U.S. Options in Taiwan War Scenarios

Link to this article.

Four scenarios for China-U.S. conflict:

Scenario A-

A low-intensity conflict scenario in which China’s special warfare forces invade into Taiwan. The special forces, whose number is unaccounted for, albeit some estimates at around 100 to 1,000, sneak into Taiwan in small boats, submarines and helicopters with the aid of its military intelligence group acting secretly in the island. The targets of the forces are not just Taiwanese politicians and military leadership but also power plants, traffic hubs, early warning system and command & control facilities. The Chinese aim at fostering fear and anxiety among the Taiwanese by destroying the base of the Taiwanese government. This invasion might pave the way for a following massive attack by the Chinese armed forces.

HOW SOON FOR THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB?

Link to this article.

Let’s spend just a few moments thinking of what happens when Iran gets the bomb. There are several scenarios. A nuclear strike on Israel is one, of course. Would the West retaliate? Perhaps. Remember, though … Ahmadinejad and his Islamic fascist pals don’t really care how many of their countrymen are killed in any retaliation. They way they look at it, they’re fighting and dying for Allah, and this guarantees their place in paradise. Kill infidels, or die trying to kill infidels. It make no difference. In their twisted vision of their religious duty, it’s all the same.

So … Iran makes a few nuclear weapons. They then use the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico to bring one of those bombs into the U.S. Perhaps in the well-shielded back of a minivan. They park the minivan in a garage of some ordinary house in an obscure neighborhood in some mid-sized American city. Then they conduct a nuclear test in Iran. Surprise! We have the bomb!

WILL THE WEST DEFEND ITSELF?

Link to this article.

Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.

Think about it. Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism — without risking the life of a single soldier.

Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we’ll never use it. Today’s Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.

Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Should the US Nuke Iran and Syria?

Link to this article.

In a recent article, “Will the U.S. Defend Itself?”, economist Walter Williams seems to make a case for nuclear war on Syria and Iran. His case cries out for a response. Here’s mine.

I preface by noting that Williams and I both earned our Ph.D.s in economics at UCLA and that he is one of my colleagues with the Hoover Institution. He is also one of my favorite writers on popular economics topics. He virtually always upholds the principles of economic freedom in his writing and does so crisply, cleanly, and powerfully.

In this recent article, Williams at first seems to be advocating dropping nuclear bombs on Iran and Syria. Later in the article, Williams retreats briefly from this viewpoint, sort of.

Korea-U.S. ties: Deterioration by default?

Link to this article.

In July, a group of foreign diplomats and business executives gathered for a dinner in Seoul. Talk around the table quickly focused on North Korea’s missile launches. The United States and its allies were alarmed by the tests, and frustrated by South Korea’s moderate response. One senior diplomat noted that “Kim Jong-il must be quite pleased about the impact of the tests. He has certainly further alienated South Korea and the U.S.” This was the starting point for a lively discussion about the future of the alliance: Are Korea-U.S. relations doomed to decline? How can they be revived?

U.S. Senator Lumps Russia In with Iran and Venezuela

Link to this article.

On Tuesday, head of the U.S. Senate Committee on International Affairs Richard Lugar accused Moscow of abusing its energy capacity and using its energy resources for political ends. He placed Russia in the same category as such countries as Iran and Venezuela, which use energy blackmail as an instrument of foreign policy. Lugar’s attack, a response to the Russian concept of energy security advanced at the G8 summit, came at a conference on energy in Indiana, which he organized. Lugar had previously been considered a moderate critic of Russia. His speech may indicate that the United States does not consider Russia a guarantor of energy security, but rather a threat to it.

N. Korea Transships Missiles Via Russia

Link to this article.

Instead of sending unconventional weapons by sea as in the past, North Korea now is shipping missiles and missile components on planes that fly via Russia, landing at Russian airports for refueling and possible transshipment to Mideast clients.

The missiles are sent in kits from which recipients, with North Korean technical expertise, put together the final versions, according to a new report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Facing the Ugliest Truth: Islamic Nazism

Link to this article.

Last week President Bush mentioned “Islamo-Fascism” in a speech, and was instantly lauded in the conservative press for calling it what it is, and instantly lambasted by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR, rhymes with “care”) and other Islamic advertising agencies for dissing Arabs and Islam. As far as I can tell, President Bush hasn’t used the term “Islamo-Fascism” in public since, perhaps in an effort to mollify the Muslims who see the act of murder-suicide as the highest and holiest of all religious sacraments, the one that gets you an E-ticket to Paradise and seventy-two virgins.

But I have an objection.