Today’s face of the day, New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully has played a part in a historic deal. A deal that will be remembered by the history books as a deal with the devil and one where the UN Security Council threw Israel to the wolves and helped finance Iran’s commitments to pursue Islamic terrorism throughout the world.
Despite the dovish wittering of people like David Farrar I think the Iran deal is fraught with danger, particularly for Israel.
Barack Obama is hell bent on delivering nuclear weapons into the hands of a country that professes total eradication of Israel.
Unsurprisingly Israel is not wanting a bar of it.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet to discuss the framework deal reached between world powers and Iran, after telling US President Barack Obama in a phone call that he “vehemently opposed” the agreement.
Obama called Netanyahu within hours of the deal being struck, saying it represented significant progress toward a lasting solution that cuts off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.
But Netanyahu said in a statement after the conversation that a deal based on the framework announced in Lausanne, Switzerland “would threaten the survival of Israel”.
“This deal would legitimise Iran’s nuclear programme, bolster Iran’s economy and increase Iran’s aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond,” Netanyahu said.
“It would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war.”
Israel has said in the past that it would consider taking unilateral action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon, a warning taken to mean that it could launch air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
While that rhetoric has died down over the past year or more, the head of Israel’s military planning directorate, Major-General Nimrod Sheffer, said it was still a possibility.
“The military option has always been on the table, as we have said all along,” Sheffer told Israel Hayom newspaper on Friday. “If it has not been mentioned much in the media recently, that does not reflect a change in policy.”
For some reason Labour still thinks that this sort of stuff from the 70s and 80s is still relevant.
Tracy Watkins reckons the nuclear deterrent and the doctrine of MAD has been destroyed this week. Further that I am akin to a rogue state with a nuclear arsenal.
Well she may well right there.
These days, the speed at which stories can go viral on social media means they can land like a bomb in the middle of an election campaign even without being picked up by traditional news outlets.
The Brown/Chuang affair may yet signal the moment when politicians lost control of the dirt files and the nuclear arsenal fell into the hands of a rogue state.
They have good reason to be fearful. Read more »
The short answer is no, and the chances are not even likely…remote is even too brave as description.
First of all you have to assume that the uS has lost its nuclear capability…let’s assume that.
So, once the nuclear capabilities are down, what could an invasion of the US look like?
The US is the sole country in the world that has the capability to project force across the globe on a large scale. The combined military air- and sea-lift capability of the rest of the world would be insufficient to even get a foothold on the continental United States. The amphibious assault capability of the world’s militaries, excluding the United States, is simply too small.
That means the adversary would have to seize and use civilian aircraft and ships not designed for nonpermissive environments. These ships would require secure bases in Canada and Mexico, since they lack the capability to deliver forces onto unimproved shores. Thus, any attempted invasion of the US would first look like a rather motley caravan of vulnerable civilian ships and aircraft.
If these forces managed to avoid US attacks and build up, they could then launch an attack over land. Read more »
The seppos have too many nukes.
On Wednesday, May 16, just days before the leaders of NATO countries meet in Chicago to discuss the future of the military alliance, retired Gen. James Cartwright, former head of U.S. nuclear forces, dropped his own bomb: a report arguing that the United States could reduce the number of nuclear weapons it deploys by two-thirds and the number of warheads it keeps in reserve by nearly 90 percent. Calls for lower numbers are not new, certainly not from groups dedicated to nuclear disarmament like the one Cartwright worked with — and not even among former heads of Strategic Command.
New Zealand needs a nuclear deterrent mainly to piss off the Greens.
Developed by the Soviet Union, the bomb was originally designed to have a yield of about 100 megatons of TNT (420 PJ), but the yield was reduced to 50 megatons in order to reduce nuclear fallout. This attempt was successful, as it was one of the cleanest (relative to its yield) nuclear bombs ever detonated. Only one bomb of this type was ever built and it was tested on October 30, 1961, in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago.