I enjoy writing about espionage and in today's
market you have to do quite a bit or research because it so easy for a reader
to double-check anything you write. I'll throw out the other side of the
perspective regarding nuclear weapons, and by that I mean that there is an
abundance of study happening with regard to what happens after a nuclear event.
Notice that it seems so much more civil when you call a catastrophe simply an
"event".
My daughter is attending a conference here in Austin this week and all of
the attendees were given a briefing by Austin-based and privately owned
Stratfor. Stratfor offers subscription holders (both businesses and
individuals) geopolitical analysis of world situations. Regarding a nuclear Iran, Rodger Baker
of Stratfor stated that even if Iran develops five, ten, or even 30 warheads,
not to be callous, but we can “absorb” that. He further stated that the things
we’ve seen in the nuclear age is that the nuclear supplied nations provide
stability between themselves and the other nuclear powers. He also states that
he feels Iran is a more “natural ally” for the United States.
Generally I like what Stratfor puts out but I would point out that Iran
is the first soon-to-be nuclear power that openly desires to decimate another
nation. I also doubt that Israeli strategists believe they have a
thirty-warhead absorption capability.
If you are interested in seeing the depth of study that goes into making
some of these assumptions as to what can be absorbed or expected after an “event”
some reading on the subject is (here). I find it interesting but that’s just
me.
No comments:
Post a Comment