Tuesday, April 11, 2006

“Ayatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer.”

Satellite image shows Natanz nuclear complex in Iran, about 150 miles south of Tehran. The centrifuge program is located at the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Plant, parts of which have been built underground to protect it from air or missile strikes. (AP Photo provided by Space Imaging/Inta SpaceTurk)

Iran's holocaust-denying, apocalypse-obsessed president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that the country has joined the club of nuclear countries by successfully enriching uranium for the first time. Iran said it successfully enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges at Natanz.

In a lengthy piece “Facing Down Iran: Our lives depend on it,” Mark Steyn today quoted a Daily Telegraph of London report: “Iran’s hard-line spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.” Mark noted it appears that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.”

While the international community and every Democrat fervently believe that negotiation is the only option for dealing with Iran, if diplomacy fails, there may be no non-nuclear option to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the Iranian regime's hands. And if anyone wonders what Iran’s crazys would do with nukes, Mark points to five characteristics of Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years: contempt for the most basic international conventions; long-reach extraterritoriality; effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism; a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama); an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action. The cost of de-nuking Iran will be high now but significantly higher with every year it’s postponed.

So what are we able to do? The Lefties who called into Hugh Hewitt today insist that the US military is INCAPABLE of taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities. But an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily yesterday described our capability.

The B61-11 is an earth-penetrating nuclear gravity bomb that can be dropped by B-2 Stealth bombers or other planes. It has a hardened casing and hits at bullet speed to drill underground and deliver a delayed mini-nuke blast whose shock waves can destroy a target hundreds of feet underneath. Its yield could be as little as 0.3 kilotons — less than 5% the blast of the Hiroshima bomb. And unlike the atomic bombing of Japan to end World War II, a B61-11 bunker-buster explosion would be partially underground.

Why use it? Conventional weapons won't work against below-ground facilities such as Iran's. In 1996, Harold Smith, then assistant to the secretary of defense for atomic energy, said no conventional weapon could take out Libya's underground chemical weapons factory in Tarhunah, Libya, but that the B61-11 could.

The Pentagon, in fact, wants a bunker buster that would cause even fewer deaths than the B61-11. According to its 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, "With a more effective earth penetrator, many buried targets could be attacked using a weapon with a much lower yield." Such a bomb would do the same damage, but produce less fallout (by a factor of 10) than a much larger bomb at the surface, according to the Pentagon report.

Back to Mark Steyn: Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist. A quarter-century ago, there was a minor British pop hit calledAyatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer.” If you’re a U.S. diplomat or a British novelist, a Croat Christian or an Argentine Jew, he’s already come way too close. How much closer do you want him to get?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Bill, just curious if you ever served in the military? It seems like it's precisely those who beat the war drums the most are the ones who've never been in combat. Hopefully cooler heads (by those actually in the military who understand how completely stupid this idea is, not chickenhawks) will prevail. "Born to kill, not serve"

7:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I have to agree with the previous. Looks like Bill's been reading too much Tom Clancy. For most of these chickenhawks, war is a boardgame, kind of like Stratego. They have pictures of marines hanging out in Djibouti, but have never been in a combat zone to see those young people die. Those of the 101st Keyboard Brigade make sure that their blogs have plenty of references to "military" people that they know, just because they don't have the credentials themselves. Nuking an Islamic country will cause major problems. But Bill and the chickenhawks think this is exciting! We'll get rid of the terrorists! Luckily, it looks like the military's not going to allow that to happen (Thank god!), as it appears that many will resign if if the use of tactical nuclear weapons are seriously considered. Bill should stick to talking about "intelligent design" or persisting with his global warming skepticism. He obviously has expertise in these areas.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Yolo Cowboy said...

Hey Bill, it seems like the first two anonymous guests don't have a problem with a lunatic possessing a nuclear bomb and the blind ambition to bring about the coming of the 12th Imam.

I bet they would have had Chamberlain for PM bumper sticker on their cars in 1938.

It seems they may have watched to many episodes of Star Trek the Next Generation. Not every conflict can be neatly negotiated away, in fact it almost always leads to a much bloodier conflict a few years down the road.

Sometimes there is no alternative to stopping a mentally disturbed Islamo-fascist before he attains the means to start WWIII. If you think a very small yield, tactical nuclear warhead taking out this madman’s nuclear arsenal is bad, what do think of a full scale nuclear exchange with Iran and North Korea?

8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate to harp on this, but are you of military age and/or did you serve? Also, do you believe that the liberation of Iraq is a vital national security interest? If so, I can hook you up with some recruiters who desperately need people like yourself to help prevent WW III. We need less soldiers with the 101st Keyboard Brigade and more able bodied soldiers to "liberate" Iraq. Thanks.

9:13 PM  
Blogger fetching jen said...

Such hostility with the liberal anon posters...

I wasnt' able to serve but come from a military family. Even my liberal sister supports the war (she was in Iraq for one year). She was in combat and met Iraqi's who are greatful for America. And the Iraqi's she met don't want us to pull out soon.

Who exactly are you talking to anon?

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are one sick SOB. Please get some help.

E.J. Saperstein

11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even my liberal sister supports the war (she was in Iraq for one year." That's great Felching Jen. WHy don't you sign up and start a blog to tell us how nice it is over there? Thanks.

12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'l tell who I'm talking to Jen. I'm talking as a veteran of this stupid war. I'm talking to nonveterans who, when it comes to military matters, have no idea what they are talking about.

1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"greatful for America." Got some real smart people on this board

7:54 PM  
Blogger Yolo Cowboy said...

First Anon, I would like to thank you for your service. I am not of military age and did serve in the armed forces. I won't bore you with the details of why I didn't, but I didn't. Several of my friends from high school served and still serve.

That being said, I don't what your status has to do with the threat posed by a madman who is enriching uranium. If the US needs a chubby cattle rancher to fly a B-2 into Iran to take out these sites, I'll do my best, but don't have the skills.

If I point you to a dozen blogs written by current soldiers in Iraq that have the opposite views you hold, does that make them right and you wrong because they are there now? Either the views you hold have merit or they don't, the messenger has little to do with it.

By the way, I have read comments from people claiming to have degrees in this, and first hand knowledge of that, and when pressed for authentication or proof they just fade back into the blogesphere to comment on other blogs.

If you want to use your veteran status to make your point, by all means, do it. Put up your blog with your rank, credentials and areas of expertise. If you writing is witty, and your views are well thought out and reasoned you will have quite a following.

8:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...




1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That being said, I don't what your status has to do with the threat posed by a madman who is enriching uranium", Well, I'll tell you why my status matters. I'm active duty in the Army, and if there is an invasion of Iran, unlike you, I will be the one that has to go. Does that make any sense? I will be the one to have to leave my family behind and "defend" your freedom. You and Bill, on the other hand, who have never seen young Americans die, can sit comfortably behind your computer and expound on military strategy. Your little dig about whether I'm genuine or not is way off base. I'm an Army physician who served honorably during OIF 2.5 with the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad. Is that enough for you, or will you just "fade into the blogosphere". Have fun ranching....I'll send you a postcard from Tehran.

7:39 PM  
Blogger Yolo Cowboy said...

I'll be looking forward to your postcard. Send me the one with the picture of the doves and the enriched uranium.

Did miss the part about how you were drafted? I though we had an all volunteer army. I though defending my freedom is what you swore an oath to? Even if you do think I am a jerk.

You remind me of a person I know. She was an army reserve nurse. She did not seem to mind her military service when the Army was sending her to school and training her. But when she was called up to serve in Iraq, she started complaining about 'that damn Bush' and 'those f-ing neo-cons'. She had serious buyer’s remorse.

You still have answered my question as to the front line soldiers who support the war on terrorism and from the blogs I read want nothing short of victory.

Do they count?
What about their opinions?

I have a family too. I don't want them incinerated in a nuclear blast courtesy of Mr. Ahmadinejad. I hope that the current regime of Mullahs in Iran are overthrown by their own citizens, short of that, I hope the US armed forces destroys their capability to develop nuclear weapons.

I understand this does not take place in a vacuum. People of both sides die, that is the dangerous world we live in. The 3,000 or so people who died in the attacks on 9/11 were mostly civilians. We have a definite stake in the GWOT. Don’t we get a say?

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, attacking my motives rather than the actual substance. I don't think you're a jerk, just a coward for not doing the right thing and enlisting immediately. There is no byuyer's remorse and I'm not a pacifist. I got sick of seeing young men and women die for no good reason. I agree, I don't want Iran to have a nuke. If military action is the evetually the way to go, fine. But we don't the bluster from the chickenhawks really irks me. If you want to safeguard your family from a nuclear holocaust, enlist immediately. Thanks

6:01 PM  
Blogger Yolo Cowboy said...

Oooh, coward, chickenhawk! Very professional.

You have not and probably will not address the questions I have asked.

You seem to be stuck on personal attacks, that’s fine. Let the readers of this thread figure out for themselves who makes the better case.

8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chickenhawk = Enthusiastic supporter of war as long a someone fights it = Yolo

5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.

6:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.

7:23 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home