon free, and we have not even gone into the tunnel and bunker systems Hezballah has built crisscrossing the entire region. So, we would not put much faith in the United Nations preventing proliferation and, even after that, preventing a nuclear exchange leading into a cascade of unpleasant consequences. This brings us back to the fact that every weapon and weapon system ever devised by man became one of the crucial weapons in a later conflict, and usually in a conflict which snowballed into a far larger conflagration than the start ever envisioned.
Hiroshima Before and After Atomic Bomb
We have pointed out that Iran more than likely already has a stock of nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles (chart below) with which to deliver them virtually anywhere on earth. Add on North Korea and there are two nations who could be prime candidates for initiating such a conflict. This has been further evidenced in the frightening commentary made by Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as part of his Quds Day Speech of Friday, December 14, 2001.
If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.
This is one of the overlooked items when Rafsanjani is touted as a moderate Iranian leader who is a man of peaceful intentions. Sooner or later, we hope sooner, the media and political climate of the developed Western World will start to understand the meaning of Taqiya and realize that, all too often, some of these leaders are simply not telling them the truth. This also likely applies to the Iranian claim not to possess any nuclear weapons.
Iranian Rocket Types and Varieties of Ranges
There are already two nuclear powers which face one another across the thin armistice line separating them in the Kashmir region. These are India and Pakistan and these two have had a very violent history starting from the outset when Pakistan was separated from India and tens of millions of people desired or found it necessary to relocate in order to be in a place where they were assured of survival. During the dual exodus, numerous instances of violence were exchanged by the two groups over the weeks it took for the exchange to be completed. India and Pakistan have had several conflicts and almost had a war break out within the past few years. Both nations are known to have nuclear weapons and one can only wonder how these will be kept from being utilized in some future conflict between these two adversaries. Add in the probable existence of nuclear warheads in Iranian hands and their enmity towards Israel as well as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United States and any other nation not ruled by Shia Islam. These are all instances where such weapons could be used and should Iran simply fire missiles towards Israel, the Israelis would have very little time to decide, first, if they could with total assuredness intercept all the missiles (possible but unlikely depending on the numbers), secondly, whether the missiles were topped with WMDs (whether nuclear, chemical or biological is irrelevant) and finally, would Israel respond in kind and use nuclear weapons in their response to such an attack. The next question would be whether or not Israel has the ability to destroy her own ballistic missiles should the Iranian attack not contain any WMD materials. The United States would also face a difficult decision should Iran utilize WMD’s, specifically nuclear weapons, against Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States or anybody else who the United States is obligated to defend by treaty or other arrangement. In all honesty, in Israel we not only prefer not to have the United States use any of her military in the defense of Israel, as we wish to depend as totally on our own abilities and not risk other nation’s people including service members.
The next argument often heard in such conversations is that the human race has moved beyond using weapons which cause such horrific results and cause such damage. How people can still hold on to such a concept after Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons on his own Kurdish citizens, Bashir al-Assad using chemical weapons and barrel bombs on areas known to have a large concentration of civilians and finally the horror show that was the Islamic State should have convinced people that barbarism is still with us. We could add in Rwanda, Ethiopia under Idi Amin, South Africa and numerous other instances and even prolonged inhumanity which were permitted in this presumably modern world. The truth is that the human race has not moved past the tribal society outlook where anyone outside the ruling tribe is considered a non-entity, a non-person, something totally without worth or concern. Yes, Europe has finally started to figure things out and have become so passive that their societies are crumbling due to low population figures which are far below replacement rates. The United States and Canada would also be in this state if it was not for some subsectors of their populations still reproducing at far larger rates making up for the lower rates amongst much of the population. Israel is comfortably above the replacement rate for which we are very happy. The one item which has been seen to correlate with the lack of sufficient reproductive rates is the secular and anti-religion populations which have adopted the far left and ecologic view that the ‘earth is being murdered by people’ religion. These are the same people who also believe that the United Nations is doing a swell job of keeping the peace and firmly believe that large wars and the use of WMDs is in our past never to arise again. These are the people who suffer from a Pollyannaish outlook that no matter what distressing news they read or are told respond with something totally irresponsible such as, but it is such a nice day, isn’t it? They will do anything to change such a conversation as they refuse to admit that things could even become horrific.
Does anyone honestly believe that nowhere in the world there exists a potential leader who would use nuclear weapons? If so, why? We have witnessed chemical weapons, nerve gas, barrel bombs, suicide bombers, passenger aircraft filled with people used as building torpedoes, vehicles driven into crowds, terrorism of various varieties and attacks made on places of worship during services to maximize the carnage. How none of these register with so many people is amazing and frightening. These are often the people voting for governments who might actually have to face such difficulties, and the rest are hoping they choose well. With what we have witnessed and some of the bluster coming from often unelected rulers, it would appear that believing that there is little if any chance of a nuclear exchange or a one-sided use of nuclear weapons would appear foolish. There is no real difference between using a nuclear weapon and the use of other WMDs, especially biological agents which do not respect borders. For those shaking their heads at the use of biologic agents, do we have to remind the world of the anthrax attacks, many being faked but there were quite a number which proved to be real. What if instead of anthrax they had access to use a mutant form of plague combined with the flu such that it had a two week or months long incubation of certain viruses and no known treatment while being completely resistant to antibiotics as viruses often are. Such a biologic agent would spread far and wide before the initial victims ever showed symptoms which would be the initial stage of any sort of warning. There are numerous nations who still have very active biological warfare research facilities making what would probably be our worst nightmare were they to ever be unleashed upon the world. With some actually having and potentially intending to use such weapons, why would anybody believe such people would bat an eye at the use of nuclear weapons being used if they were in control of such weaponry. The probability that there will be a nuclear exchange somewhere on earth within the next decade is, in our estimation, probably between one in ten to almost even odds.
The real question will be whether or not the nation initially attacked or any of their allies have such weapons and will use them in a response. Were one nation to utilize nuclear weapons against an enemy, it is possible that the victim would decide to take the strike and hope for the best responding with normal ordinance and not resort to using nuclear weapons in their actions. The odds of such is rather low as there are bound to be some anger issues involved in the decision-making process and the ability to resist going nuclear would be a very difficult idea to swallow. This is where the problem comes into play. Let us say that there is some overly aggressive nation’s leader who drank way too many espresso coffees and decided to launch three or four nuclear tipped missiles at an enemy nations fifteen-hundred miles distant. The struck nation returns the favor using ten to twelve of their nuclear weapons. The initiating country, in the fog of events and war, claims that the nation they initiated the attack upon had done something which caused the attack such as attempted an assassination and they make this plea to their allies who now join in a larger nuclear attack of the initial victim. The newly attacked nation knows nothing of any attempted assassination and only knows that they have been struck by missiles and several WMDs from now four or five nations, so they call on their allies, that is how these things work, right? By the time everything is straightened out, half the world is missing a large number of its citizens and their infrastructure is mostly destroyed. This is not an absurd scenario any more than some terrorist in the Balkans shooting some relatively unimportant but favored Archduke and his wife could launch the main powers of the day to wage a war to end all wars. As has been stated often enough, wars have been initiated by lesser acts. The world will have a war where one of the main weapons used fairly early in the conflict will be nuclear weapons, and most likely thermonuclear devices which can destroy even most modern metropolises. It is entirely possible that Iran might test Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s that, “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.” Israel may only be the size of New Jersey or half the size of Estonia, but that is still beyond the area of devastation which nuclear weapons are theoretically capable of causing immediate destruction. Granted, were such a weapon dropped centrally on the Tel Aviv metropolitan region, that would potentially murder close to half the Israeli population, but the nation would likely still be viable with most of the regular military remaining intact. How Israel would respond would be completely dependent upon who would be the Prime Minister and the members of the Knesset. The bravado that such an attack upon Israel would immediately result in the decimation of Iran is likely just that, bravado for the consumption and responses of the media and people.
The other item is that Israel would not have any real desire to cause such upon the people of Iran who actually have little say in who rules their nation and choosing those entrusted with such decisions. Yes, we realize that Iran holds elections for their legislature and President. We also know that only candidates approved by the Guardian Council are permitted to be on the ballot and they do not have anything such as a write-in candidate. Whomever the Guardian Council decides is eligible to run for the parliament and for President are permitted to be on the ballot and all the rest, well, not so much. There are many who believe, including a sizable amount of the citizenry of Iran, that the nation utilizes the Joseph Stalin philosophy for vote tabulating in that it is not so much who votes that counts as who counts the votes that matters. This was evidenced in 2009 with the people contesting the reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Green uprising. We also were made aware and realized exactly how brutal the ruling elite in Iran could be with how they handled the protests and the levels of violence dealt to the demonstrators. This was a peek inside the Iranian leadership and their concept that they are the law and operate above the law. They also provided proving evidence of their general lack of concern for human life. This is a combination which could prove to be the exact dangerous groups with power to initiate a war with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, with the remaining question merely being against whom.
Beyond the Cusp
Beyond the Cusp 
Leave a Reply