Noam Chomsky, Alternet, January 14:
"The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. It's a minor consideration. So invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror. And the same with other things. Take, say, nuclear terror. The American intelligence systems estimate that the likelihood of a 'dirty bomb,' a dirty nuclear bomb attack in the United States in the next ten years, is about 50 percent. Well, that's pretty high. Are they doing anything about it? Yeah. They're increasing the threat, by increasing nuclear proliferation, by compelling potential adversaries to take very dangerous measures to try to counter rising American threats."
"The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. It's a minor consideration. So invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror. And the same with other things. Take, say, nuclear terror. The American intelligence systems estimate that the likelihood of a 'dirty bomb,' a dirty nuclear bomb attack in the United States in the next ten years, is about 50 percent. Well, that's pretty high. Are they doing anything about it? Yeah. They're increasing the threat, by increasing nuclear proliferation, by compelling potential adversaries to take very dangerous measures to try to counter rising American threats."
13 Comments:
I wonder what specific "rising threats" Chomsky is referring to.
And I wonder how he deals with the interesting case of Libya.
Back on topic blog-comrades.
Iran sees Australia as a close US ally. It would be a shame if Australia suffered from an Iranian briefcase mini-nuke hand delivered by a suicide bomber. Say in 12 years time.
A bomb is a bomb, even if it comes from a (nobel) developing country.
Why should the opinions of some US academic have any credibility on such a risk to our country?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You're right, Addamo. Libya wasn't at all responding to the carrot and stick policy Washington has pursued since at least the start of the first Gulf War. They just disarmed in a vacuum, just for shits and giggles - the sheer hell of it. USA - what? They haven't even heard of the USA! Which country is that?
spying bad things - um... an Iranian briefcase nuke? You've been watching too much James Bond. If I were you I wouldn't be talking about credibility in regards to threat assessment if you reckon an Iranian suitcase nuke is a possibility.
Actually, their chemical weapons programme wasn't bad back in the day. I concede that it had been withering on the vine for almost a decade - however only a hardened cynic would deny that the disarmament was a diplomatic coup for the United States.
Russia is most famous for once producing a "suitcase nuclear bomb", although no one outside the relevant circles of power in Russia know definitively that such weapons exist/ed. However these weapons - if they (still) exist - would require regular maintenance. If what Alexandr Lebed said was true about the Russian suitcase nukes being sold on the black market, then they are almost certainly inoperable now, as the maintenance required is highly technical and - realistically - would only be economically possible if backed by a financial entity of the scale of a large world national power.
Although I read that both Russia and the USA produce/d nuclear warheads small enough to fit in large briefcases.
Once again, whether this is true or not is really speculation, because neither side would officially confirm (or deny) the existence of such a weapon.
Israel I don't know about.
Or a few rogue individuals within the military or military industrial complex. This is what Lebed believed was going on in Russia. He has yet to be proven correct.
Or, he could be correct and the suitcase nukes are past their shelf life.
Most analysts who specialise in such things argue that in all likelihood, if suitcase bombs had have been stolen, they would have been used by now.
I wouldn't dismiss the financial power of Iran to produce tiny nuclear weapons. Large amount of hard cash would permit it to "buy" scientists (say from Russia) with the necessay expertise to make the things.
In terms of size we needn't think even think "suitcase". Suicide bombing allows the delivery system to be manned.
Say a committed pilot of a business jet in which a 1 tonne device has been integrated.
No need to land on the target country/city - just explode low over it.
To avoid this - if I were Israeli a preemptive strike against Iran may seem necessary.
addamo
At the current rate of development its been suggested Iran may take around 9 years to produce a usable nuclear device.
However suggestens are that corners can be cut to reduce this timeframe or produce a more advanced device than expected.
One way to cut the timeframe is to buy the enriched uranium (or plutonium) via Russian technicians, North Korea or even Pakistan.
In terms of delivery system and size I admit the extreme miniturisation (suitcase) is more difficult than larger size.
Hence I've shifted to a different scenerio (also more in the bin Laden style). Suicide bombing in the form of rogue pilot allows a larger device to be integrated into a standard business jet flying innocuously.
Add
I agree Russia is unlikely to make a state decision to sell enriched uranium or plutonium to Iran.
However I specifically wrote "Russian technicians" because Russian individuals or groups technicians may be sufficiently venal to "grease" their way into Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
9/11 was "highly unlikely" until it happened. If the US has a nuclear retaliation plan which includes Iran then all the "rogue states" and maybe Russia as well are on the list.
Israel is the more likely target of an Iranian built bomb.
Given what the Iranian President has recently been saying, he, on behalf of the Iranian people, already has a "death wish".
Would a regime (or leader) sacrifice its people on a mass scale for a religion or ideology? Its standard procedure through history ie Hitler's Germany and Moa's China.
My god. The odds of that? China knows which side its bread is buttered on. Ditto Russia.
I'd still like to know what specific "rising threats" Chomsky is talking about.
I'm not talking about inferences made by feverish conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands. I'm talking about stated threats made by the US that would make another nation want to arm itself with nuclear weapons.
Orange - I'd rather let the accusers do the legwork. Seems only fair. If they want to make outlandish statements, they should justify themselves or look like hacks.
Post a Comment
<< Home