US cities are not medically prepared for a nuclear attack: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

US cities are not medically prepared for a nuclear attack: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (BAS). HT: Crof.

The abstract:

The United States is not prepared to deal with an attack by a terrorist group using an improvised nuclear device, the author says. It should get prepared, because the risk is real even if the probability is low, and doing so could save a great many lives. 

The author explores the potential impact of a 10–15-kt improvised nuclear device set off in New York City. The initial blast would kill between 75,000 and 100,000 people in seconds. Another 100,000–200,000 people would be injured, many of them dying within weeks or months, some with burns, others with impact injuries, and some with acute radiation syndrome. 

The demands on the medical system would be vast and overwhelming, all the more so because the bomb would have destroyed much of the capacity to respond. Current planning efforts are not sufficient to manage the carnage.

What we’re up against.

There are four types of potential nuclear incidents that require some level of preparation: an accident or attack at a nuclear power plant, a dirty bomb, terrorist use of an improvised nuclear device, and an attack using a nuclear weapon executed by a foreign nation. The first two types of events – an incident at a nuclear power plant and a dirty bomb – have received a greater level of planning attention than the others. An attack on a nuclear power plant or a catastrophic accident like the ones that occurred at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 would have devastating short- and long-term effects. With that in mind, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Department of Energy require that states with nuclear power plants practice notification, response, and evacuation plans. Zones requiring specific actions have been designated depending on communities’ proximity to nuclear power plants. Fortunately, the track record of the US nuclear power industry has been reassuring in terms of planning for accidents. The possibility of a dirty bomb attack has also received planning attention from US authorities, in part because it is seen as relatively likely on the spectrum of nuclear disasters. A dirty bomb is a rather simple device composed of a conventional explosive – much like the one used to blow up Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995 – laced with radiological materials called isotopes. Gaining access to radioactive isotopes is not as challenging as one might expect. Medical facilities use various types for diagnostic testing, and several industries require them. Certain isotopes, while difficult to come by, have a long half-life, and if used in a dirty bomb would contaminate the blast area and that around it with residual radioactive material for months or years. This would create a “hot zone” too dangerous to enter for any type of firefighting, rescue, or reconstruction activity. Additionally, radioactive particles dispersed in the air can be carried downwind in a “plume” and deposited far from the explosion. Planning for the aftermath of a dirty bomb will vary from city to city. Most cities have some level of preparedness for  managing a mass-casualty event, but the problem of radiation contamination adds complexity. The majority of contamination can be handled by removing clothing and washing victims’ skin. Once victims are removed from the area, the residual ground and building contamination is a less urgent problem, and decisions about clearing the area will likely be made by city authorities in conjunction with federal agencies.

The most devastating kind of incident would involve a nuclear weapon: Terrorists could acquire or build and detonate an improvised nuclear device in a major city, or – worse because the bomb would be bigger – a foreign nation could launch a nuclear attack. In the first scenario, the device would likely be between 5 and 10 kt. A 10-kt bomb would release the same amount of energy as 10,000 tons of TNT. The kind of improvised nuclear device we are most likely to see is a “gun” type of bomb that would use an explosive to fire a mass of HEU through a tube at another mass of HEU, causing fission and the release of energy in an eruption of pressure, light, and heat. A 10-kt improvised nuclear device would destroy or significantly damage everything within a half-mile radius. An attack by a government with a long-standing nuclear weapons program could be orders of magnitude worse.

The strength of the explosion could range from something around 10 kt – the size of a nuclear bomb North Korea tested in 2013 – to measurements in the megatons, or hundreds of times greater. In a nuclear attack, the bomb will be dropped from an aircraft or delivered via missle. Unlike a bomb carried into a city on a truck, a bomb delivered by air can be detonated above a city rather than at ground level, causing a larger area of destruction and loss of life. In the discussion that follows, I make the assumption – based on information from open-source material – that terrorists are unlikely to construct a device greater than 10 kt, and that a missile launched by North Korea would carry a warhead in the 10–15 kt range. These scenarios are both more likely than a multimegaton nuclear warhead being launched at the United States. What to expect For those who must think about planning for the aftermath, one of the starkest facts about a nuclear bomb attack is that on top of killing people on a vast scale, it will thoroughly destroy the capacity to respond.

When a nuclear bomb made with HEU detonates, it releases an enormous amount of energy of four different types. The blast releases 50 percent of its energy in the form of a pressure wave so powerful that it levels buildings. There is little chance for human survival within a quarter mile, and as the wave travels farther out and weakens, it can shatter glass within half to three quarters of a mile. Thirty-five percent of energy from the blast creates the blinding flash, emitting heat that incinerates all but concrete buildings (and melting glass and burning the contents even in those). Fires will be so numerous and radiation levels so high that firefighting will be impossible. Initial (or “prompt”) radiation accounts for 5 percent of the energy. The remaining 10 percent is released in long-term fallout or residual radiation, which can, when carried by wind, travel over long distances. Should an improvised nuclear device detonate in New York City’s Times Square, the initial blast will kill between 75,000 and 100,000 people in seconds. They will be incinerated so thoroughly that their ashes will be indistinguishable from the ashes of the buildings around them. Others will be crushed by falling buildings, struck by flying debris, or thrown by the pressure wave against buildings, the ground, or each other. Another 100,000–200,000 people will be injured, some with burns from the heat of the blast, others by objects hurtling through the air. Many will be exposed to various levels of radiation that will cause suffering or death over weeks and months. The loss of city government, fire and police departments, and other emergency responders, coupled with demolished hospitals and destroyed water, sewage, power, and gas lines, means that repairs will take months or years even outside the contaminated “hot zone” and be impossible within it. The city will become a ghost town. As a result of the plume carrying radioactive particles downwind, hundreds of square miles may be unusable and need decontaminaion.

 People will leave their homes in search of safe havens. With no radios to give them instructions, some will move into the path of the plume and be exposed to a higher dose of radiation than they would have received had they stayed home. Many of these evacuees will die from radiation exposure. Chaos will prevail as millions of people try to evacuate the city without aid of communications systems, which will have been destroyed. They won’t know where to go or where to receive medical care. Following a hurricane, people can reach shelters, medical teams, and sources of food and water that were deployed in advance. Following a nuclear attack, none of these assets will have been prepositioned prior to the explosion. In the early 1980s, while living outside of Boston, I received a pamphlet in the mail instructing me to evacuate to a specific town should the worst happen. A reporter following this effort to prepare citizens traveled to several of the “host” towns to determine their readiness to receive all the evacuees. The reporter was startled to find townspeople who said the new arrivals wouldn’t be welcome. Where would city evacuees go if an attack occurred today?

From 2009 to 2010, as part of research I was doing for the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, I conducted an end-to-end assessment of the medical capabilities of several countries and cities to respond to terrorist use of an improvised nuclear device. (It was similar to one I completed while serving as director of the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management in New York City, looking at the aftermath of biological and chemical attacks.) No city or country visited during this assessment was prepared to manage the aftermath of a nuclear detonation. Even taking into account just the medical needs of a large city following a nuclear attack, the results clearly showed that current planning efforts were not sufficient to manage the carnage.

 Using New York City as a model, it’s anticipated that several hundred thousand people will require some sort of medical evaluation or care. With the loss of hospitals and 35–50 percent of first responders, and health care personnel unable or unwilling to go to work, surviving hospitals will need to use every inch of space to treat only the most critically injured. Makeshift treatment centers or casualty collection points near the blast will be required to triage the injured. Ethical and moral issues will arise as the overwhelmed staff, short on supplies, is forced to decide who should receive treatment and who should be moved to end-of-life care, receiving morphine to ease their pain. The profound psychological impact on these healthcare workers and first responders cannot be overstated. Their task is essential, though: The ability to make some order out of the chaotic wave of people with different levels of injuries, from those with various kinds of physical trauma to those with psychological trauma to the “worried well,” is a key to reducing morbidity and mortality. Certain characteristics of nuclear attacks make them especially hard to prepare for. A nuclear blast causes an electromagnetic pulse that knocks out communication systems, some irreversably. Without the ability to communicate, coordination among medical personnel and other first responders will become nearly impossible.

Assuming medical staff can get to where they need to be, demand for them will be extraordinary, but managers will have to rotate them to prevent exhaustion and reduce the psychological impact. There will be an overwhelming number of patients. After triage, some will have to be transported. Hospitals will have to not only care for the injured but also control security and coordinate the flow of information to victims’ families. Local, state, and federal governments will have to rapidly set up alternate-care facilities close to the “hot zone.” They will have to have plans for alternate standards of care, so that, for example, emergency medical technicians are allowed to perform tasks ordinarily reserved for paramedics or nurses, freeing paramedics and nurses to perform more advanced medical treatment than normally permitted. This last issue, the focus of numerous studies and reports, presents both legal and ethical challenges, many of which need to be resolved in state capitals, where the scope of practice for health care professionals is typically controlled. And planners should remember that just because an ethical issue is resolved in advance, doesn’t mean that the decision will be followed in practice in the aftermath of a disaster. Sending an adult to end-of-life care may pull on the heartstrings, but sending a child to the same fate could prove to be too difficult for many medical personnel.

Beyond the difficult front lines of triage, survivors of a nuclear explosion will have a variety of injuries, some well known to modern hospitals but others more difficult to diagnose and develop a plan for. Acute radiation syndrome, in particular, results from exposure to radiation and does not have to coincide with any other injury. It may be the only effect a survivor suffers, and it may not manifest soon after exposure. Acute radiation syndrome occurs when a significant portion of the body is exposed to a large dose of penetrating radiation in a short period of time. The nature of acute radiation syndrome depends on the dose. At lower doses, the only effect may be on the gastrointestinal system and bone marrow. At higher doses, bone marrow will stop producing infection-fighting white blood cells, platelets that assist in blood clotting, and red blood cells that carry oxygen. Larger doses also destroy the lining of the gastrointestinal system, causing diarrhea, vomiting, and an inability to swallow or digest food, requiring patients to receive nutrition and fluids intravenously. At the highest levels of exposure, the heart and nervous system are impacted and rapid progress toward death is certain. Some of the most difficult patients to manage are those with combined injuries – say, a penetrating wound from a shard of glass, requiring rapid surgical intervention, and also acute radiation syndrome. Finally, a great moral and societal challenge will be managing the dead. Many victims will be in the “hot zone,” where responders can’t enter and radiation levels may not be safe for years. Victims’ families, though, will demand recovery of loved ones. Even where identifiable remains exist, the number of dead will be so large that months may pass before a family receives them. At some point in recovering bodies, a decision may have to be made to bury victims in mass graves. The United States has excellent systems in place to manage mass fatality incidents – but they have never been tested with several hundred thousand dead at one time.

Where do we stand?

These issues have not received enough attention from FEMA, the US government entity responsible for helping states plan for and respond to disasters. FEMA takes what emergency planners call an “all hazards” approach, meaning it addresses effects common to many different types of disasters. This lack of planning to deal specifically with a nuclear incident is a serious weakness.

That makes it all the more important for states and cities to have their own plans in place for worst-case scenarios. It’s far easier to scale back a response if resources are not needed than to need them but not have them. While serving as Commissioner of Homeland Security and Emergency Services for New York State, I asked each of the 57 counties to plan for what they thought to be a worst-case scenario. (Scenarios varied from county to county.) Where FEMA has lagged, the US Department of Health and Human Services has aggressively built up its capability to respond to a nuclear incident. It has medical response teams that are staffed and equipped to mobilize in response to an incident, support state and local governments, and, depending on what is needed where, either provide comprehensive health care infrastructure or augment existing hospitals and clinics. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, these teams provided the only medical care available to some communities on Long Island, just east of New York City. They provided invaluable aid in evacuating Manhattan hospitals. The Department of Health and Human Services has also committed significant resources to acquiring medical treatments for the survivors of a nuclear detonation. The Strategic National Stockpile, composed of 12 separate units at classified locations around the country, is also under the department’s control, and capable of being dispatched to any city within 12 hours. In it are supplies to treat burn injuries, as well as cutting-edge therapeutics to aid in reversing the effects of radiation by stimulating bone marrow to produce platelets (which help stop bleeding) and white blood cells (which help prevent infection). Should respirators be needed, the Strategic National Stockpile can provide them, along with antibiotics, vaccines, and massive quantities of intravenous solutions. Many units from the stockpile will be needed to support a city in the aftermath of a nuclear detonation.

Cities far from the nuclear blast are also a potential resource. The federal government is sure to ask for help from far afield as soon as demand for medical resources exceeds local supply in a given area. Governors and mayors may be reluctant to release personnel, though, either for political reasons or out of concern that their cities and states may be targeted next. I believe most elected officials will rise to the occasion, and dispatch as much help as they can spare. But no number of simulated incidents can predict how political dynamics will shift following the real thing. Over the course of the study I conducted in 2009 and 2010, several government officials said they were unable to take steps forward because the elected officials they reported to were unwilling to discuss the issue. Privately, many politicians used to worry that if they discussed nuclear terrorism, they would likely be ridiculed for fearmongering. In the last seven years, that concern has changed dramatically at the national level, with President Obama and other world leaders convening to address nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Silence at the local level continues, though. Among city and state governments, the only ones that I’m aware have some level of ongoing planning for nuclear disaster are New York (city and state), Washington state, Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago. To a much lesser extent, several more cities are engaged as well. The state of Hawaii has asked the federal government for assistance in planning for a nuclear attack. Read the full story here.

Video - Russian Senator Franz Kincevich on Current NATO Drills: No Threat to Russia, But Our Troops Are Ready.

Video - NO there was not a Nuclear explosion in the Ukraine.

Video - NO there was not a Nuclear explosion in the Ukraine.

Apparently INFO Wars thinks there was a nuclear explosion in the Ukraine.

A quick search revealed the explosion seem to have occurred inside the Donetz Chemoical plant.

A massive explosion ripped through the city of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine last night, on the evening of February 8. According to locals, a bright flash visible for kilometers followed the blast.

Even residents from the city's surrounding areas say they felt the shockwave. There have been no reports of anyone killed or injured by the explosion.




According to officials from the breakaway Donetsk republic, the site of the blast might have been Donetsk’s state-owned chemical factory, located on the city’s north side. Rebels say the incident could have been caused by a rocket attack or an explosion at the factory.

The Ukrainian Azov battalion, which is currently fighting separatists in eastern Ukraine, confirms that an ammunition depot was blown up in northern Donetsk.

The Donetsk state-owned chemical factory is located in the north of the city, not far from the airport. The factory served as a weapons depot, and a manufacturing plant for anti-tank defenses and industrial-grade explosives.

An armed conflict between separatists and Ukrainian troops has been underway in Donetsk and Lugansk since April 2014. Fighting intensified in January 2015, when the cities of Donetsk and Mariupol were attacked with artillery, killing many civilians. Since the resumption of heavy fighting last month, Donetsk rebels claim to have killed more than 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers. Donetsk's chemical factory has been the site of fighting since September 2014.

Explosion tonight: Ukrainian Smerch rocket artillery hit a Russian arms depot in #Donetsk. And not a textile factory. pic.twitter.com/seHFUHAhVQ

— Onlinemagazin (@OnlineMagazin) February 9, 2015

North and South Korea 'on the verge of nuclear war'.

North and South Korea 'on the verge of nuclear war'.(Telegraph). A senior North Korean diplomat warned a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York that "a spark of fire could set off a thermonuclear war" on the Korean Peninsula. Pak Kil-yon, Pyongyang's vice-foreign minster, put the blame for the tense state of inter-Korean relations firmly on South Korea's conservative government and claimed the citizens of the North feel "shame" and "political terror."
Monday's speech was the first time a representative of North Korea has addressed the General Assembly since Kim Jong-un assumed power after the death of his father in December last year. "Since taking office, the current South Korean government has caused the worst situation in North-South relations by making all inter-Korean agreements null and void," Pak said, referring to pacts with previous South Korean administrations that sought reconciliation between the two ideological enemies and an expansion of economic co-operation. Describing relations between the two governments as in "total bankruptcy," Pak dismissed the South Korean government of Lee Myung-bak with the comment, "History will bring them to justice." Neither the United States nor the UN escaped criticism, with Pak saying recent joint military manoeuvres between the US and South Korean troops were "reckless provocations." South Korean media are reporting that North Korean fighter jets have stepped up training flights since July, while artillery units in the west of the country are preparing for large-scale exercises and more submarines are putting to sea. Read the full story here.

Gen. T. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack.

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack.(DocsTalk).Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado. In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government. Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties. If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack. “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place. Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent. But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government. Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including: President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. “It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”Read the full story here.

7 Reasons Why Israel Should Unilaterally Bomb Iran.

7 Reasons Why Israel Should Unilaterally Bomb Iran.(INN).By Dr. Joe Tuzara.Here are the seven reasons why Israel should preemptively attack Iran this year:

1. Iran as a de facto nuclear state First, and foremost, a nuclear-armed capable Iran would drastically change the geopolitical landscape in the volatile Middle East immensely complicating the risks to Israel and the threat to U.S. national security. Why? For better or worse, there is no doubt that the prospect of escalating tensions is heightened significantly in the cascade of nuclear proliferation to Iran's proxies, Hamas, Hizbullah, Venezuela and Arab Gulf states wanting to go nuclear. In addition to its suspected nuclear-weapons program Iran owns vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, according to Iran Watch. Israel and America are both far more concerned about Iran's stepped-up enrichment of high grade uranium in an underground bunker in Qom and Natanz, than the failure of the UN nuclear watchdog, in a setback likely to increase the risk of confrontation with the West. 
2. "Israel must be wiped off the map" Unless the consequences of inaction truly are existential, given the potentially disastrous outcome of the controversial remark by the Iranian president - a unilateral preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program in Israel's self-defense would be fully justified.
3. Longstanding economic sanctions - that doesn't bite Despite an increasingly stringent U.S. and European Union's economic sanctions, Israel faces a dilemma. In the report by the Israeli-based news DEBKAfile, India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from U.S.-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. Adding insult to the injury, the U.S. government recently said Iran has purchased 180,000 tons of U.S. wheat, which reopened grain trade ties between the two countries embroiled in a stand-off over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, according to Reuters. While Israel is confronting the uncertainties of containing and deterring a non-nuclear Iran, no one knows, however, whether sanctions will bite sufficiently to alter the course of Iran's nuclear program. 
4. Emergence of Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah suicide states According to the Middle East Quarterly publication of "Iran's Suicide Brigades", the Iranian regime continues to embrace suicide terrorism as an important component of its military doctrine. The goal of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah which Obama does not understand remains Jewish extermination. As Israeli and American intelligence agencies have also warned, Iran has a network of agents and supporters surrounding Israel and inside the United States. In Obama's worldview, an Israeli military strike against Iran is a test of his outreach to the Muslim world and a threat to his re-election campaign. 
5. Pyongyang -style pattern of deceit As the world powers agree on reopening talks with Iran in the coming weeks, the cautiously optimistic Obama administration conveyed its stern warning that this is Iran's last chance for a comprehensive, negotiated and long term resolution of its suspect nuclear program. Much will now depend on the Iranian response to come clean out of its nuclear program, which remains very unlikely. Obviously, Iran is following North Korea's pattern of stalling, evading and negotiating, a diplomatic strategy that has served them well in the past. Henceforth, it would be a dangerous mistake for Israel to wait while its arch-enemy is racing toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. 
6. "An attack in Iran will increase regional stability in the Middle East" The possibility that in the event of an Israeli military action, Iran would decide to attack U.S. interests further destabilizing the Middle East is a flawed logic. In an article written for the New York Times, Major General Amos Yadlin, the former Head of the Directorate of Military Intelligence and current head of the Institute for National Security Studies, believes that an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will result in regional stability in the Middle East. Once and for all, a successful military campaign must completely destroy all of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructures including the inner sanctum of the mullah-led regime and the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Taking into consideration the unintended consequences, a non-nuclear Iran is more vulnerable today than in the next year. So Israel must get it over with, by itself. 
7. Trust deficit and loss of U.S. credibility Early in his presidency, Obama sought a diplomatic engagement policy without any preconditions at the expense of Israel and he failed miserably. Last year, Obama's keynote policy speech calling for a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 Israeli borders was detrimental to the elusive peace process. Relying on some peculiar arguments, the lack of trust and the Obama administration's undermining of Israel's confidence in its military capabilities only emboldened Iran. After years of sanctions and complacency, how much more time does Obama need to realize Iran's intention in acquiring a nuclear weapon? To date, Iran's intransigence and lopsided shadow war has served to heighten the sanctions and increase confrontation. From Israel's perspective, time is running out with Iran. The choice is clear - Tehran will get the atomic bomb or a preventive strike against Iran's deeply buried underground nuclear facilities is a better option than no option at all. In retrospect, the trio of contending forces' divergent ambiguities could lead to serious miscalculation and dire consequences. Like it or not, a regime change would not prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future. If President Franklin Delano Roosevelt were alive today, 2012 would be the year which "will live in infamy".Read the full story here.

Apparently The U.S. has accepted an Nuclear Iran, Clinton proposes missile shield to protect Gulf nations.

Apparently The U.S. has accepted an Nuclear Iran, Clinton proposes missile shield to protect Gulf nations.(BM).CAIRO: Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, met with the foreign ministers of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) yesterday, proposed a strong missile shield to protect Gulf Arab states from Tehran and sought to work with them to help end the violence in Iran’s ally Syria. Clinton said: “It is a US priority to help the GCC build a regional missile defense architecture” against what that country sees as a looming ballistic missile threat from Iran. Clinton said that she looked forward to discussing the wide range of common strategic concerns, including preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and curbing its interference in the affairs of its neighbors.
In her remarks at the opening session of the first high-profile ministerial meeting of the GCC-US Strategic Cooperation Forum, she intimated that Washington sought improved ties and strategies with Gulf states in different fields including maritime security and missile defense to counter the threat of Iran. Later, addressing newsmen at the GCC General Secretariat with Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Clinton said that Iran and six world powers had agreed to meet in Istanbul on April 13 for the latest round of talks about Tehran’s nuclear program. She pointed out that Iran and the six nations — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — also met in Istanbul some 14 months ago. The talks at that time ended without any conclusion, said Clinton while expressing fears and concerns. “It will be clear soon whether Iran’s leaders are prepared to have a serious, credible discussion about their nuclear program, whether they are ready to start building the basis of a resolution to this very serious problem,” Clinton told reporters. “It is up to Iran whether they are ready to make the right choice. … What is certain is that Iran’s window of opportunity to seek and obtain a peaceful resolution will not remain open forever.”
She also expressed doubt about whether Iran had any intention of negotiating a solution that satisfies the US, Israel and other countries that believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. In her speech at the GCC-US forum, Clinton also highlighted US concerns about Iran and Syria ahead of a broader international meeting in Istanbul aimed at ending President Bashar Assad’s crackdown in Syria, which has killed more than 10,000 innocent civilians in that country. The forum also discussed overall relations and prospective cooperation between the GCC as a bloc and the US in political, economic, commercial and cultural fields. The participants took stock both of the political situations in the region, and regional and international issues of common interest. The forum’s meeting comes as the Obama administration is moving to strengthen its ties with Gulf nations whose geography and oil resources already have made them key players in US defense and energy security. Clinton also discussed with the Saudi officials international efforts to send more humanitarian aid into Syria, and support opposition efforts to present a united and inclusive political vision for the future. She also discussed tightening the array of US, European, Canadian, Arab and Turkish sanctions on Syria, US.Hmmmm..........Don't worry Israel we got your back, for the rest we have a missile shield?Read the full story here.

Report: Israeli soldiers scour Iran for “smoking gun”.

Report: Israeli soldiers scour Iran for nukes.(YNet).Israel is using a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch cross-border intelligence missions in an attempt to find “smoking gun” evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead, the Sunday Times reported Sunday.
According to Western intelligence sources, Israel has used sensitive equipment during its covert operations to monitor the radioactivity and magnitude of explosives tests.
It was also reported that Israeli special forces used Black Hawk helicopters to carry commandos disguised as members of the Iranian military and using Iranian military vehicles.
The sources said that Israel had been conducting intelligence missions in the area for several years. In recent months efforts aimed at the Parchin military complex near Tehran to which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been denied access, have intensified.According to the sources, operations are also aimed at Fordow near the city of Qom where Iran is working on high-level enrichment.
“We’ve detected clean-up efforts recently in Parchin which might indicate that the Iranians are trying to hide evidence of warhead tests in preparation for a possible IAEA visit,” said a western source.Read the full story here.

FM Avigdor Liberman 'Iran wants nukes in order to spread its ideology'

FM Avigdor Liberman 'Iran wants nukes in order to spread its ideology'.(JPost).Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said Sunday that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons stems from the Islamic Republic's desire to spread its ideology all over the world.
During a meeting with the Jewish community in Singapore, Liberman said that Iran is seeking to "spread the Islamic Revolution to as many countries as possible, and the nuclear weapon is merely a tool meant to aid in achieving this goal."The foreign minister stated that the leadership of Iran makes use of Israel as an excuse to carry out its actions.
"Iran has a fanatical and charismatic leadership...that uses Israel as an excuse, but they are actually battling against the entire West over whose values will control the world," Liberman said.
Liberman said that upcoming talks between Iran and the P5 + 1 group of world powers about Iran's nuclear program present the Islamic Republic's last chance to change its course.
He expressed hope that Iran could be persuaded to abandon its nuclear program at the talks scheduled to take place in April. The P5 + 1 powers include the five members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France China and Russia - as well as Germany.Read the full story here.

Iranian MP: West misstep against Iran will jeopardize Israel existence.

Iranian MP: West misstep against Iran will jeopardize Israel existence.(PressTV).A senior Iranian lawmaker has warned against any military move against the Islamic Republic, saying even the “slightest of errors” by the West will endanger Israel’s very existence.
“Should the Western countries want to commit the slightest of errors regarding Iran, they will be gripped by such ramifications that will endanger the existence of the Zionist regime,” Alaeddin Boroujerdi said on Thursday
Boroujerdi, who heads the Majlis committee on national security and foreign policy, further cautioned the West to take the warnings seriously as they are neither political in nature nor intended to serve propaganda purposes.“In case of any venture against our country, the aggressors will face a swift, resolute and serious countermeasure,” the Iranian official said.
The US and Israel have threatened Iran with a military strike, claiming that there is diversion in the country’s nuclear energy program towards a military program.Earlier this week, Russia reiterated its opposition to a potential aggression against the Islamic Republic, saying such a measure would be baseless and will incur disastrous consequences for the region.
"The CIA and other US officials admit they now have no information about the Iranian leadership taking the political decision to produce nuclear weapons," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday.
Iran has repeatedly refuted the Western allegations regarding its nuclear energy program, arguing that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Iranian officials have also promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.Hmmmm......"All options are on the table "........indeed.Read the full story here.

"And so it Begins" - 'Saudi Arabia has Allegedly Arranged to Make Available Two Pakistani Nuclear Bombs or Guided Missile Warheads'

"And so it Begins" - 'Saudi Arabia has Allegedly Arranged to Make Available Two Pakistani Nuclear Bombs or Guided Missile Warheads'(Memri).Pakistani Journalist Examines Saudi-Pakistani Nuclear Cooperation: 'Saudi Arabia has Allegedly Arranged to Make Available Two Pakistani Nuclear Bombs or Guided Missile Warheads'In a recent article, senior Pakistani journalist Amir Mir examined the history of Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation and recent media reports that Saudi Arabia is trying to reach a secret nuclear pact with Pakistan, in view of the Iranian nuclear threat to Sunni states like Saudi Arabia.
In an article titled, "Is Pakistan Helping the Saudis with a Nuclear Deterrent?" Amir Mir also revealed that during this year's "Arab Spring" protests in the Middle Eastern countries, Pakistan had two military divisions on standby to go to Saudi Arabia in case street protests erupted against the Saudi royal family.
The Pakistani journalist also recounted a number of international media reports on how Pakistani military officers have worked over the years in secret to help the Saudi ambition to build a nuclear deterrent.Hmmm......President Obama "Nobel Peaceprize winner"......Yup it's starting to show from all sides. Read the full story here.

MFS -The Other News - What the main papers don't say.

  Morning Posting.

• Updated !Earthquakes in the last 24 hours in the world seismic activity situation Russia 5.8 - 5.6 ; Japan 4.8 !More info here.

• How Obama Is Choking Off U.S. Oil Production.(NR).The news wires are reporting that President Obama actively lobbied Senate Democrats to defeat the Keystone pipeline yesterday. The effect of blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline is to defer 700,000 barrels of oil per day. And as I reported at The Weekly Standard recently, the president’s policy of choking off oil production under federal leases will prevent another 1 million barrels of oil per day this year, and even more next year. Obama will soon be personally responsible for preventing some 2 million barrels per day of possible North American crude oil production from reaching the American economy. The U.S. currently produces only about 6 million barrels of domestic crude oil, so that would be more than a 30 percent increase in domestic production. Two millions barrels per day of oil production would affect not just the price of gasoline in North America, but also the economics of world oil production: The president is preventing the U.S. from increasing oil production by an amount nearly equivalent to Iran’s total oil exports. He insists that gasoline prices are rising because of “fears” about a disruption in Iranian supply, but he wants you to believe that gasoline prices would be unaffected by a 30 percent increase in domestic U.S. oil production in the next two years.Hmmmm.....If he really wanted to destroy america as a Superpower would he do anything different?Read the full story here.

• WALL STREET INSIDER: My God…My God…What Has Become Of America?(TUR).By Ulsterman.WSI: True – but before we start I wish to tell you…rather… congratulate you on something.

UM: Oh?

WSI: Your War for America article. It was spot – on. Perhaps you are not aware how much so…but it shows you’re much improved in putting the pieces together. Well done

UM: The pro-Israeli group – the campaign against President Obama? You’re part of that? That was my assumption. Something like that takes money…it…the timing of it made me think of you as soon as I learned of it.

WSI: As I said – much is being done to…educate voters in 2012. It is a collective effort by some to counterbalance the collective effort of others. Two opposing forces if you will…(pause)…a war. Good vs evil. And I mean that. That is not simple…exaggeration. I believe that. What is now underway is perhaps THE political war of this generation. No, not perhaps – it IS the political war of this generation.

WSI: Obama revealed himself to us…in full. While it was suspected…certainly we feared the possibility…but to have it so openly confirmed was…it was very unsettling to people who, shall we say…don’t unsettle easily.

UM: Please explain. Something. Explain something on that.

WSI: I will simply say this – and someday this information will get out…I likely will be long dead when it does…but the truth will be spoken of this someday.

WSI:You wish to know something of that meeting between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanhayu? The prime minister stared into the eyes of our president…and he saw the truth of the man. He understood fully and completely the corruption of his heart.Read the full story here.

• Bell, via Kagan, on Critical Race Theory: The Constitution Is the Problem.(Breitbart).In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a "classic" in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010. The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of "original sin"--a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial "fantasy." Read the full story here.

• Declare the Muslim Brotherhood A Terrorist Organization.(LFR).Please read the article and sign the petition to urge Congress to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization! They are a threat to our country, our Constitution and our freedom and must be stopped!20,295 Letters and Emails Sent So Far. The Obama Administration has resisted naming the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. But if any group deserved to be on that list, the Brotherhood does. Ever since 1962, it has worked to convert Americans to jihad and Islamist extremism. It is actively building terrorist cells in the United States.And the evidence is that it is succeeding. More and more of the terrorist attacks on American soil are coming from people who live here, many of whom converted to Islam through the work of the Brotherhood.Since 9-11, 156 men have been indicted for terror-related activities. 127 of them had lived in the U.S. for ten years or more at the time of their arrest. One-third of these terrorists converted to Islam in their teens or twenties, most often through the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood.Internationally, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is working zealously to replace the secular liberalism of the Arab Spring with hard-core, Shariah-compliant, theocratic dictatorships. Suppressing women, eliminating free speech, persecuting Christians, and preaching hatred of Jews, Israel, and America, the Brotherhood is gradually taking over the Middle East as first dictators and now monarchs fall from power.To fight an enemy, you need to name it as your adversary and that is why including the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of terrorist groups is so important.Legislation is pending in Congress to require the State Department to include the group on their terrorist list. With your help, we have a good chance of passing this important legislation.For more information about the Muslim Brotherhood and to enlist in the battle to contain it, go to Citizens for National Security (www.cfns.us), a group struggling to “out” the Brotherhood. They the the leading group advocating inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood on the terrorist list.Read the full story and sign the petition here.

• Non-Nuclear U.S. Means a Bleak Future for World Stability.(Heritage).“Nuclear weapons will continue to serve critical foreign- and defense-policy objectives,” write Bradley Thayer and Thomas Skypek in their recent op-ed.Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. nuclear weapons have contributed to global stability and prevented attacks on U.S. homeland and its allies. The White House now thinks it is possible to achieve the same objectives without nuclear weapons. It assumes that once the United States gets rid of its nuclear arsenal, other countries will follow.This proposition is fundamentally at odds with historical evidence. States have their own reasons for obtaining nuclear weapons, and these reasons have very little to do with whether the U.S. increases or decreases its nuclear weapons arsenal. South Africa gave up its nuclear weapons amid the U.S. nuclear buildup and nuclear weapons testing. North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club after the U.S. decreased its nuclear arsenal and stopped testing.According to recent reports, the Administration is planning on further reducing U.S. nuclear forces. How many nuclear weapons the U.S. maintains should be determined by the current developments of the strategic environment. Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces and increasing the number of its operationally deployed warheads. China, India, Pakistan, France, and the U.K. have substantial nuclear modernization programs. North Korea has the capability to develop six to eight nuclear weapons. Iran is getting closer to developing a nuclear weapon of its own. This is clearly not the time for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear weapons.Even more troublesome is President Obama’s lack of commitment to nuclear modernization. The Administration recognized that the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure is under-funded during the Senate’s consideration of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty and committed to increased funding. This commitment, however, has barely survived the first year after the treaty entered into force. In his fiscal year 2013 budget request, President Obama asked for $372 million less than what the Administration pledged to provide. In addition, the Administration proposed to defer the construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which would replace a nuclear production facility that is over 60 years old.In addition, a significant lowering of the number of operationally deployed nuclear weapons would require a shift in U.S. targeting strategy—from counterforce (e.g., military posts, nuclear weapons, nuclear production capabilities) to countervalue (e.g., populations and cities). A country that values freedom—for itself and others—above anything else should not divest itself of weapons that allow it to destroy enemy forces instead of civilian populations.Read the full story here.

• International Herald Tribune takes Tear Gassed Women Photograph out of context.(CA).Women's Day Israeli soldiers in Ramallah, West Bank, fired tear gas and aimed a water cannon at about 50 women marching Thursday in support of Hana Shalbi, who has gone without food for 22 days to protest the holding of Palestinians without formal charges. In Gaza, about 500 women marched to support the hunger striker.For whatever reason, the information about the Palestinian rock throwing did not make into the Tribune cutline, although it is critical to understanding the day's circumstances. Indeed, the AFP, like the AP, noted that the Palestinians were throwing stones:At Qalandia, hundreds of women arrived by bus from across the West Bank for a rally organised by women's groups and local unions.They carried posters of Shalabi, who has accused Israeli forces of mistreating her and imprisoning her without evidence.Israeli troops used water cannons against the protesters and also utilised the "scream truck," a military vehicle that emits a high-pitched noise intended to disperse demonstrations.Towards the end of the demonstration, a handful of youths began throwing stones at Israeli forces, who responded by firing tear gas.Read and see the full story here.

• Yemeni woman sweats blood, cries stones doctors unsure of ailment.(BM).SANA’A: Saboora Hassan Fakeih, a young woman from Yemen’s Hodeida, who until 6 months ago was perfectly healthy, revealed puzzling symptoms, which so far have left medical professionals flabbergasted, unable to determine what ailments the 20-year-old bride is suffering from.She told the press that soon after her marriage she started to faint, remaining unconscious for hours on end, adding that her tummy would swell up as if she was pregnant.When her husband took her to get examined, doctors assured him that all her exams had come back normal, giving her a clean bill of health.Despite those reassuring claims, Saboora took a turn for the worse over the past few weeks. For some unknown reason, the young woman started to sweat blood and cry little stones. Complaining from acute pain, Saboora is now in great distress, unable to eat or sleep, but more importantly desperately seeking a diagnosis.Several concerned residents told Bikyamasr.com that they suspected some malicious witchcraft or the intervention of some “devil” as such a thing could not possibly be “normal.”As it happens, Saboora is not the only person to have ever suffered from such extraordinary symptoms, as scientists in India recorded a similar event with a young girl. However she did not like Saboora complain from pain while crying stones, but her only side effect was the swelling of the eye.In this case too the medical profession was left wondering.As for the sweating of blood, such cases have been recorded before with doctors explaining that in time of great stress, blood vessels could dilate so extensively that they would rupture and bleed within the sweat glands, leaving the body to perspire blood.Saboora is now calling on the international community to extend a helping hand and end her nightmare.Read the full story here.

Iran cuts down to six weeks timeline for weapons-grade uranium

Iran cuts down to six weeks timeline for weapons-grade uranium.(Debka).Tehran this week hardened its nuclear and military policies in defiance of tougher sanctions and ahead of international nuclear talks.
The threat by Iran’s armed forces deputy chief Gen. Mohammad Hejazi of a preemptive strike against its “enemies,” was accompanied by its refusal to allow UN nuclear watchdog inspectors to visit the Parchin facility, following which the IAEA chief cut their mission short.
Western and Israeli intelligence experts have concluded that the transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to the underground Fordo site near Qom has shortened Iran’s race for the 90 percent (weapons) grade product to six weeks.The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday night, Feb. 21: “It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin.” This is the site were Iran conducts experiments in nuclear explosives and triggers.
This diplomatic understatement came amid three major reverses in the quest for a non-military solution to halt Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon:

1. Iran placed a large obstacle in the path of resumed negotiations with six world powers on which US President Barack Obama had pinned his strategy for averting a war to arrest its nuclear weapon program. This strategy depended heavily on Iran eventually consenting to making its nuclear projects fully transparent, as his National Security Adviser Tom Donilon assured Israeli leaders earlier this week.
The day after Donilon wound up his talks in Israel, the UN inspectors were sent packing empty-handed from Tehran, putting paid to any hope of transparency.
They were also denied an interview with Mohsen Fakrrizadeh, director of the Parchin project and also believed in the West to be the paramount head of Iran’s military nuclear program.

2. The transfer of 20 percent uranium enrichment to Fordo is taken by Western and Israel intelligence experts to have accelerated the pace of enriching large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium to weapons grade and shortened to an estimated six weeks the time needed for arming a nuclear bomb after a decision in Tehran.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz explained to the US official that Israel cannot afford to live with an Iran capable of build a nuclear bomb in the space of few weeks.

3. The threat that Iran will not wait for “its enemies” – Israel and/or the US - to strike and will act first.
Seen from Israel, Iranian behavior has already changed - and for the worse. Its tactics in recent days have exacerbated the threat hanging over its head from Iran and brought it that much closer.
As one Israeli source put it: “Since Wednesday the rules of the game have changed.”Read the full story here.

"Pour les vaincre, messieurs, il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace et la Patrie sera sauvée!"  ~ Danton.

"To defeat them, gentlemen, we need audacity, more audacity and always audacity and the Homeland will be saved!"  ~ Danton.

Iran reportedly building up nuclear site near Qom days ahead of IAEA visit, poised to install thousands of new centrifuges.

Iran reportedly building up nuclear site near Qom days ahead of IAEA visit, poised to install thousands of new centrifuges.(AlArabiya).
The BBC said the centrifuges could speed up the production of enriched uranium, which can be used both for generating nuclear power and to manufacture atomic weapons.
Iran is poised to greatly expand uranium enrichment at a fortified underground bunker to a point that would boost how quickly it could make nuclear warheads, diplomats tell The Associated Press.
They said Tehran has put finishing touches for the installation of thousands of new-generation centrifuges at the cavernous facility - machines that can produce enriched uranium much more quickly and efficiently than its present machines.
While saying that the electrical circuitry, piping and supporting equipment for the new centrifuges was now in place, the diplomats emphasized that Tehran had not started installing the new machines at its Fordo facility and could not say whether it was planning to.
Still, the senior diplomats - who asked for anonymity because their information was privileged - suggested that Tehran would have little reason to prepare the ground for the better centrifuges unless it planned to operate them. They spoke in recent interviews - the last one Saturday.
The reported work at Fordo appeared to reflect Iran’s determination to forge ahead with nuclear activity that could be used to make atomic arms despite rapidly escalating international sanctions and the latent threat of an Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities.Fordo could be used to make fissile warhead material even without such an upgrade, the diplomats said.
They said that although older than Iran’s new generation machines, the centrifuges now operating there can be reconfigured within days to make such material because they already are enriching to 20 percent - a level that can be boosted quickly to weapons-grade quality.
Their comments appeared to represent the first time anyone had quantified the time it would take to reconfigure the Fordo centrifuges into machines making weapons-grade material.
In contrast, Iran’s older enrichment site at Natanz is producing uranium at 3.4 percent, a level normally used to power reactors. While that too could be turned into weapons-grade uranium, reassembling from low to weapons-grade production is complex, and retooling the thousands of centrifuges at Natanz would likely take weeks.
Diplomats accredited to the IAEA expect little from that visit. They told the AP that - as before - Iran was refusing to allow the agency experts to visit Parchin, the suspected site of explosives testing for a nuclear weapon and had turned down other key requests made by the experts.
Iranian officials deny nuclear weapons aspirations, saying the claims are based on bogus intelligence from the U.S. and Israel.
But IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has said there are increasing indications of such activity. His concerns were outlined in 13-page summary late last year listing clandestine activities that either can be used in civilian or military nuclear programs, or “are specific to nuclear weapons.”
Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead. The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test and development of a nuclear payload for Iran’s Shahab 3 intermediate range missile - a weapon that could reach Israel.
Diplomats told the AP earlier this month that Iran had added two new series or cascades of old-generation IR-1 centrifuges to its Fordo operation, meaning 348 centrifuges were now operating in four cascades.
Olli Heinonen, who retired last year as the IAEA’s chief Iran inspector, recently estimated that these machines, and two other cascades at Natanz can produce around 15 kilograms (more than 30 pounds) of 20-percent enriched uranium a month, using Iran’s tons of low-enriched uranium as feedstock.
The low and higher enriched uranium now being produced “provides the basic material needed to produce four to five nuclear weapons,” Heinonen said.
Meanwhile Israel said later on Saturday that it will ultimately decree on an Iranian strike on its own, as a senior U.S. official arrived for talks on the Islamic Republic.
“Israel is the central guarantor of its own security; this is our role as army, the State of Israel should defend itself,” military chief of staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz told state-owned Channel One TV.“We must follow the developments in Iran and its nuclear project, but in a very broad manner, taking into account what the world is doing, what Iran decided, what we will do or not do,” he said.Tensions between Iran and Israel have been simmering with Iranian warships entering the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal in a show of “might”, a move Israel said it would closely monitor.Hmmmm........The race for a nuclear weapon is on.Read the full story here and here.

Clarity on the Iranian Threat to the US

                                                                    Sejjil 3 - Missile.

Clarity on the Iranian Threat to the US.(CC).Oil-rich, Islamist Iran says it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes--energy and cancer treatment. But the scale of the Iranian nuclear program--and the location of the underground Iranian reactors--only make sense if Iran's real purpose is to produce nuclear weapons.
Experts disagree about Iran's ability to produce an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Some analysts say Iran is close to or already capable of attacking the United States with an ICBM; others say Iran is several years or even decades away from having this capability.
Unfortunately, Iran doesn't need an ICBM to attack the U.S. homeland. Iran can use so-called scuds in buckets--seemingly civilian freighters flying flags of convenience--to strike U.S. coastal cities with ballistic missiles. The missiles can be fired from specially designed launch pads that on the outside look just like ordinary shipping containers. Such systems are readily available to nations and terrorists. Iran and its partner in proliferation, North Korea, have test-fired missiles from cargo vessels. There is no known defense against a sea-launched missile attack on a U.S. coastal city. (Nor is there any known defense against a sea-launched EMP attack on the U.S.--detonation of a nuclear warhead high above the country's heartland in order to destroy all computerized and electronic and most electrical systems.)
Iran isn't a run-of-the-mill tyranny. It isn't even a run-of-the-mill fascist dictatorship--like Franco's Spain, for example. Iran is a clerical fascist power that is overtly pursuing a foreign policy of imperialism, meaning, a policy that is aimed at radically altering the status quo, or power relationships among nations. History has shown that countries committed to imperialist foreign policies cannot be appeased. In the 1930s, the European powers learned this lesson the hard way by appeasing Nazi Germany. Not only did appeasement fail to preserve the peace; the policy made war inevitable--on Germany's terms.At a minimum, Iran intends to destroy Israel and to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East for once and all. At a maximum, Iran intends to destroy the U.S., too. Not for nothing has Iran's president mused openly about a "world without America and Zionism." The only truly meaningful deterrence against an anonymous and deniable atomic attack on the U.S. would be an iron-clad pledge by a U.S. administration to automatically obliterate Iran and other suspect nations should a nuclear device of any kind ever be detonated on or above U.S. soil. Barack Obama will never make such a pledge; he has been committed to nuclear disarmament and arms control since his undergraduate student days at Columbia University. Among Obama's Republican opponents, Newt Gingrich is arguably most likely to adopt a policy of meaningful deterrence, and to enunciate it in a way that will cause Iran to refrain from even thinking about plotting the ultimate terrorist strike on "the Great Satan."
ENDNOTE: In sharp contrast with U.S. policy, there can be no doubt that Israel has put in place fail-safe systems for the automatic obliteration of its enemies in the event of an atomic attack of any kind--direct or indirect--against the Jewish State. Read the full story here.