iran

by

Peace in the Middle East


The largest part of the political dialogue today is over the containment and ultimate elimination of ISIS and other groups like ISIS. I find it scary to hear leading Republican candidates talking about carpet bombing and send large number of troops into the Middle East to resolve this problem. The Democrats seem to have a little more palatable response but still quite imperfect. Is there a perfect response? Yes, but no one knows what it is.

I think it high time we give both Afghanistan and Iraq a 30-day notice of complete removal of all our troops from their respective countries. The United States has overspent in both areas trying to bring about a peace which history shows has never existed for any extended length of time. The bottom line is, and contrary to what both major parties claim, our major interests in Iraq lie entire in its huge oil reserves and nothing else. That is simply irresponsible.

Now I am not suggesting we abandon these countries entirely, that is irresponsible. What I am suggesting is that we provide intelligence support, logistical support and air support. Both the government of Turkey and Saudi Arabia have allowed for our military presence within their boundaries and both countries are quite stable.

During last night’s Democrat debate, I heard exactly one suggestion on how to carry this war to a successful completion. It was that ground military forces fighting ISIS be made up entirely of Moslem troops. In this aspect the United States can play a key role. We can certainly train and arm such armies to a level where their success is at least likely if not probable.

The fly in the ointment is Iran. Claims have been made that Iran sponsors terrorism. President Obama has done a masterful job of getting Iran to open up its nuclear program to inspection. This has given the Middle East, and Israel in particular, a feeling of safety where nuclear arms are involved. In return, the United States has freed up here-to-fore frozen Iranian assets. I suggest that through diplomatic channels a deal can be made with Iran to further reduce existing sanctions by getting Iran to end any state sponsored terrorism which now exists. I think a partnership between Turkey and Iran could help in ending Iran’s isolation from the world by it gaining a powerful and trustworthy trading partner in the Moslem world which Turkey is.

Contrary to what many Americans believe, there are more peaceful countries in the Middle East than there are those suffering civil war and terror. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Iran, the Emirates, and Kuwait need to enter into a mutual defense coalition. Even though it is experiencing a great deal of unrest, Iraq too needs to be included. This coalition, like NATO, would help preserve the peace in the Middle East from those who would have it otherwise. I have left out Lebanon because it is fairly evenly split between Moslems and Christians, 54 to 46 respectively, and might prove unwise. That is unless the Christians of Lebanon thought it a good idea.

There is no question that many countries in the Middle East need military aid from the United States. The only question is, in what form? A unified Middle Eastern army made up entirely of Moslem soldiers make the most sense in ending the strife that region now endures. The United States will not be shirking its responsibilities to Middle Eastern countries by removing all our ground personnel from Iraq but maintaining military support through other means. Our removing ourselves may actually help bring about a regional peace much sooner than our staying there as we are.

 

 

by

Why Does the United States Still Have 5113 Nuclear Warheads?


Here is a little exercise for you.  Find a map of the world and count out 5113 cities and other targets that would be worth dropping a nuclear bomb on.  That mean every country in the world because if you start eliminating “friendly” countries like most of Europe, all of South America and most of Africa, along with a number of Asian and sub-Asian countries your choices decline quickly.  If you consider that dropping a single warhead upon one city is enough to totally destroy it and the same is so for all military targets, what is left?

There was a time the U.S. had in excess of 31,000 nuclear warheads!  Those were the days of “mutually assured destruction.”  The acronym for that would be “MAD” which seems about right. The idea was, if the USSR struck first we could not only return in kind but with enough force to assure their destruction.  Well, Russia has about 1200 warheads these days, China about 300, and a few scattered around the rest of the world.  Why do we have any at all?

The horrors of the atom bomb were well displayed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The after effects were felt for decades.  No further proof was necessary.  The USSR wanted what we had and did such.  Then we wanted our bombs to be larger which we did.  At one point 100-megaton bombs were being exploded.  There was a sick sort of glory associated with each such accomplishment.  But after a while the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks stopped above ground testing and then all testing.  Finally it limited the amount of weapons any country could own.

It has been 67 years since man first unleashed the power of the atom in weaponry.  You would think that by this time we would know quite enough that ownership of over 5000 such weapons should be something of a national embarrassment.  Not only is it excessive, it is also extremely expensive to maintain such force.

There was a time when every warhead was designated for a particular target, even those carried aboard aircraft.  I would hope that such days have passed but with an arsenal of over 5000 I cannot help but wonder if many are still specifically targeted.  To me that says that some planners still believe there is an ocassion where use of nuclear weapons still exists.  I want to know what circumstance that is.  Russia is no longer a threat of any sort.  China is happy within her borders and does no sabre rattling at all, unlike the U.S.  There is North Korea, of course, but its ability to deliver any of its nukes is still quite questionable.  Who does that leave?  Of whom are we afraid?  Or are we still supporting some secret agenda?

I firmly believe that in the future the ownership of more than a dozen or so nuclear arms will be deemed as sheer foolishness, and in some senses provocative.  The ownership of such weapons will be purely deterrent.  Our statement will be that we have a few that we can guarantee delivery to the target of our choice should the occasion arise.  I expect such nukes would be the property of the U.S. Navy upon its submarines, and that all other nuclear weapons would be declared obsolete.

The United States defense industry has produced “smart bombs” and cruise missiles that have a degree of accuracy which should instill fear upon any warring entity.  Addition of nuclear capability adds nothing.  Furthermore, our stealth bombers and fighters, our advanced avionics and battlefield weapons keeps us as the most formidable force upon the Earth.  Our strength lies in our ability to further such technology and not in how many people or building we can annihilate with a single blow.

Wars are inevitable and the continued strength of our military forces is of paramount concern.  But that strength cannot come with a threat to the continuation of all humanity.  No nation, no people, no group, can ever justify its actions when it puts in balance the survival of the human race.

A wise man once told me that I do not have to take on every fight I am invited to.  Oft times the more intelligent thing to do is nothing.  America stands for freedom and liberty but we do better by simply carrying the message to the world than trying to bludgeon it into our belief system.  But when challenged in terms that allow us no other avenue, we are still stronger than any other nation on earth even before any consideration is given to our nuclear arms.  Therefore, how much do we really need them, and how many?

by

America’s Next Recession Starts March 1


The Dow-Jones today topped the 13,000 mark for the first time since 2008.  That is a fact.   How, then, can I possibly be predicting a recession starting in a little over a week?  The stock market is one of the worst indicators of the future.  On March 9, 1929 the Dow Jones average was 381.70 but by the end of October in 1929 it had fallen to 198.69.  The market lost 48% of its total value, most of that happening in October 1929.  President Hoover looked at the economy he presided over in March 1929 and said that the warnings of upcoming trouble were worthless.

People are going to look at today’s stock closing optimistically.  But they need to look at a single indicator that directly feeds into imminent economic trouble.  Crude oil prices have risen over 30% since September 2011 and show no signs of retreating.  To the contrary, they show every sign of rising to historic levels.  The average person thinks of such a rise only with regard to what they pay for gasoline at the pump.  But all forms of transportation are equally affected.  This means the price of food, durable goods, clothing, and everything else goes up as well if only because they too have to be transported and that cost is reflected in the price of the item being sold.

But have you ever considered how much of everything in your life is petroleum-based?  Consider that everything that is made from plastic is petroleum-based.  That alone should give one pause to consider what rising crude prices mean.  Petroleum is also used in medicines, clothing, and construction.

I believe crude oil prices are going to keep going up because of the continued unrest in the middle east.  Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq are all in a more or less unstable condition.  And all are oil-producing countries.  Adding to this unrest are both Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither oil producers, but both home to radical Islamists who have every intention of continuing or raising the level of unrest in all the countries mentioned.

In today’s world economy energy drives those economies.  Whatever is happening to the price and distribution of oil affects all economies to one degree or another.  It is like throwing a rock in the middle of a calm pond.  The waves that rock creates moves outward in all directions, and the bigger the rock, the bigger the waves.  Right now we are feeling the waves of uncertainty in the market.  Consider that most countries in the world produce no oil at all, and two that do, the United States and China, both in the top 20 oil producers, export none of the oil they produce and import even more.  China will benefit from Iran’s decision to stop sending oil to England but of course England will suffer.  And so the rock Iran threw in England’s water will send its waves throughout Europe.

The unrest in the middle east is unlikely to settle down any time soon.  That means the market jitters are likely to continue as well.  That of course means oil prices will remain high with a high likelihood of their going ever higher.  I think it likely that the average price per gallon of gasoline will be at or close to $5 by summer’s end.  People will, of course, cut back on their purchases and with that the economy takes a hit, probably a big on.