Middle-East Nuclear War?

News Flash! “The NRA has hired private investigators to find hundreds of people whose firearms were seized by city police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The NRA is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city’s seizure of firearms after the August, 29, 2005, hurricane.” Are YOU one of these people? Contact the NRA if you are. News source here.

Onward.

Middle-East Nuclear War?

Some day maybe. Iran is still going strong, still defiant. Now a member of Iran’s parliament is saying that Tehran plans NINETEEN nuclear power plants – NINETEEN. How long before their push for nuke juice either 1) gets addressed by the international community and Iran backs down or 2) gets dealt with by Israel?
News source here.

Israel, according to a new report by the the Center for Strategic and International Studies, could survive a nuke juice exchange with Iran. They’re claiming that if nuclear war broke out between the two, 200,000-800,000 Israelis would die, 16-20 MILLION Iranians. Israel’s Arrow missile defense system would be Iran’s biggest obstacle; whereas Israel could snap-drop the big ones on the pin of a head.

More:

Another scenario presented by the report includes Syria joining the bandwagon in case of a war and lobbing missiles with chemical and biological warheads into Israeli cities. According to the report, up to 800,000 Israelis would be killed if that were to happen. Syria, however, would be forced to grapple with the deaths of approximately 18 million of its citizens were Israel to respond with its nuclear arsenal. Israel, the report says, would launch a nuclear attack on Cairo and additional Egyptian cities, and would destroy the Aswan Dam if Egypt joined the fray.

News source here.

That’s possibly how it’d roll out for the Middle-East, but I ponder . . . what would it mean for the rest of the world? Would the U.S. join in? That’s probably the first question people ask. The answer – most likely. The U.S. would seek to minimize deaths, particularly Israeli deaths. It’d be entirely possible – likely – that if the U.S. helped Israel hit opponents first, fast and HARD – the war would end faster. Fewer lives lost. That’s an odd line of thinking, that fewer lives would be lost if you bombed, but . . .

I’m reminded of a black and white WWI or WWII movie I saw ages ago. (If someone recognizes the story and knows the movie, say so). There was a pacifist marksman in the platoon. He didn’t believe in killing, and wanted no part of it, but he wanted to help his country, his people. I think he became a medic. Anyway, they’re fighting in the trenches, things aren’t going well, people are dead and dying everywhere, and pacifist dude picks up a dead man’s rifle, some magazines and just starts putting the enemy down – for a looong time – bolt-action style, one after another after another after another.

The guy goes up for a medal and some soldier dude asks him, “yo, yo, pacifist dude. How come you put ’em all down?” I don’t remember his exact response, but he explained his reasoning, that he saved more total lives if he put down a bunch himself. He ended the mayhem faster.

MEANWHILE – Russia has successfully tested a new ICBM capable of carrying multiple nuke juice warheads. Source is here. They’re moving full steam ahead. Cold War II here we come.

Of course, the IDEAL is that such nuke juice conflicts don’t come to be in the first place. “Why can’t we all just get along?” The question is so simple; the answer, so complex.

The Middle-East would be toast under such a conflict,
but what could daily life be like for the rest of the world?

The answer!

Tomorrow.

– Ranger Man

4 comments… add one
  • Teddy December 28, 2007, 8:26 am

    The Movie you were thinking of is Sgt. York. Excellent flick.

    Reply
  • carl December 28, 2007, 9:01 am

    Yep that is the Movie, I think he got the CMOH.

    The Straits of Hormoze seem to get over looked nowadays. I kinda think that if there is a pre-emptive strike on Iran they will do everything they can to sink something that will block the Straits and stop oil tankers from leaving. This would be a very big deal despite new pipelines that have been built. The other variable is Russia, who will they side with?

    Reply
  • ryan December 28, 2007, 3:10 pm

    Here is an alternative to the classic “why can’t we all just get along”. Will the people in the middle east learn to get along or will they finally succeed in killing each other off? If it goes the NBC route I think it is alot more likely that they will kill eachother off.

    Ultimately the only way this will be solved is when they realize that they love their children and grandchildren more then they hate eachother.

    Reply
  • "Dr." Fallout11 January 2, 2008, 8:29 am

    Iran’s oil production peaked nearly 20 years ago, and has been in slow, steady decline ever since. Yet Iran has little else to export and bring in revenue besides rugs and pomegranates.

    In the mean time, Iran’s internal oil consumption has been rising fairly rapidly, as a fast growing, increasingly young (1/2 of all Iranians are under the age of 30), urban, and modestly well to do population consumes it via a higher standard of living.

    Thus, if I were Iran, I would be looking to maximize the dwindling oil for exports (i.e. revenue), while supplementing internal energy needs with another source….nuclear (since Iran lacks much in the way of coal or hydropower opportunities).

    Reply

Leave a Comment